• Knowledge Base for Teacher Education
• Mission and Learning Goals
• Curriculum
• Licensure 
• Student Resources
• Faculty and Staff
  • Education Department Assessment System
  • Faculty and Staff Directory
• Accreditation
• Useful Links
• Title II Reports

Program Intentions: Mission, Aims, and Goal

The assessment of student learning begins with educational values. Assessment is not an end in itself but a vehicle for educational improvement. Its effective practice, then, begins with and enacts a vision of the kinds of learning we most value for students and strive to help them achieve. Education values should drive not only what we choose to assess but also how we do so. Where questions about educational mission and values are skipped over, assessment threatens to be an exercise in measuring what’s easy, rather than a process of improving what we really care about.

American Association for Higher Education, 1992

The College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University are residential colleges pursuing the liberal arts within the Catholic university tradition. These two rural Minnesota institutions work together to offer their students “a unified liberal arts curriculum which focuses on questions important for the human condition, demands clear thinking and communicating, and calls forth new knowledge for the betterment of humankind.” Through this shared curriculum these two colleges strive as one to offer their students “an integrative environment for learning which stresses intellectual challenge, open inquiry, collaborative scholarship, and artistic creativity.” These colleges recall their monastic founders by celebrating learning within their Benedictine settings that “fosters attentive listening to the voice of God, awareness of the meaning of one’s existence, and the formation of community built on respect for individual persons” (Academic Catalog, p. 4).

Given these colleges’ common mission, the Department of Education they jointly sponsor takes as its principal aim the preparation of “exemplary teachers who have a strong liberal arts background, exemplify Benedictine values, and make professional decisions which can help all students achieve their full potential as persons and as responsible world citizens in a democratic society” (Education Department Conceptual Model, p. 5).

Focused by this aim, and consistent with the efforts of the two colleges, the Education Department’s mission is to offer those prospective teachers “a rich and diverse background of coursework and experiences that stress intellectual challenge, open inquiry, collaborative scholarship, and that promote clear thinking.” This unit’s mission further encourages the preparation of teachers as decision-makers “who make their informed and ethical classroom decisions based on a firm knowledge of content, pedagogy, and the needs of their students” (Conceptual Model, p. 6).

Students enrolled by the colleges and prepared by their Education Department for licensure by Minnesota’s Board of Teaching reflect this mission and aim in their work toward the Department’s program goals. The knowledge, skills, and values or dispositions that these candidates acquire and affirm through pursuit of the unit’s ten goals strengthen the decisions they make as they plan, implement, and evaluate the effects of their practice (Conceptual Model, p. 2). These ten program goals, revealed through the knowledge base that supports the unit’s “Teacher as Decision-Maker” conceptual model, also guides the design of its curriculum.

The department’s goals are shaped by the Minnesota Standards of Effective Practice for Teachers as approved by Minnesota’s Board of Teaching (1999). The 10 terminal and 120 enabling standards in this collection were derived from guidelines developed by the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC).

1. Subject Matter. The candidates we prepare for licensure as teachers understand the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the disciplines they are preparing to teach so that they will be able to make this subject matter meaningful for their students (developed in the Education Department’s Knowledge Base, p. 2).

2. Student Learning and Development. Our candidates draw on their understanding of learning and developmental processes to choose optimal ways to encourage their students’ intellectual, social, and personal development (Knowledge Base, p. 9).

3. Diverse Learners. Our candidates, recognizing how differences among students can influence their learning, make instructional decisions that reflect on their students’ backgrounds and exceptionalities (Knowledge Base, p. 18).

4. Instructional Strategies. Our candidates use their knowledge of instructional strategies to decide upon and employ those that are most likely to encourage their students’ critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills (Knowledge Base, p. 27).

5. Learning Environment. Our candidates use their knowledge and skills to create just, disciplined learning communities that can motivate students to achieve personal and academic success through positive social interaction and active engagement in their learning (Knowledge Base, p. 33).

6. Communication. Our candidates use of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster their students’ learning (Knowledge Base, p. 38).

7. Planning. Our candidates plan and effect instruction as they decide what content they will teach, to whom they will teach it, in what ways they will do so, and with what effect (Knowledge Base, p. 42).

8. Assessment. Our candidates use information provided through their use of formal and informal assessment methods to make instructional decisions that will support their students’ continuous development (Knowledge Base, p. 47).

9. Reflection. Our candidates for licensure critically reflect on the effects of their instructional decisions on the performance of their students, on the practice of their colleagues, and on the actions of others in their learning communities, then use those reflections to direct and sustain their professional renewal (Knowledge Base, p. 55).

10. Collaboration. Our candidates enhance their effectiveness as educators by working together with their colleagues, their students’ parents, and members of their school community to create and sustain a positive learning environment that can enhance students’ learning and well-being (Knowledge Base, p. 58).

Theory of the Program

Assessment of these goals and the program of study and practice that sustains them could be enhanced were it to be informed by the informal program theory that guides the unit’s curriculum. Such a theory-of-action, as proposed by Schon (1997), would describe the elements of an instructional program and the logic that orders them to explore the unit’s expectations of how these elements contribute to the program’s effectiveness. Revealing the theory or context that surrounds a program provides a frame of reference for interpreting the findings of an inquiry into its effects. Discovering a program’s context helps derive assessment questions that are grounded in that programs’ “theory” of how defined actions or procedures enable desired outcomes. Assessment questions guided by insights reflecting a program’s theory could result in more easily identified “program resources, program activities, and intended program outcomes” while also suggesting “a chain of causal assumptions linking program resources, activities, intermediate outcomes, and ultimate program goals” (Wholey, 1987, p.78).

How does this teacher preparation program work? Which of its elements do students’ encounter as they prepare for licensure as elementary and secondary teachers? Why are these elements arranged as they are? In recent years The College of Saint Benedict has enrolled about 500 women each fall as first year students. Saint John’s University, six miles away, has enrolled nearly as many young men in each year’s first year class. A typical first year class of nearly 1000 students enrolling in both colleges will include as many as many as 300 who upon their matriculation harbor an interest in becoming elementary or secondary teachers. Perhaps as many as 200 of this number will enroll in introductory courses during their first or second year of study to discern the strength of their call to this profession. Between 80 and 100 will complete a program of study leading them to licensure as elementary or secondary teachers. How do they reach this end?

Phase I: Pre-Acceptance. Those who persist in their desire to prepare for a teaching career will complete a series of seven foundation courses, each offering from one to four credit hours. A typical four-credit hour course meets every other day for 70 minutes during over a six-day cycle. A semester of 16 weeks will include 12 such cycles, offering from 33 to 36 class meetings. Students usually complete a total of 16 credit hours each semester.

Six of these foundation courses offer prospective candidates opportunities to explore and acquire “professional” knowledge of the role of schools in society, characteristics and needs of exceptional learners, theories and patterns of human development, current educational issues, and educational ethics (Professional Standards, p. 56). One of the seven offers prospective candidates opportunities to know and be assessed on aspects of “pedagogical knowledge” about assessment and teaching (Professional Standards, p. 55). Foundation courses thus offer prospective candidates a framework or context for their future course work and field experiences. Since the unit’s adoption of a “standards-based” teacher preparation curriculum, these foundation courses also provide opportunities to know, apply, and be assessed upon those standards.

As they begin to acquire this foundation of knowledge about schools, learners, and ways of teaching, college students seeking the Education Department’s acceptance as candidates for licensure also complete a required “pre-admission clinical experience”. This field experience offers one or two credits for nearly three weeks of daily work with children in area K-12 schools. Students who enroll in this experience are guided by experienced teachers who are themselves supported by the unit’s faculty. This field experience provides prospective candidates with an opportunity to observe and experience a teaching professional’s classroom life. Students’ completing this required field experience are formally judged on several dimensions by the licensed teachers in whose classrooms they have served, including affective indicators of their disposition for this role. Students conclude their documentation of this experience with a guided self-reflection on the nature and effects of their work in these classrooms.

Phase I: Academic Skills. As prospective students complete this set of foundation courses and their pre-acceptance field experience, they also complete a set of examinations intended to help determine their academic capacity for further study. The unit administers two such examinations developed by the Educational Testing Service. Prospective candidates must have completed, but not passed, all sections of The Pre-Professional Skills Test (PPST) when seeking acceptance as candidates. This test is required of teachers licensed in Minnesota by its licensure agency, The Board of Teaching.

Since that agency discourages teacher preparation programs from using PPST results in their decision to accept or reject prospective candidates for licensure, the department also requires prospective candidates to complete the Academic Profile (AP) and a related writing sample to confirm their academic preparation for the unit’s curriculum. Students with lower AP scores (“Level 1” or below) on this criterion-referenced test of reading, writing, and using mathematics must select and complete a program of remedial study to resolve their deficient performance if they seek acceptance by the unit as candidates. Students with AP scores at “Level 2” or “Level 3” demonstrate academic skills equal to the demands they will face in the next phases of the unit’s program

A third examination, the unit’s “Speech Adequacy Test,” confirms prospective candidates’ public address skills. Prospective candidates who have completed a course that included formal instruction in public speaking during high school or college are exempted from completing this academic skill examination.

The pre-acceptance field experience and the early foundation courses offer prospective candidates opportunities to discern the strength of their disposition toward the life of a professional educator. The unit’s acceptance tests help prospective candidates verify the strength of their academic skills. Together, candidates’ pre-acceptance field experiences and the confirmations of their academic skills suggest the feasibility of further study after acceptance as a candidate for licensure.

Phase I: General Education. The unit’s mission, embedded within the shared mission of the two colleges, calls candidates and their faculty to a life of the mind balanced with a life of service. As prospective candidates progress through their pre-acceptance curriculum of foundation courses, field experiences, and academic skills examinations they also continue to complete courses designed for the colleges’ Core Curriculum. All first year students complete a two-semester Symposium offering opportunities to refine their communication skills in classes enrolling no more than 18. During their second and third years of Core study students will complete courses in the natural sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences. All fourth year students complete a Senior Seminar focused on a discussion of values found in a life of learning and service.

When they complete the general education portion of their college coursework, most students will have invested nearly one-half of the 124 credit hours required for graduation. The unit supports this broadly designed general education experience. Such a curriculum offers prospective teachers an opportunity to acquire and begin to refine their understanding of a broader body of knowledge, skills, and values. This foundation will later serve them as an organizing framework for the more detailed subject matter they will acquire, refine, and prepare to share with their future students.

Phase II: Acceptance to Candidacy. Acceptance is offered by the unit’s Admissions Committee to prospective candidates upon review of their preparation for that role. That preparation includes.

• A letter of application revealing that student’s philosophy of education and stated commitment to a life of teaching.
• A structured interview with either the Director of Elementary Student Teaching or the Director of Secondary Student Teaching, depending on the intended area of licensure.
• A letter of application revealing that student’s philosophy of education and stated commitment to a life of teaching.
• A cooperating teacher’s review of the candidate’s pre-acceptance clinical experience.
• Recommendations for candidacy from three college faculty members, including the prospective candidate’s Symposium instructor, the Core Curriculum’s two semester course in written and oral communication.
• Completion of the AP and resolution of any skills deficiencies through one or more remedial path.
• College transcripts affirming the prospective candidates’ grade point averages of 2.5 or “BC” for unit and major courses, 2.0 or “C” for other college coursework, and a 2.5 or “BC” for the second semester of Symposium, the Core Curriculum’s two semester writing course.
• Completion of, or an attempt to complete, the PPST.
• High school transcript providing college entrance scores (PSAT, SAT, or ACT)

Candidates’ with promise who have incomplete files may be offered “conditional acceptance” for a brief time to enable them to continue toward licensure study until they complete the requirements for full acceptance. Most candidates who are offered conditional acceptance have not completed remedial work to resolve academic skills deficiencies, have not taken the PPST, or have not completed a pre-acceptance field experience. Conditional acceptance allows candidates to enroll in the unit’s advanced foundation and methods courses, but only for a limited time. Failure to resolve the conditions within the required time limit may result the Admissions’ Committee denying acceptance.

Once accepted, candidates follow divergent pathways reflecting the grade level and content area in which they seek licensure. Reflecting levels of licensure offered by Minnesota’s Board of Teaching, the unit prepares candidates for service as secondary and middle level teachers, kindergarten through grade twelve specialists, or elementary and middle level teachers.

Secondary Licensure (5-12 / K-12) Candidates. Those seeking secondary licensure acquire “content knowledge” (Professional Standards, p. 53) through a series of eight to ten content courses designed to offer opportunities to know, apply, and be assessed on the subject matter of their major area of study as specified by Minnesota’s licensure rules. Depending on their college major, secondary students also complete from three to four teaching methods courses as part of their college minor in education. These methods courses offer “pedagogical content knowledge” (Professional Standards, p. 54) through opportunities to know, apply and be assessed on relevant Minnesota Standards of Effective Practice for Teachers. These candidates are thus prepared to teach grades five through twelve in their majors. Candidates majoring in art, music, and world languages, however, are licensed for teaching as specialists instructing students in grades kindergarten through twelve. Methods courses for all secondary candidates include a field experience offering opportunities to teach middle and high school students in the area of licensure. Candidates in art, music, and world languages also enjoy methods courses with field experiences teaching students at the elementary level.

Elementary Licensure (K-6 / 5-8) Candidates. Those preparing for elementary licensure must follow a more complex path toward licensure. Candidates who will serve as elementary generalists for grades kindergarten through six must also select a “specialty” in one of the content areas offered by the unit to teach to middle level students in grades five through eight. Most complete five courses of four credit hours each to support their selected specialty. These “content knowledge” courses are taught by arts and sciences faculty prepared in academic disciplines that are appropriate for candidates’ specialties. The courses they teacher are designed to provide candidates with opportunities to know, apply, and be assessed on relevant content standards for their area of licensure as stipulated by Minnesota’s Board of Teaching. Elementary candidates build on their “professional knowledge” acquired in the unit’s foundation courses with “content” knowledge in music (2 credit hours), art (2 credit hours), children’s literature (4 credit hours), theater (2 credit hours), science (8 credit hours) and mathematics (8 credit hours).

Elementary / middle level candidates also complete a series of teaching methods courses that offer them opportunities to acquire “pedagogical content knowledge” in physical education K-6 (1credit hour), art K-6 (2 credit hours), social studies K-6 (4 credit hours ), mathematics K-6 (4 credit hours), science K-6 (4 credit hours), reading, writing, and language K-6 (4 credit hours), middle level literacy 5-8 (2 credit hours), and one course in “middle level learners” for the candidates’ specialty (2 credit hours). Candidates specializing in the teaching of a foreign language would complete a K-8 language methods course (4 credit hours). All methods courses include field experiences offering candidates opportunities to plan and teach students in their areas of licensure.

While the seven “standards-based” foundation courses refine candidates’ professional knowledge and introduce basic pedagogical knowledge, their work in one or more disciplines contributes to a growing understanding of the knowledge, skills, and values that together support a “standards-based” body of content knowledge. Methods courses provide opportunities to draw upon this growing body of content knowledge to form a core of “pedagogical content knowledge” to inform later teaching. Candidates thus have an initial framework of knowledge, skills, and values to help them begin to make informed decisions about what to teach and on how to teach.

Phase III: Clinical Practice. Sixteen weeks of closely supervised student teaching are divided into two eight-week clinical assignments, one in each of two grade levels, to offer elementary / middle level (K-6 / 5-8) and most secondary / middle level (9-12 / 5-8) candidates the opportunity to refine their pedagogical content knowledge by working with students in their licensure area and level. Secondary candidates seeking to be art, music, or world language specialists will enjoy three “rotations” during their sixteen-week clinical “residency,” offering opportunities to work with elementary, middle level, and high school students.

Student teaching thus becomes a very focused “capstone” experience that helps candidates integrate their accumulating knowledge of what to teach with their growing knowledge of how to teach through opportunities to share their growing fund of knowledge with school children. Formative assessments of candidates, offered by their cooperating and supervising teachers, provide guidance on how, and how well, candidates’ incorporate Minnesota’s Standards of Effective Practice for Teachers, relevant content standards, and Minnesota’s Profile of Learning standards are revealed into their teaching. Emphasis on explicit documentation of candidates’ success in helping all the children in their charge learn provides a frame of reference for this formative review and for candidates’ self-reflection.

Phase IV: Exit / Recommendation for Licensure. With the completion of successful student teaching experiences in two (or three) clinical settings, candidates complete a final review of their practice with their cooperating teacher and college supervisor. Secondary /middle level and K-12 specialists complete an oral examination by a review board composed of the candidate’s college supervisor, a unit faculty member, and the Director of Secondary Student Teaching. Following their successful student teaching experiences and exit reviews, candidates are recommended for licensure by the Board of Teaching.

Anticipating Change. A related theme that has significant influence on the unit’s theory of action is the faculty and staff’s expectation of continuous change in every element of its program. During the past several years, once the immediate needs of candidates were met, the unit’s members were at work on significant program revisions. Some of those revisions were driven by the unit’s informal or formal studies of its effectiveness. The adoption of testing and remedial options for students with deficient academic skills, for example, first emerging from informal observations of their students’ writing problems by foundation faculty. Their perceptions were later confirmed through analysis of Saint Benedict’s nascent performance assessment effort. The unit adopted an academic skill proficiency test and devised formal remedial options supported by policy changes. The unit “fueled” this change from its own human resources.

As the unit’s partnership plan is realized, the human and fiscal costs of sustaining viable, exciting, and mutually rewarding relationships with elementary and secondary schools will grow. The unit’s technology plan will encourage faculty and candidates to use current and future technologies, thereby requiring commitment of some portion of the unit’s human and the Colleges’ fiscal resources that are not yet used in this way. The unit’s plan for increasing the diversity of field experiences, candidates, and faculty will require a significant investment of staff time and require the Colleges’ fiscal resources for candidate scholarships and program support. Documenting candidates’ performance in the program and drawing upon that documentation to test the unit’s effectiveness will require greater commitment of the staff time in new areas.

In addition to these plans that will help the unit pursue its mission, responding to external demands for programmatic change will demand human and fiscal resources. A change in the Colleges’ calendar offers new opportunities to incorporate field experiences, but could require more staff time to find those field settings and monitor students’ performance in them. Documenting compliance with the standards-based model of program approval adopted by Minnesota’s Board of Teaching may require a significantly greater investment of the unit’s staff time to consult with faculty in supporting arts and sciences disciplines to improve their documentation of candidates’ attainment of those standards. As was the case for the addition of a middle level experience to elementary and secondary licensure, even a seemingly small shift in licensure rules could create significant new demands on the unit’s resources. Responding to a growing federal presence in education, already evident in Title II reporting requirements, will demand still more staff energy and time.

This theme relates to the unit’s theory in action in two ways. First, the unit’s faculty and staff are committed to their shared mission, aim, goals, and conceptual framework. That commitment seems strong enough to guide significant change in its programs encouraged by internally generated improvements, licensure changes, or the demands of external accreditation. The result is a clearer, more unified response to such changes that are thought likely to encourage stronger programs and better candidates. This response to “manageable” change might characterized as “Education is always changing; we have to devise new ways to maintain a strong program.”

While the unit’s conceptual foundation provides a frame of reference against which to evaluate the threat and opportunity inherent in such systemic or programmatic changes, the unit’s resources for responding to such changes, however beneficial, are not without limit. While time and creative talents of its faculty and staff may appear elastic, seemingly able to stretch to incorporate newly uncovered needs and opportunities, the are limits to this critically important resource. As faculty and staff are drawn further into planned programs to strengthen partnerships, student and staff diversity , meaningful instructional technology, and useful performance assessment, without careful stewardship these exciting new ventures may draw too much time and energy away from the unit’s aim, preparing liberal arts college graduates for a life of service as teachers. At this point the unit’s theory of action may shift toward a new characterization, “Education is always changing; we have to maintain a stable program to remain effective.” At what point should those who manage or assess the unit expect to find that opportunities to invest its human resource exceed the capacity of that resource, thus threatening accomplishment of its mission.

Assessment Questions. The theory guiding this program of teacher preparation holds that students will seek acceptance as candidates for licensure based on their success in foundation courses, the strength of their academic skills, and the affirmation that a successful field experience provides them. This assumption encourages the specification of the first assessment question: Do prospective candidates possess the basic academic skills that will sustain their learning while enrolled in this program?

Opportunities to learn about schools and teaching careers within those schools encourage students who persist in their desire to become candidates for licensure to continue their work in a related discipline. This assumption encourages a second question: Do candidates prepared by the unit possess an integrated body of knowledge, skills, and values drawn from one or more disciplines central to their area of licensure?

As candidates’ understanding of content knowledge grows, methods courses emphasizing how to teach that content provide opportunities to plan and teach lessons to children in the appropriate grades. A third question evolves from this assumption. Do candidates for licensure prepared by this unit’s program possess the pedagogical knowledge, skills, and values appropriate for their areas of licensure?

The significant investment of time and talent brought to student teaching by candidates, their cooperating teachers, and the unit’s supervising teachers suggests a fourth question. Do these candidates teach knowledge and skills from their area of licensure to others?

These questions reflect the unit’s program theory and reflect its aim, mission, and goals. They can help guide a review of candidates’ performances as well as support an evaluation of the program of study and practice that prepares candidates for their roles as professional educators. These questions thus focus the specification, development, collection, and analysis of assessment information that can support summative judgments of the unit’s effectiveness.

Assessment Question 1

Do candidates prepared for licensure as teachers possess the basic academic skills and values that will sustain their learning while enrolled in our program?

The first of these five assessment questions guides our search for information affirming that our students possess the basic academic skills and values that will sustain their learning in our program of study and practice if accepted as candidates for licensure. Such skills include the ability to write well, to draw inferences from reading complex information, to use mathematics to solve everyday problems, and to orally share ideas with others.

Embedded within our beliefs in the necessity of a broad liberal arts education is an emphasis on the academic tool skills of reading, critical thinking, and writing. Therefore, we seek to provide experiences throughout our program that enhance the development of these skills. Further, we attempt to model and encourage adoption of the Benedictine values of “openness to change and lifelong learning as essential to continued teaching effectiveness” (Conceptual Model, p. 4).

Our expectation that candidates for teacher licensure possess academic skills and values consistent with the opportunities revealed through their liberal arts education is also congruent with state and professional standards. The Minnesota Board of Teaching’s rules for the approval of teacher preparation programs require that “the institution recruits, admits, and retains candidates who demonstrate potential for professional success in schools (Institutional Program Approval, 1999, 8700.7600.5.D.1). Furthermore, those approved programs must use “multiple criteria and assessments…to identify candidates for admission who have the potential to become successful teachers” (5.D.2).

While such skills are not explicitly noted in the Professional Standards developed by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), we might safely presume that they would be needed by all who would seek to “know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn” (Professional Standards, 2001, p.10). Toward that end, our review and affirmation of prospective and accepted candidates’ academic skills is consistent with institutional, state, and professional standards.

The following matrix identifies sources of information available at each phase in candidates’ progress through our program. Information gathered in this way contributes to our response to this first assessment question.

Assessment Question 1: Do candidates possess the basic academic skills and values that will sustain their learning while enrolled in our program of study and practice?

Program Intentions:

Program Phases:

Sources of Information. Formative information gathered and examined during candidates’ work toward Minnesota’s content standards and its Standards of Effective Practice for Teachers, embedded in courses offered by other departments and by the unit, is described in program approval documents submitted to and reviewed by Minnesota’s Board of Teaching. Instructors’ formative assessments of performance as described in program approval documents submitted for State review are not referenced in this summative assessment plan.

Students seeking acceptance as candidates must confirm the extent of their academic skills by completing the Academic Profile (AP). This fixed response examination is offered by the Educational Testing Service to help students confirm the extent of their reading, writing, and use of mathematics. Information drawn from a holistically scored essay supplements the criterion-referenced scores provided by this fixed response examination. Those with performance levels at “Level 1” or “Below Level 1” in reading, writing, or using mathematics must chose and complete remedial work in each deficient area prior to receiving unconditional acceptance for candidacy. This Pre-acceptance test is offered each semester. Remedial opportunities include diagnostic testing to confirm and focus AP findings, instruction directed at defined weaknesses, and post-tests to affirm performance at “Level 2” or above. Additional information, including the definitions for each performance level within each of the three skill areas, are appended to this document.

The State of Minnesota’s teacher licensure agency, The Board of Teaching, requires students to have attempted all three areas of the Pre-Professional Skills Test (PPST) prior to their acceptance as candidates, but prohibits use of those test scores for candidate selection. The unit further requires completion of a Speech Adequacy Examination or evidence of students’ successful completion a course in public address. Remedial opportunities are provided for those who cannot meet these proficiency examinations.

Writing performance is closely monitored in selected foundation courses completed prior to students’ admission to candidacy. These courses together provide students with writing experiences that meet the requirements for a Core Curriculum “writing flag” required for college graduation. These “flag papers” are scored using a common rubric and carry significant value in each of the courses where they are included. Foundation courses also provide informal opportunities to monitor students’ disposition toward academic life though their responses to assignments such as flag papers. The scoring guide used to judge these papers is appended to this plan.

Acceptance of students’ application for candidacy requires evidence of adequate academic skills or successful remediation of those skills found to be deficient. Prospective candidates must also show resolution of any outstanding faculty concerns that may have emerged during work in foundations or the pre-admission field experience. Students seeking acceptance as candidates must also have earned a cumulative grade point average (CGPA) of 2.5 (BC) or higher in all college coursework and a grade point average(GPA) of 2.5 in their majors as well as in their education coursework. Monitoring basic skills performance in education courses is encouraged through the use of faculty writing concern reports and the plan of action they encourage. Such concerns must be resolved prior to a prospective candidate’s acceptance.

Review of academic skills continues during candidates’ work in required pedagogy courses, where unit and lesson plans as well as instructional materials prepared for those lessons are reviewed by instructors for writing quality. Candidates’ communication skills are affirmed during supervised fieldwork by unit faculty and cooperating teachers. Flag papers assigned in advanced foundation courses completed during the “methods” phase of candidates’ work are scored for writing quality (EDUC 359, “Issues in Education” and EDUC 390, “Human Relations”).

Candidates’ academic skills are monitored during their sixteen-week clinical experiences as student teachers. Cooperating and college supervising instructors review candidates’ unit and lesson plans, their instructional materials, and observe their instructional and interpersonal communications. College supervisors require their candidates’ to correct deficient writing that might be evident in their instructional materials or portfolio assignments.

As candidates conclude their work with us, staff members complete an exit review verifying the completion of required basic skills tests, remedial work, required courses, and successful clinical experiences. A positive exit review results in successful exit from the program and a recommendation for licensure by the Board of Teaching. The State of Minnesota requires that candidates reach or surpass minimal scores on the PPST prior to their licensure. Cut-off scores for this examination are set at 173 for reading (320 computer assisted), 172 for writing (318), and 169 for mathematics (314).

Assessment Question 2

Do candidates possess an integrated body of knowledge, skills, and values drawn from one or more disciplines central to their area of licensure?

The conceptual framework that guides our candidates’ preparation for teaching encourages them to practice “humane educational decision-making based on appropriate professional knowledge, grounded in Benedictine values, and focused on the essential goals of meeting the needs and enhancing the lives of all students” (Conceptual Model, p. 1). Within the realm of that body of professional knowledge we include “not only factual knowledge, but also organizing principles, central concepts,” and the epistemology practiced in the disciplines they will share with their students (Knowledge Base, p.2). An integrated understanding of a field of study, from which such facts, concepts, principles, and ways of knowing are drawn, contributes to the effectiveness of the “planning decisions” described by James Cooper (1999) and Carl Smith (1992). They saw these decisions as central to teachers’ selections of what they will explore with their students. We thus require that our candidates for licensure “understand the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structure of the disciplines they are preparing to teach so that they will be able to make this subject matter meaningful for their students” (Program Goal 1, Conceptual Model, p. 5).

This first of the unit’s ten program goals reflects The Minnesota Board of Teaching’s rules guiding its approval of teacher preparation programs. Candidates for licensure prepared in an approved program “complete a program of general studies in the liberal arts and sciences” that is “equivalent” to that required of all students enrolled in that institution (Institutional Program Approval Rules, 8700.7600.5.B.1). That general education curriculum must incorporate “multicultural and global perspectives” (5.B.3). Further, approved programs must “require candidates in teacher preparation programs to attain academic competence in the content that they plan to teach” (5.B.2).

This goal is also congruent with Minnesota’s “Standards of Effective Practice for Teachers” (Minnesota Board of Teaching Licensure Rules, 8710.2000.2), a core of knowledge and skills guiding the preparation and practice of all who would teach Minnesota’s children.

Guided by these rules, approved programs provide their candidates with opportunities to acquire knowledge and skills defined by content standards included in licensure area rules set by Minnesota’s Board of Teaching. These content rules incorporate the advice offered by nationally recognized professional associations as well as standards that reflect the unique needs of Minnesota’s children.

The unit’s program offers preparation for Minnesota licensure in eight areas. These include…

Elementary Education with a Specialty (Minnesota Board of Teaching Licensure Rules, 8710.3200)
Communication Arts and Literature (8710.4250)
Mathematics (8710.4600)
Vocal Music and Instrumental Music (8710.4650)
Science (8710.4750)
Social Studies (8710.4750)
Visual Arts (8710.4900), and
World Languages and Cultures (8710. 4950).

The internal and external program approval process used for each licensure area identifies the opportunities afforded candidates to know, to apply, and to be assessed on relevant state content standards. Documents developed for that approval process describe instruction and formative review of students’ performance. While we share responsibility for such opportunities with our colleagues in academic departments, that formative review is embedded in courses and learning experiences planned and offered by them. The matrix for this second assessment question describes our summative assessment of candidates’ performance.

Providing candidates with opportunities to acquire, integrate, and use the subject matter they will teach is also consistent with the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education’s standards (NCATE). That organization urges candidates for initial licensure to “know the subject matter they plan to teach as shown by their ability to explain important principles and concepts delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards” (Professional Standards, p. 14). Our first program goal is similar to this first element in the set defining the National Council’s conceptualization of “Candidate Performance."

Assessment Question 2: Do candidates possess an integrated body of knowledge, skills, and values drawn from one or more disciplines central to their area of licensure?

Intentions:

Program Phases: Summative Assessment

Driven by this first program goal and supported by relevant state and professional standards, we thus pursue our second assessment question. Do candidates recommended for licensure possess an integrated body of knowledge, skills, and values drawn from one or more disciplines central to their area of licensure? Performance indicators supporting this question include evidence of candidates’ understanding of their subject, their use of alternative views or theories drawn from that body of knowledge and skill, and candidates’ success connecting their content knowledge with other subject areas.

Sources of Information. Formative information gathered and examined during candidates’ work toward Minnesota’s content standards and its Standards of Effective Practice for teachers, embedded in courses offered by other departments and the unit, is described in program approval documents submitted to and reviewed by Minnesota’s Board of Teaching. Consulting those documents will reveal candidates’ formative assessments of their content knowledge. These formative assessments are not included in this summative assessment plan.

Candidates enrolled in pedagogy or methods courses relevant for their area of licensure typically prepare and teach one or more lessons focused within a hypothetical “unit” of instruction. While time for working with K-12 students is limited in some 2 credit (one-half semester) methods courses, even in these settings candidates’ sketched units can reveal their emerging understanding of how facts, concepts, and principles included in a lesson are integrated within a discipline. Instructional materials can also provide some evidence of candidates’ evolving understanding of the subjects they are preparing to teach. Instructor and peer observations may provide further insight into the extent of prospective teachers’ content knowledge. Taken together, these sources of information support the use of a criterion-referenced Field Experience Performance Profile for each candidate that affirms progress toward the unit’s first program goal.

Once it is developed, methods instructors will use a modified version of a student teaching performance profile to rate each candidates’ understanding and use of relevant content knowledge at the close of their courses A prototype for this limited profile, based on those developed for use with student teachers during the Fall 2000 semester, will be tested with students enrolled in selected methods courses offered during the Fall 2001 semester. Following review of this pilot test, a revised version will be field tested during the Spring 2002 semester. Full implementation in all methods courses is likely in the Fall, 2002 semester.

Candidates completing their preparation for licensure typically invest one semester (16 weeks) in their clinical or student teaching experience. Two contiguous eight-week supervised settings provide most candidates with opportunities to work with K-12 students at each of two grade levels (K-6 and 5-8; 9-12 and 5-8,). Candidates seeking licensure as K-12 specialists in music, art, or world languages work with students in three settings (K-6, 5-8, 9-12). These student teaching experiences provide the basis for a more comprehensive review of candidates’ understanding of the disciplines they are preparing to teach. A Student Teaching Performance Profile will describe continuing progress toward Goal 1. Like the profile developed for students in methods courses, criterion-referenced ratings will describe candidates’ understanding of the subject matter they are preparing to teach. These holistic ratings are anchored in expert review of the lessons and the units that candidates’ teach to their K-12 students.

Prototypes for the subject matter portion of these profiles are based on exploratory work linking the unit’s ten program goals and Minnesota’s Standards of Effective Practice for Teachers with evidence of student teachers’ performance. With respect to Goal 1, teams of K-12 faculty and teacher educators devised behaviorally anchored rating scales to capture a summative description of candidates’ understanding of “the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structure” of the subjects they are preparing to teach to their students. Each of two teams examined Spring 2000 student teachers’ unit and lesson plans, their instructional materials, observations of their teaching, videotaped lessons, and candidates’ reflections on their experiences (Assessing Clinical Performance, 2001).

The performance profiles based on this work thus describe candidates’ content knowledge as revealed in their work with K-12 students during student teaching. The unit’s Director of Elementary Student Teaching and its Director of Secondary Student Teaching prepared profiles for each candidate completing their programs during the Fall 2000 semester. Their analyses of candidates’ clinical performance, drawn from the unit’s program goals and reflecting Minnesota’s licensure standards, offer an important opportunity for continuing evaluation and renewal of the unit’s program. Their design is consistent with Astin’s (1991) view that norm-referenced measures such as the Praxis series, soon to be used as a licensure examination in Minnesota, “make it difficult to measure growth or change over time.” Measures anchored in descriptions of candidates’ performance on dimensions aligned with standards, however, should “not only make it possible to establish absolute standards of performance but also allow us to assess how much actually changes with time” (p. 53).

Three performance dimensions included in the Elementary Level Student Teaching Performance Profile estimate candidates’ content knowledge as defined by Goal 1. They are coded to coincide with relevant Minnesota Standards of Effective Practice for Teachers (MSEPT) and Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). Performance indicators are included for each of these three dimensions to illustrate the range of judgment based on information included in candidates’ student teaching portfolios. These dimensions and their respective indicators also appear in Appendix C of this plan. A similar profile for secondary candidates is in development.

Goal 1: Subject matter: Elementary Level Performance Dimensions and Indicators
1.a.1 Candidates’ performances reveal understanding of major concepts, assumptions, debates, processes of inquiry and ways of knowing that are central to the subjects they share with their students (MSEPT 1.A; INTASC 1.11).
Needs Attention: Candidates reveal insufficient prerequisite knowledge to encourage their students’ learning. Their performance reveals content errors and/or disorganized confusing content knowledge
Basic: Candidates display basic content knowledge but do not go beyond textbook information. Their performances reveal difficulty responding to impromptu questions, missed opportunities to elaborate, or uncorrected misconceptions
Proficient: Candidates display solid content knowledge, anticipating some common student misconceptions, and responding accurately to some student questions.
Distinguished: Candidates display extensive content knowledge, revealing continuing pursuit of such knowledge, anticipation and correction of student misconceptions, and accurate responses to student questions.

1.b.1 Candidates use varied viewpoints and theories to offer multiple representations and explanations of concepts that reflect key ideas in the subjects they share with their students (MSEP 1.F / 1.E; INTASC 1.32 / 1.31)
Needs Attention: Candidates present information in limited scope.
Basic: Candidates display some knowledge of and openness to other theories, explanations.
Proficient: Candidates consistently present more than one viewpoint, or representation.
Distinguished: Candidates actively seek out a wide variety of viewpoints and representations of subject matter; they display an openness to students’ theories; they motivate students to further explore those ideas.

1.e.1 Candidates integrate subject matter knowledge, skills, and methods of inquiry with that of other disciplines related to the subject matter they share with their students (MSEP 1.J; INTASC 1.36).
Needs Attention: Candidates’ planning does not reveal intentional integration with other subjects.
Basic: Candidates reveal some effort to coordinate or integrate content.
Proficient: Candidates’ explicit objectives provide opportunities for integration with other content areas.
Distinguished: Candidates’ planning encourages student initiative in making connections with other content areas.

Candidates completing our program who seek licensure after 1 September 2001 must show evidence of having completed a state mandated examination in the content area for which they will seek licensure. The test performance of those seeking licensure after 1 September 2002 must reach the cut-off score that will have been set by Minnesota’s Board of Teaching prior to licensure. The Board has selected the Praxis II Subject Assessments developed by the Educational Testing Service to fulfill this condition of licensure. While we anticipate access to test scores and perhaps some indication of the nature of knowledge they represent, it is unlikely that we will receive a complete analysis of candidates’ test performance that could be used to evaluate candidates’ opportunities to know, to apply, and be assessed on relevant content standards. Students seeking licensure in either elementary or secondary grades would be encouraged to complete a subject matter test in their area of specialization during their enrollment in an advanced foundation course, “Issues in Education” (EDUC 359). Most candidates complete this course during the semester prior to their student teaching experience.

Given the expected limitations of information provided by this test of content knowledge, after September 2002 we may require candidates to complete an integrative experience prior to exit from our program. Such experiences, already required or recommended by several of our Colleges’ academic departments, could include any opportunity likely to encourage candidates to meet the same three performance dimensions used in the review of candidates’ student teaching to affirm attainment of Goal 1.

These experiences should help candidates begin to replace what Dressel (1958) called “a mystifying mosaic of many separated courses and unrelated…experiences” with a pattern of meaning woven from “integrative threads” that help “organize the subject from the viewpoint of inquiry (Bloom, 1958). Several curricular experiences are presently available which provide such opportunities.

• Candidates in some disciplines might complete an integrative “capstone” course providing opportunities to meet Goal 1 in the subject closest to their area of licensure. Such courses usually come near the end of a candidate’s work in a discipline. These summative experiences often require the development of papers or projects created through use of relevant modes of inquiry and analysis which together reveal one’s understanding of “major concepts, assumptions, debates, processes of inquiry, and ways of knowing that are central to the disciplines taught.” Candidates pursuing licensure in social studies with an emphasis in history, for example, are now encouraged to complete History 389, “Historiography and Methods.” Participants enjoy “examination through reading and discussion of selected topics in history. This course focuses on historiography and methods. The nature and uses of primary and secondary texts will be addressed, and the course will concentrate on the analysis and critique of the reading material” (Academic Catalog 2000-2001, p. 85).
• Candidates might prepare an integrative research paper exploring the influence of modes of inquiry or topics of investigation central to the discipline or area of practice. Those enrolled in our Colleges’ Honors Program “work with a faculty advisor…in writing a thesis, conducting research, or executing a creative project” have used such an opportunity to reveal the nature and extent of their integration of their area of study (Catalog, p. 86).
• Candidates might prepare and present a portfolio of work illustrating dimensions of their conceptual, aesthetic, and skill development over time. Those who complete their work in the English literature or creative writing, for example, maintain a portfolio that includes “all formal essays and exams from required and elective English courses…” (Catalog, p. 73). Candidates pursuing licensure in communication arts and literature may work with an English Department faculty member to complete a reflective analysis of their work as readers, writers, and critics when they near the end of their programs of study.
• Candidates might complete a juried musical or theatrical performance or a critiqued display of their artworks. A reflective analysis of their evolution as artists and the relationship of that evolution to their teaching of that art form could evidence understanding of that body of knowledge and practice.
• Completing a summative examination appropriate for the area of licensure, other than a Praxis II Subject Matter test, that is designed to affirm that candidates have acquired the knowledge and skills that form the core of their discipline. Those majoring in chemistry and who seek licensure in that area, for example, might complete the American Chemical Society’s content examination administered by that department.

These and future integrative experiences would help candidates’ reveal, through their “inquiry, critical analysis, and synthesis of the subject” they plan to teach to others, the extent of the “in-depth knowledge” on which they will found their practice (Professional Standards, p. 14). Our intent in urging candidates to seek out such affirmations of their subject matter knowledge as noted in this assessment plan rests in our belief that they cannot make meaningful planning decisions on a foundation of inadequate knowledge, skills, and values they hope to share with their future students. By working toward an understanding of what Grossman, Wilson, and Schulman (1989, p.32) call “syntactic” knowledge of a discipline, our candidates’ decisions could more accurately guide their students’ intellectual growth. The outcome of these integrative experiences would thus reveal the range and depth of the fund of content knowledge which informs candidates’ teaching.

Assessment Question 3

Do candidates possess pedagogical knowledge, skills, and values appropriate for their areas of licensure?

The unit’s philosophy calls for the preparation of teachers who believe that “all students can learn” even if in different ways, at different rates, and at different levels. Those who accept this premise must therefore “not only be knowledgeable about the content they teach, but must also know about and be committed to making decisions that involve the use of a variety of instructional strategies and approaches appropriate for the diverse learning needs of their students” (Conceptual Model, p. 3)

The decision-making model that is at the core of this unit’s preparation of professional educators calls upon candidates for that role to acquire and use a body of professional knowledge that includes foundational knowledge (knowledge of learning, development, and human exceptionalities) and an understanding of the principles of effective practice (knowledge of pedagogy, instructional technologies, motivational strategies, management techniques, and assessment methods). This body of knowledge forms the basis of the information from which available alternatives for the decisions questions are formulated (Conceptual Model, p. 2).

Elements of all ten of the unit’s program goals respond to this need to anchor decisions in a foundation of professional knowledge. Explorations guided by each of these goals offer candidates the opportunity to realize the context within which their practice as professional educators will take place. Further, these goals and their supporting “knowledge base” offer a foundation for that practice.

This conceptual foundation for candidates’ practice is consistent with the performance-focused accreditation standards offered by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). That organization finds that candidates for licensure should use “professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards” to create experiences that will help all their students learn (Professional Standards, p. 14).

We believe that in doing so candidates enrich their understanding of the contexts in which they will practice through work directed by five of the unit’s program goals.

2. Student Learning and Development. The candidates we prepare for licensure draw on their understanding of learning and developmental processes to choose optimal ways to encourage their students’ intellectual, social, and personal development (Knowledge Base, p.9).

3. Diverse Learners. Our candidates, recognizing how differences among students can influence their learning, make instructional decisions that reflect on their students’ backgrounds and exceptionalities (Knowledge Base, p. 18).

5. Learning Environment. Our candidates use their knowledge and skills to create just, disciplined learning communities that can motivate students to achieve personal and academic success through positive social interaction and active engagement in their learning (Knowledge Base, p. 33).

9. Reflection. Our candidates critically reflect on the effects of their instructional decisions on the performance of their students, on the practice of their colleagues, and on the actions of others in their learning communities, using those reflections to direct and sustain their own professional renewal (Knowledge Base, p. 55).

10. Collaboration. Our candidates enhance their effectiveness as educators by working together with their colleagues, their students’ parents, and members of their school community to create and sustain a positive learning environment that can enhance students’ learning and well-being (Knowledge Base, p. 58).

As this foundation of professional and pedagogical knowledge grows, it can begin to support the development of candidates’ “pedagogical content knowledge.” Such knowledge represents the developing synthesis of content knowledge (the subject to be taught) with a growing understanding of the teaching methods suited to that body of knowledge, skills and values (“how to teach this subject”). This interaction of subject matter knowledge and foundational knowledge informs, and is informed by, one’s evolving sense of a content specific pedagogy. Knowing “what to teach” tempers the selection and refinement of “how to teach.” Candidates thus adapt “a broad knowledge of instructional strategies” to the unique demands of their subject areas, the needs and talents of their students, and the influences of the settings in which they will teach to offer the “multiple explanations” that will help all their students learn (Professional Standards, p. 15).

Two performance dimensions drawn from analysis of the unit’s first program goal reveal indicators of the candidate’s integration of subject matter and teaching methods. Four related program goals contribute an analysis of candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge.

1. Subject Matter. Our candidates for licensure understand the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the disciplines they are preparing to teach so that they will be able to make this subject matter meaningful for their students (Knowledge Base, p. 2).

4. Instructional Strategies. Our candidates use their knowledge of instructional strategies to decide upon and employ those which are most likely to encourage their students’ critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills (Knowledge Base, p. 27).

6. Communication. Our candidates use effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster their students’ learning (Knowledge Base, p. 38).

7. Planning. Our candidates plan and effect instruction as they decide what content they will teach, to whom they will teach it, in what ways they will do so, and with what effect (Knowledge Base, p. 42).

8. Assessment. Our candidates use information provided through their use of formal and informal assessment methods to make instructional decisions that will support their students’ continuous development (Knowledge Base, p. 47).

The unit’s perspective on the role of such pedagogical knowledge, skills, and values might play in candidates’ teaching of their disciplines or praxiologies is reinforced by the standards for the approval of teacher preparation programs by Minnesota’s Board of Teaching. That agency requires candidates for licensure to be prepared in “high quality education programs that are cohesive, comprehensive, and based on research, theory, and accepted practice (Minnesota Rules 8700.7600.5.A.1). Further, approved programs must require that its candidates “complete a professional sequence of courses” that provide opportunities to know, to apply, and be assessed on each of the Minnesota Standards of Effective Practice for Teachers (8700.7600.5.A.2). In doing so, the Board expects that candidates “can integrate general, content, professional, and pedagogical studies as measured by teacher performance and the performance of the students they teach” (8700.7600.5.B.4). This integrative outcome could be sustained by faculty who “encourage the candidate’s development of reflection, critical thinking, problem solving, and professional dispositions” (8700.7600.5.G.10).

We should thus expect that those who are prepared for licensure as teachers in Minnesota have acquired a pedagogy appropriate for the content area and grade level they are prepared to teach. This expectation leads to the third assessment question. Do candidates possess these pedagogical knowledge, skills, and values appropriate for their areas of licensure? Reflecting the distinction between foundational and functional knowledge, the question is divided to address these two types of teaching knowledge. The first explores candidates’ professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills.

Assessment Question 3a: Do candidates possess the professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills appropriate for their areas of licensure?

Intentions:

Program Phases: Summative Assessment

Sources of Information. Formative assessment of candidates’ success at incorporate Minnesota’s content standards and the Standards of Effective Practice into their teaching is embedded in courses offered by faculty in other departments as well as by the Education Department’s faculty. This information is described in program approval documents submitted to and reviewed by Minnesota’s Board of Teaching. These documents and the performances they describe are not referenced in this summative assessment plan.

Candidates’ performances in their foundation courses offer opportunities to monitor the acquisition of professional and pedagogical knowledge. Students enrolled in “The Developing Person” (EDUC 200) conduct a series of Piagetian tasks in semi-clinical interviews with K-12 students. These interviews and the interactive tasks they include are designed to help prospective candidates assess the development of school children using Piaget’s developmental theory. Students prepare written reports that describe the results of their interviews and draw implications for instruction from their work. Analysis of candidates’ assessments using performance indicators will begin with students enrolled in the spring 20001 semester.

As most complete their final foundation course prior to their acceptance as candidates, students enrolled in “Educational Psychology” (EDUC 310) reveal their emerging philosophy and theory of education. Prospective candidates’ position papers include teaching techniques that reflect their chosen theory, the relationship of that theory to meeting the needs of diverse learners, use of appropriate classroom management approaches, and relevant assessment methods (Fall 2000).

Fourth year candidates usually enroll in “Issues In Education” (EDUC 359) during the semester prior to beginning their student teaching. The classroom management plan they complete reveals their understanding of ways in which classroom management strategies reflect the design of learning environments and how those plans can influence K-12 students’ performance (Spring 2001).

Prospective teachers nearing the close of their foundation coursework propose and complete a human relations project in the form of a hypothetical diversity unit for EDUC 390 (Human Relations). Such projects include a plan of study and supporting resources that could provide K-12 students with opportunities to actively develop and evaluate their knowledge, skills, and values with respect to people of color, students with disabilities, women, older people, the poor, or members of cultural or ethnic groups (Fall 2000).

While work on selected tasks within foundation courses describes students’ acquisition and development of professional knowledge, evidence of their performance as novice teachers confirms the use of such knowledge in performance settings. The field experiences included in methods courses and the clinical experiences offered during sixteen weeks of student teaching provide better opportunities to describe candidates’ professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. The units, lessons, and instructional materials they prepare, their teaching in field or clinical settings, and the nature of their K-12 students’ learning provide the basis for summative review captured with elementary or secondary performance profiles. This assessments are designed to affirm the level of candidates’ performance along performance dimensions drawn from those of the unit’s program goals that reflect the use of professional and general knowledge (Assessing Candidate Performance, 2001).

Analysis of the students’ work in methods classes, based on a modified “work sample” approach, will begin with the Fall 2001 semester with pilot testing of a performance profile. Performance profiles were first used to describe the performance of a pilot group of candidates completing their clinical experiences work during the Fall 2000 semester. Performance dimensions for each program goal relevant in the formation of professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills form the following set. Performance levels for each dimension are included in Appendix C of this unit assessment plan.

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills: Elementary Level Performance Profile

Goal 2: Student Learning and Development Elementary
2.a.1 The candidate uses students’ learning as a basis for growth and students’ errors as
opportunities for learning (MSEPT 2.D, INTASC 2.22).
2.b.1 The candidate elicits samples of students’ thinking as revealed in oral and written work to use as resources in planning instructional activities (MSEPT 2.G, INTASC 2.33).

Goal 3: Diverse Learners
3.a.1 The candidate uses teaching approaches that address students’ stages of development (MSEPT 3.K, INTASC 3.31).
3.a.2 The candidate uses teaching approaches that are address students’ preferred styles of learning and modes of performing (MSEPT 3.L, INTASC 3.32).
3.a.3 The candidate uses teaching approaches that use students’ strengths and talents to encourage their learning (MSEPT 3.A, INTASC 3.11).
3.a.4 The candidate uses teaching approaches that accommodate students’ learning needs (MSEPT 3.M, INTASC 3.33).
3.a.5 The candidate uses teaching approaches to explain subject matter using multiple perspectives that make use of students’ personal, family, and cultural experience (MSEPT 3.P, INTASC 3.36).
3.a.6 The candidate uses teaching approaches that connect instruction to students families, cultures, and communities (MSEPT 3.O, INTASC 3.35).
3.b.1 The candidate develops learning communities in which individual differences are respected (MSEPT 3.Q, INTASC 3.37).

Goal 5: Learning Environment
5.a.1 The candidate uses a range of strategies to promote positive relationships, cooperation, and purposeful learning in the classroom (MSEPT 5.E INTASC 5.14).
5.b.1 The candidate designs and manages learning communities in which students assume responsibility for themselves and one another (MSEPT 5.L, INTASC 5.31).
5.b.2 The candidate designs and manages learning communities in which students participate in decision-making (MSEPT 5.L, INTASC 5.31).
5.c.1 The candidate promotes intrinsic motivation by relating instruction to students’ personal interests (MSEPT 5.F / 5.M, INTASC 5.15 / 5.32)
5.c.2 The candidate promotes intrinsic motivation by allowing students to make choices in their learning (MSEPT 5.M, INTASC 5.32).
5.c.3 The candidate promotes intrinsic motivation by leading students to ask questions and pursue problems that are meaningful to them (MSEPT 5.M, INTASC 5.32).
5.c.4 The candidate promotes intrinsic motivation by providing emotionally safe learning environments (MSEPT 5.C, INTASC 5.21).
5.d.1 The candidate encourages safe, active engagement for all students by organizing, allocating, and managing time on task as well as transitions between tasks (MSEPT 5.N, INTASC 5.33).
5.d.2 The candidate encourages safe, active engagement for all students by organizing, allocating, and managing physical space (MSEPT 5.N, INTASC 5.33).
5.d.3 The candidate encourages safe, active engagement for all students by organizing, allocating, and managing classroom activities (MSEPT 5.N, INTASC 5.33).
5.d.4 The candidate encourages safe, active engagement for all students by organizing, allocating, and managing students’ attention to learning tasks (MSEPT 5.N, INTASC 5.33).
5.d.5 The candidate encourages safe, active engagement for all students by creating physical settings conducive to learning (MSEPT 5.N / 5.O, INTASC 5.33 / 5.34).
5.d.6 The candidate encourages safe, active engagement for all students by creating processes for communication that are conducive to learning (MSEPT 5.N, INTASC 5.33).
5.e.1 The candidate manages independent and group work to encourage the effective participation of all students (MSEPT 5.R, INTASC 5.37).

Goal 9: Reflection
9.a.1 The candidate uses research on teaching, classroom observation, student information, and assessment data to evaluate the outcomes of teaching (MSEPT 9.H, INTASC 9.31).
9.a.2 The candidate uses research on teaching, classroom observation, student information, and assessment data to revise instructional practice (MSEPT 9.H, INTASC 9.31).
9.b.1 The candidate uses professional resources and colleagues to support reflection encouraging professional development (MSEPT 9.I / 9.J, INTASC 9.32 / 9.33)
9.c.1 The candidate demonstrates professionalism in dress and conduct (MSEPT 9.K, INTASC 9.34).
9.d.1 The candidate demonstrates dependability (MSEPT 9.G, INTASC 9.25).
9.d.2. The candidate demonstrates initiative (MSEPT 9.G, INTASC 9.25).
9.d.3 The candidate demonstrates enthusiasm (MSEPT 9.G, INTASC 9.25).
9.d.4 The candidate demonstrates commitment to the profession (MSEPT 9.G, INTASC 9.25).
9.d.5 The candidate demonstrates flexibility and open-mindedness (MSEPT 9.G, INTASC 9.25).

Goal 10: Collaboration
10.a.1 The candidate ensures the confidentiality of student information (MSEPT 10.C / 10.f, INTASC 10.13 / 10.27)
10.a.2 The candidate ensures the appropriate treatment of students (MSEPT 10.C / 10.L, INTASC 10.13 / 10.37)
10.b.1 The candidate collaborates in activities designed to make the entire school a productive learning environment (MSEPT 10.H, INTASC 10.25)
10.c.1 The candidate establishes productive relationships with students’ parents/guardians to support learning and well-being (MSEPT 10.K, INTASC 10.34).

Additional information may be revealed by candidates’ performances as described by Praxis II examinations to be completed by all candidates seeking Minnesota licensure after 1 September 2001. The state will require that candidates complete “an examination of general teaching knowledge” as well as a test in “the field for which licensure is applied” (Minnesota Rules 8710.0500.B, 2000). While candidates’ scores on tests they select will be available, information that might affirm progress toward specific goals and their relevant performance dimensions will most likely be restricted.

The second part of our third assessment question explores the extent of candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge. Such knowledge offers guidance for student teachers who must select from a family of instructional methods those that could be used to help elementary children unlock the secrets of long division. Others might draw on their fund of specialized knowledge to select from such methods those might work best for fifth graders for whom an assessment of their prior learning suggests incomplete understanding of multiplication. Further use of relevant pedagogical content knowledge could help candidates select from that set of appropriate instructional methods those that might better reflect students’ culture and experience.

Candidates for licensure as teachers in Minnesota should have a reservoir of such pedagogical content knowledge upon which they can draw to select plausible answers to such questions. In doing so, those candidates will “integrate general, content, professional, and pedagogical studies as measured by teacher performance…” (Minnesota Rules 8700.7600.5.B.4). Such knowledge may sustain meaningful self-renewal focused on improved practice that results from the intersection of a discipline’s structure, a teacher’s instructional intent, and evidence of student learning. It is the intersection of knowledge, intent, and outcome that reveals alternatives from which the reflective practitioner must choose a course of action. It is to this intersection that we now turn our attention.

Assessment Question 3b: Do candidates possess pedagogical content knowledge appropriate for their areas of licensure

Intentions:

Program Phases: Summative Assessment

Sources of Information. Formative assessments during candidates’ work toward Minnesota’s content standards and its Standards of Effective Practice for Teachers, embedded in courses offered by the unit and by collaborating academic departments, are described in program approval documents submitted to and reviewed by Minnesota’s Board of Teaching. These documents and the performance assessments they describe are not referenced in this plan of study.

The unit’s methods courses offer candidates opportunities to focus subject matter knowledge acquired through their work in standards-based “content” courses on those learning tasks that might prepare them for professional practice. Such tasks provide opportunities to know, to apply, and to be assessed on pedagogical knowledge reflecting the context of a candidate’s area of licensure as specified by Minnesota’s Standards of Effective Practice for Teachers and as well as that state’s professional standards. Analysis of work samples prepared by candidates in discipline related pedagogy courses after 1 September 2002 will reflect the performance dimensions included in field experience performance profiles.

Candidates enrolled in some methods courses (visual arts, mathematics) create teaching resource portfolios which, if assessed, would provide evidence of the extent of those candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge. Other methods courses provide similar opportunities, although not as fully implemented as in mathematics and art. This source of information will be incorporated in our response to this assessment question after 1 September 2001.

Candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge will also be assessed during student teaching. The comprehensive portfolio required of those who complete this sixteen week clinical experience offers the evidence from which to complete a performance profiles that ground summative judgements about the nature and extent of such knowledge. The following program goals form a core set of performance dimensions. Behaviorally anchored ratings for each dimension are provided in Appendix C Dimensions and indicators used in secondary level performance profiles are in development.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Elementary Level Performance Profile

Goal 1: Subject Matter
1.c.1 The candidates for licensure engages students in generating knowledge and using hypotheses that reflect a discipline’s methods of inquiry and standards of evidence (MSEPT 1.H, INTASC 1.34).
1.d.1 The candidate links subject matter concepts to students’ prior learning (MSEPT 1.E, INTASC 1.31)

Goal 4: Instructional Strategies
4.a.1 The candidate for licensure motivates students and introduces learning objective in an “anticipatory set” or its equivalent (MSEPT 4.B, INTASC 4.11).
4.b.1 The candidate provides “closure” by summarizing learning objectives to evaluate students’ learning (MSEPT 4.B, INTASC 4.11).
4.c.1 The candidate uses a variety of appropriate instructional materials supported by human and technological resources (MSEPT 4.D, INTASC 4.13)
4.d.1 The candidate allows adequate “wait time” while setting a pace that reflect learners needs and subject matter complexity (MSEPT 4.I / 4.J,
INTASC 4.33 / 4.34).
4.e.1 The candidate uses multiple teaching and learning strategies to promote students’ critical thinking (MSEPT 4.H, INTASC 4.32).
4.e.2 The candidate uses multiple teaching and learning strategies to promote students’ problem solving (MSEPT 4.H, INTASC 4.32).
4.e.3 The candidate uses multiple teaching and learning strategies to promote students’ performance capabilities (MSEPT 4.H, INTASC 4.32).
4.e.4 The candidate uses multiple teaching and learning strategies to encourage students to identify and use relevant learning resources (MSEPT 4.H, INTASC 4.32).
4.f.1. The candidate monitors and adjusts instructional strategies in response to learners performance (MSEPT 4.I, INTASC 4.33)
4.g.1 The candidate uses appropriate educational technologies to deliver instrucit on at different levels and rates (MSEPT 4.L, INTASC 4.36

Goal 6: Communication
6.a.1 The candidate for licensure writes effectively (coherent, grammatically correct, mechanically sound) (MSEPT 6.D, INTASC 6.14).
6.a.2 The candidate speaks effectively (adequate vocal volume, rate, and tone) (MSEPT 6.D, INTASC 6.14).
6.a.3 The candidate uses effective non-verbal communication techniques (body language, facial expression, spatial awareness) (MSEPT 6.D, INTASC 6.14).
6.a.4 The candidate uses effective media communication techniques (clarity of visual and audio information) (MSEPT 6.D, INTASC 6.14).
6.b.1 The candidate supports learners’ development of their oral communication techniques (MSEPT 6.I, INTASC 6.32).
6.b.2 The candidate supports learners’ development of their written communication techniques (MSEPT 6.I, INTASC 6.32).
6.b.3 The candidate supports learners’ development of their media communication techniques (MSEPT 6.I, INTASC 6.32).
6.c.1 The candidate facilitates students’ learning through discussion by using questions to probe for understanding (MSEPT 6.J, INTASC 6.33).
6.c.2 The candidate facilitates students’ learning through discussion by helping them clarify their ideas (MSEPT 6.J, INTASC 6.33).
6.c.3 The candidate facilitates students’ learning by promoting conceptual risk-taking and problem-solving (MSEPT 6.J, INTASC 6.33).
6.c.4 The candidate facilitates students’ learning, stimulating their curiosity (MSEPT 6.J, INTASC 6.33).

Candidates successfully prepared for licensure possess the academic skills to acquire and integrate a body of content, professional, and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and values. Should they reach this end through the units’ program of study and practice, can these candidates draw upon this fund of integrated knowledge and experience to teach others? To expect that they can do so is consistent with the unit’s philosophy and mission. If “all students can learn…in different ways and at different rates,” then candidates for licensure must be able to “use their content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and understanding of their students to make informed and ethical classroom decisions that foster their students’ learning (Conceptual Model, p.3, 4).

Such an outcome is expected of teacher preparation programs approved by Minnesota’s Board of Teaching. That agency anticipates that “candidates integrate general, content, professional, and pedagogical studies as measured by teacher performance and performance of the students they teach” (Minnesota Rules: Institutional Program Approval: 8700.7600.B.4 1999). The influence of candidates’ work on their students’ learning is also implied in standards advanced by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. That organizations standards anticipate that a program’s “teacher candidates…have a positive effect on learning for all students (Professional Standards, p.16).

It is also in the classroom where candidates’ dispositions to behave as educational professionals might be most clearly documented. Drawing on a foundation of values tested during 1,500 years of monastic life guided by the Rule of Saint Benedict, the unit expects that candidates prepared for their roles as educators will reveal a “commitment to service” directed toward enhancing the lives of their students (Conceptual Model, p. 4).

If so, candidates’ practice will reveal their disposition to advance their “concern for community” as they “extend genuine caring and respect for all students” (Appendix C: Goal 5, performance dimension 5.a.1, “Distinguished “ performance level). Candidates’ should reveal behaviors that affirm their fundamental “respect for all persons” as they work “to develop a learning community in which individual differences are respected” (Appendix C: Goal 3, performance dimension 3.b.1). Their “passion for learning” should be evident in self-reflection that sustains renewal by “eagerly seeking out opportunities for growth” (Appendix C: Goal 9, dimension 9.B.1, “Distinguished” performance level). Further, the unit expects that the candidates it prepares will “demonstrate dependability” (Goal 9, dimension 9.d.1), “initiative” (9.d.2), “enthusiasm” (9.d.3), a “commitment to professionalism” (9.d.4) and “flexibility and open-mindedness” (9.d.5) as they perform in field and most certainly in clinical settings.

Sources of Information. The matrix for assessment question four highlights information gathered from candidates completing field and clinical experiences in which they have helped “foster their students’ learning.” Student teachers prepare extensive portfolios that include lessons, units, instructional materials, observations and critiques of their work, and evidence of their students’ learning in two or three school settings during their sixteen-week residency. At present candidates collect and report such information in a variety of ways. Candidates completing their student teaching experiences in the Fall 2001 semester will follow a more explicit model for planning, gathering, analyzing, and reporting their students’ learning before, during, and at the conclusion of the units and lessons they teach. That model will be based on teachers “work samples” developed at Western Oregon University (Schalock, Schalock, and Girod, 1997).

Improved analysis of student learning data should serve to balance candidates’ and observers’ judgments of instructional effectiveness. The unit’s approach to the form of such work samples and their introduction as a part of candidates’ clinical experiences will be refined during the Spring 2001 semester. The experiences of those using this approach would suggest the need for clear expectations as to the nature of candidates’ assessment instruments, analytic procedures, and the levels of knowledge and skills taught and tested (after Airasian, cited in Cowart, 1999).

Following the introduction of work samples as an element of candidates’ student teaching portfolios, the technique will be further adapted and introduced as part of the field experiences included in methods courses. Since the duration of those experiences, and thus the opportunities available for teaching, will differ according to the design of the course, some adjustment in the design of this technique will be required. Candidates enrolled in methods courses during the Spring 2002 semester should have the opportunity to use a modified work sample to describe their students’ learning in these more limited opportunities to have “a positive effect on the learning of all students.”

Assessment Question 4

Can candidates teach knowledge and skills from their areas of licensure to others while modeling values appropriate for that area of study?

Intentions:

Program Phases:

Balancing information gleaned from work samples prepared by candidates during their methods courses and student teaching experiences, summative performance profiles will provide descriptions of candidates’ work in both of those settings. The behaviorally anchored rating scales that form those profiles will describe standards-based behaviors as well as indicators of candidates’ dispositions to behave in ways that reflect the unit’s focus on Benedictine values. The performance dimensions drawn from the elementary level performance profile relevant for this assessment question are reproduced here, while performance levels are included in Appendix C. The secondary performance profile is under development.

Teaching Performance and Dispositions: Elementary Level Performance Profile

Goal 3: Diverse Learners
3.b.1 The candidate develops learning communities in which individual differences are respected (MSEPT 3.Q, INTASC 3.37).

Goal 5: Learning Environment
5.a.1 The candidate uses a range of strategies to promote positive relationships, cooperation, and purposeful learning in the classroom (MSEPT 5.E, INTASC 5.14).

Goal 9: Reflection
9.b.1 The candidate uses professional resources (colleagues) to support reflection (MSEPT 9.J, INTASC 9.33)
9.d.1 The candidate demonstrates dependability (MSEPT 9.G, INTASC 9.25).
9.d.2 The candidate demonstrates initiative (MSEPT 9.G, INTASC 9.25).
9.d.3 The candidate demonstrates enthusiasm (MSEPT 9.G, INTASC 9.25).
9.d.4 The candidate demonstrates commitment to the profession (MSEPT 9.G, INTASC 9.25).
9.d.5 The candidate demonstrates flexibility and open-mindedness (MSEPT 9.G, INTASC 9.25).

Implementation of the Plan

Roles. The unit’s Assessment Committee will oversee the operation of this assessment system. That committee will include the Education Department’s Director of Teacher Education, an Education Department faculty member, a K-12 educator from one of the Department’s school partners, and the Department’s Administrative Assistant.

The Director of Teacher Education will be responsible for guiding the design and implementation of the assessment plan and the system of data collection, analysis, interpretation, and reporting that it stipulates. Faculty teaching courses in which assessments are embedded will provide information describing students’ performance on those indicators. Directors of Elementary and Secondary Student Teaching and their respective Supervisors of Student Teachers will provide performance profiles for candidates they observe and mentor. The Department’s Administrative Assistant will maintain a performance database using information provided by and about candidates. The Department’s faculty will review assessment results and commission evaluation research suggested by those results. Responding to such research, the faculty will identify areas of their program found to be in need of improvement.

Timetable. Two elements of this plan, the elementary and secondary student teaching performance profiles will be piloted during the Fall 2000 semester. Revised performance profiles will be field tested with student teachers completing their clinical experiences during the Spring 2001 semester.

A third element, the unit’s performance database, will capture information provided by these profiles for analysis with other assessments as they become available. A prototype will be created during the Spring 2001 semester that includes assessment and background information for candidates concluding their student teaching in the Fall of 2001.

The development of student teacher work samples for use by student teachers will begin during the late spring of 2001 with pilot testing completed by student teachers documenting their clinical experiences during the Fall 2001 semester. A field test of a revised work sample will describe the efforts of Spring 2002 student teachers to “have a positive effect on all learners” in their charge.

A pilot version of the methods teacher work sample based on the format devised for student teachers will be available for use in selected methods courses during the Fall 2001 semester. Following modifications of that format, a field test will be conducted during the Spring 2002 semester. A revised version should be available to describe K-12 students learning encouraged by candidates in methods courses during the following semester (Fall 2002).

Basic academic skills assessment has been devised and used for some years. Data from the Academic Profile and related essay tests will be incorporated in the performance data base beginning with the Spring 2001 semester. Information from writing assessments embedded in selected foundation courses will be gathered and included in that data base beginning in the Fall 2001 semester.

The following table summarizes sources identified in the assessment question matrices that are now in use, in development (design, pilot testing, or field testing) or awaiting future development.

Prototype reports will be devised for the Departments’ review during the Fall 2001 semester. These trial reports may suggest ways to refine the database for more efficient information encoding and retrieval as we learn how to best use this resource.

Continuous review and revision of the Departments’ assessment system will encourage more meaningful analyses of more accurate summative indicators of candidates’ performance. Validation of those indicators will be a continuing responsibility. Management of the system should be guided both by the need to provide useful analyses of valid, reliable information and to keep the human investment in the system within the limits of the Education Departments’ faculty and staff.

Using Assessment Data for Program Evaluation and Improvement

Collecting and analyzing candidates’ performance data without using that information to question the merit and worth of that performance provides little incentive for the design and maintenance of so complex an assessment system as is described in this plan. Assessment of candidate performance provides a point of reference to use in responding to such questions. What might the evaluation research encouraged by those questions examine? The following descriptions make use of the assessment information and its probable analysis as described in this plan

The academic skills of students seeking acceptance as candidates have long been a concern of the unit’s faculty. In 1996 the Education Department’s chairperson commissioned the colleges’ Instructional Developer to explore the feasibility of using fixed and free response skills tests to provide a more accurate estimate of those skills. Initial results revealed potentially significant deficiencies in writing and the use of mathematics. These findings encouraged the unit to adopt skills testing as part of its acceptance of candidates and to provide a wider range of formal remedial opportunities for those whose test performance might fall below the unit’s standard. The Colleges’ remedial services improved to respond to students’ demands for assistance. The Colleges’ administrators, initially skeptical of the need for testing and resulting remedial work, came to accept its role in the Department’s preparation of competent teachers. The Departments’ testing procedures evolved to a more “authentic” design, encouraging more accurate assessments of academic skills. Those tests were informally validated through students’ follow-up diagnostic examinations.

With the benefit of some maturity in the use of these assessments, the Department’s faculty now seek confirmation that successfully remediated candidates continue to use their strengthened academic skills for the work they complete in advanced foundation and methods course. Writing assessments of “flag” papers embedded in selected courses will offer a preliminary response to this concern, as will review of work samples prepared during field and clinical settings. Two evaluation questions attract our attention.

• Do candidates continue to use their improved skills after their remediation?
• Do the remedial options we offer improve candidates’ class and field performance?

As the Department gains more experience in the use of these academic skill indicators, further analysis of the relationship between Academic Profile scores and college entrance examination scores may confirm that students with ACT or SAT scores above a given “cut point” could be exempt from completing the fixed response portion of the Academic Profile. A preliminary study suggested the viability of this approach based on a small sample of prospective candidates. The development of the unit’s performance data base will enhance the feasibility of a more complete analysis. Such an inquiry would offer one response to a third evaluation question.

• Should all candidates be tested for their academic skills?

Other evaluation questions are emerging beginning to emerge from preliminary analyses of available performance data and from review of the unit’s knowledge base. While not yet supported by the range of experience that the unit has with assessment and evaluation of candidates’ basic skills, these questions offer an indication of how assessment of candidates’ performance will be used to explore and strengthen the Department’s programs in the years ahead.

• Do all who use the Student Teacher Performance Profile to summarize candidates’ performance in clinical settings following the same procedures? Do they draw upon the same sources of evidence to form their summary judgments? Do they weight those sources in the same way? Are efforts to train supervisors in using the Profile helpful? Are the ratings that supervisors record consistent across their assigned student teaching candidates (within-rater reliability)? Would the ratings all supervisors might offer consistent for any one candidate (inter-rater reliability)?

• While the validity of the Profile might be assumed from its origin in state (MSEPT), professional (INTASC), and institutional standards (Program Goals and Knowledge Base), what external evidence confirms the description of the candidates’ performance that it provides? Do other ways of assessing candidates’ clinical performance yield similar findings (concurrent validity)? Do the Profile judgements of candidates’ performance during their student teaching experience predict their performance on similar dimensions in their first year of professional practice (predictive validity)?

• What are the correlates of candidates’ performance in clinical settings? What characterizes candidates who are rated as “distinguished” from those rated as “basic” performers on their performance profiles? Are patterns evident in their performance that might enhance the selection or development of optimal candidates?

• Do all candidates complete our program with a fund of knowledge, skills, and values drawn from their majors that will encourage their effective instruction in the first years of their practice? Analyses of opportunities to know and apply content knowledge suggest that some areas may provide too little knowledge or cover too many disciplines.

• Do candidates form a useful “model” of how their students learn that reflects those K-12 students’ needs and talents, the content of instruction, and candidates’ talents? What decision-making process do methods or student teaching candidates use when they select those more appropriate methods of instruction or when they create instructional materials? How do they adapt their “model” of students learning process when that learning differs from their expectations?

• What performance patterns are evident in the foundations, methods, and content coursework of candidates whose student teaching performance profiles suggest “stronger” or “weaker” performance? What guidance might those patterns offer for more effective candidate selection and preparation for practice?

• What patterns are evident in student teachers’ use of assessment techniques? What do they draw upon to support their decisions to use these techniques? To what extent do they reflect on the effectiveness of their choices?

• What patterns are evident in student teachers’ use of instructional techniques? What information do they use to decide upon those techniques? To what extent do they model their decisions on the teaching of their previous instructors

• With what success has the unit prepared candidates for practice in multicultural settings? How do those candidates teaching in such settings judge the effectiveness of their preparation? In what ways might they encourage the unit to improve its efforts to prepare teachers who can help all their students learn?

• What is the value of our investment in the continuous assessment of candidates? Has the program, or their performance, improved as a result of such assessment? What resources have been invested to yield this return? How might the assessment system be improved to increase that yield?

We conclude our plan for the assessment of those who would be teachers with this set of plausible evaluation questions. They predict what might most catch our attention as we move toward a more uniform and universal description of human performance within the realm of teaching and learning. Many more such question await us, lurking in the findings we will make as we learn new ways to describe teachers and teaching. Together, they suggest how we might attempt to encourage and sustain our continuing search for the dimensions of our candidates’ effectiveness and, thereby, our programs’ success. In doing so we might recall Dewey’s sense of human growth as the “criterion of value” as we use our findings to arrange the processes of teaching to reflect the conditions of learning (Dewey, 1966).

If our candidates’ learning, and in turn their students’ learning, “is to be the focal point of education” (Cowart, 1999) we might do well to recall that …

Assessment is most effective when it reflects an understanding of learning as multidimensional, integrated, and revealed in performance over time. Learning is a complex process. It entails not only what students know but what they can do with what they know; it involves not only knowledge and abilities but values, attitudes, and habits of mind that affect both academic success and performance beyond the classroom.

Assessment should reflect these understandings by employing a diverse array of methods, including those that call for actual performance, using them over time so as to reveal change, growth, and increasing degrees of integration. Such an approach aims for a more complete and accurate picture of learning, and therefore firmer bases for improving our students’ educational experience.

American Association of Higher Education, 1992

References

Academic Catalog 2000-2001. 2000. Saint Joseph, MN: College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University.

American Association for Higher Education. Principles of good practice for assessing student learning. Washington D.C.: 1992.

Astin, A. W. Assessment for excellence. (1991). New York: Macmillan. p. 53.

Assessing Candidate Performance. 2001. Saint Joseph, MN: Education Department, College of Saint Benedict.

Bloom, B. “Ideas, problems, and methods of inquiry.” In N. B. Henry, (Ed.) The integration of educational experiences. Chicago: National Society For The Study of Education. 1958. p. 95.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2000, April). The outcomes question in teacher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (http://www2.bc.edu/~cochrans/mcsvpaddress.html

Cooper, B. F. (1999). Some subjective comments on effective teaching. Journal of Philosophy and History of Education. 49, 8 (http://hometown.aol.com/jophe99/cowart.htm)

Cooper, J. M. (1999) The teacher as decision-maker. In Classroom teaching skills (6^th Ed.). James M. Cooper (editor). pp.1-19 Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press. p.53.

Dressel, P. L. “The meaning and significance of integration.” In N. B. Henry, (Ed.) The integration of educational experiences. Chicago: National Society For The Study of Education. 1958. p. 23.

Education Department Conceptual Model: Teacher As Decision Maker. 2000. Saint Joseph, MN: College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University. (http://www.csbsju.edu/education/mission/theme.htm)

Grossman, P., Wilson, S., and Schulman, L. 1989. “Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching.” In Maynard C. Reynolds (Ed.) Knowledge Base for the Beginning Teacher. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Knowledge Base for Beginning Teachers: Department of Education. 2000. Saint Joseph, MN: College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University. (http://www.csbsju.edu/education/knowledgebase/default.htm)

Minnesota Rules: Adopted Permanent Rules Relating to Teacher License Examinations: 8710.0500. 2000. Roseville, MN: Minnesota Board of Teaching, Department of Children, Families, and Learning. (http://cfl.state.mn.us/teachbrd/proposedteachrules.html)

Minnesota Rules: Institutional Program Approval: 8700.7600. 1999. Roseville, MN: Minnesota Board of Teaching, Department of Children, Families, and Learning. (http://cfl.state.mn.us/teachbrd/ar3069.html)

Minnesota Rules: Standards of Effective Practice for Teachers 8710.2000. 1999. Roseville, MN: Minnesota Board of Teaching, Department of Children, Families, and Learning. (http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/arule/8710/2000.html)

Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Schools, Colleges, and Departments of Education. 2001. Washington, D.C.: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Schalock, D., Schalock, M., & Girod, G. (1997). Teacher work sample methodology as used at Western Oregon State College. In J. Millman (Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Schon, D.A. Theory-of-action evaluation. Paper presented to the Harvard Education Task Force, April 1997.

Smith, C. B. (1992). Teacher as decision-maker. Bloomington, IN: Grayson Bernard Publishers.

Wholey, J. S. “Evaluability Assessment: Developing Program Theory” in L. Bickman (ed.), Using Program Theory in Evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no.33, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.