At the end of the Clinical Experience - College of … FOLIO... · Web viewProgram(s) Covered by...

Nebraska Department of Education Rule 24 ReportMATHEMATICS

(Content Area)Educator Preparation Content Program Review

Name of institution University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Date Submitted 3.20.2017

Contact Person Thomas Wandzilak

Phone/Fax 402-472-8626

Email [email protected]

Folio type: X Regular Mini Advanced Program

Program(s) Covered by this Folio Press tab in last column to add rows

Endorsement(s) Type Grade Level Program Level

List Endorsements

Field 6-12 BaccalaureateMaster’s

Mathematics, Grades 6-12

Is the endorsement offered at more than one site? Yes X NoIf yes, list additional sites where endorsement is offered:

Institution Accreditation Status: X National X StateIs this a Nationally Accredited Program? X Yes No

If Yes, list Accrediting Organization: CAEP Attach National Letter to Cover Sheet

Report to the Nebraska Department of EducationUniversity of Nebraska—Lincoln

Folio Initial Level—June 2017

Report to the Nebraska Department of EducationUniversity of Nebraska—Lincoln

Folio Initial Level—June 2017

INTRODUCTION AND WELCOMEThe purpose of this section is to provide general background information on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the College of Education and Human Sciences. In addition, information is provided on the teacher education program, admission and retention standards, the field experiences in which students participate, and information on the key assessments used in Section 2 concerning data that have been collected in support of our programs.

Here is a list of websites that can provide some additional information on the university, the college, and our teacher education program:

http://www.unl.edu/This is the University of Nebraska-Lincoln website.

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/This is the link for the undergraduate bulletin.

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/college/Education+%26+Human+SciencesThis is the link for the College of Education and Human Sciences section in the Undergraduate Bulletin.

http://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/bulletinThis is the link for the Graduate Bulletin.

http://cehs.unl.edu/

http://cehs.unl.edu/

http://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/bulletin

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/college/Education+%26+Human+Sciences

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/

http://www.unl.edu/

The is the link for the website for the College of Education and Human Sciences

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising/This is the link for our program sheets for all of the programs offered through the College of Education and Human Sciences. Program sheets will also be available for multiple years.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact Tom Wandzilak, Certification Officer, College of Education and Human Sciences at:

402-472-8626 or [email protected]

SECTION 1: CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION NARRATIVE

SECTION 1A: ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM/CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION

The link to the Rule 20 Folio is:http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

Mission Statement ion StatementThe University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), chartered by the Legislature in 1869, is the part of the University of Nebraska system that serves as both the land-grant and the comprehensive public University for the State of Nebraska.

Through its three primary missions of teaching, research, and service, UNL is the state's primary intellectual center providing leadership throughout the state through quality education and the generation of new knowledge. UNL's graduates and its faculty and staff are major contributors to the economic and cultural development of the state. UNL attracts a high percentage of the most academically talented Nebraskans, and the graduates of the University form a significant portion of the

http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising/

business, cultural, and professional resources of the State. The quality of primary, secondary, and other post-secondary educational programs in the state depends in part on the resources of UNL for curricular development, teacher training, professional advancement, and enrichment activities involving the University's faculty, museums, galleries, libraries, and other facilities. UNL provides for the people of the state unique opportunities to fulfill their highest ambitions and aspirations, thereby helping the state retain its most talented youth, attract talented young people from elsewhere, and address the educational needs of the nontraditional learner.

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln has been recognized by the Legislature as the primary research and doctoral degree granting institution in the state for fields outside the health professions. Through its service and outreach efforts the University extends its educational responsibilities directly to the people of Nebraska on a state-wide basis.

The College of Education and Human SciencesThe College of Education and Human Sciences was founded on August 18, 2004 by Teachers College and The College of Human Resources and Family Sciences with each founding college contributing extensive history and tradition. The College of Education and Human Sciences offers excellent educational advancement to both undergraduate and graduate students, serving approximately 2,800 undergraduates and 1,000 graduate students each year.

Education courses first became a part of the University curriculum in 1895 with the organization of a Department of Education designed to prepare students for teaching careers. On Valentine’s Day, 1908, the board of Regents established a Teachers College. Since that time, the College has been highly respected for its programs preparing teachers, administrators, and specialists for the education of children, youth, and adults. The quality of these programs is reflected in outstanding educational leadership in communities across the state and in the nation in teaching, administration, communication disorders, special education, and educational psychology.

Teacher Education Programs

Teacher education programs are found in five departments in CEHS as well as in two other colleges on campus. The College of Fine and Performing Arts (CFPA) oversees Music Education whereas Agriculture Education, Horticulture Education, and Industrial Technology are located in the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Even though these programs are housed outside of CEHS, they must comply with state rules and regulations tied to teacher education. The majority of the teacher education programs are located in the Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education (TLTE). There are currently 40 endorsement areas offered at the undergraduate and graduate levels through the University. Options exist for students to complete initial teacher certification and teaching endorsements at the undergraduate and graduate levels. All programs leading to an initial teaching certificate will also require the completion of an undergraduate or graduate degree. Individuals interested in adding one or more teaching endorsements may do so without pursuing a degree.

1B. STANDARDS OF ADMISSION, RETENTION, TRANSITION, AND COMPLETION

Admission to the University of Nebraska-LincolnAdmission to the University is based on a student’s demonstrated academic preparation for University-level work (see Appendix—Table 1). Admission standards to the University are established by the University of Nebraska Board of Regents and apply to all new, first time degree-seeking students. This includes freshman as well as transfer students. The admission standards apply to general admission to the University as well as admission to the College of Education and Human Sciences.

Admission to the Teacher Education Program (TEP)Admission to the College of Education and Human Sciences does not guarantee admission to a teacher education program. Admission to the advanced phases of teacher education is selective and, in some endorsements, highly competitive. Selection to a TEP is based upon the following criteria:

1. Completion of at least 30 credit hours (Elementary Education) or 42 credit hours (Secondary Education) with a minimum 2.5 GPA.

2. Completion of TEAC 331 or 430 or 431 or 434 or 437 or 496 (3 hrs.) or approved course, and EDPS 250 or 251 with a 2.5 cumulative average in the two classes, no grade lower than a C.

3. Documentation of proficiency in reading, writing, and mathematics through successful completion of a basic skills examination that meets the Nebraska Department of Education competency requirement.

4. Completion of one course in communication studies selected from COMM 109, 205, 209, 210, or 341, or an approved substitute.

5. Faculty recommendations.6. Demonstration of attaining particular learning outcomes in the program.7. Completion of a personal and professional fitness self-disclosure form.

Admission to Student TeachingAll students who are candidates for an appropriately endorsed Nebraska Teacher’s certificate are required to student teach. Students who plan to student teach in the fall semester must complete the student teaching application form and submit it by the preceding March 1 to the Director of Field Experiences in 104 Henzlik Hall; students planning to student teach in the spring semester must apply by the preceding October 1. The basic program for student teaching provides for a full-day experience on a semester basis. Students enrolled in an elementary education dual major will compete requirements for student teaching in both majors. Admission to student teaching requires the following:

1. Matriculation in a teacher education program in the College of Education and Human Sciences, the Graduate College, or dual matriculation in the College of Education and Human Sciences and another college.

2. Admission to a teacher education program.3. Senior standing (89 hours or more) with a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75.4. Application for and completion of a senior check.5. Minimum average of 2.5 in each endorsement area (in the case of Middle Grades Endorsement, a

2.5 in each academic area) with no grade below C.

6. A minimum grade point average of 2.5 in pre-professional and professional education courses with no grade below a C in pre-professional education courses and no grade below a C+ in professional education courses.

7. Completion of a criminal history check that will be conducted by an independent party (lab fee required).

Retention1. Must maintain a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75.2. Must maintain a minimum average of 2.5 in each endorsement area (in the case of Middle Grades

Endorsement, a 2.5 in each academic area) with no grade below C.3. Must maintain a minimum grade point average of 2.5 in pre-professional and professional

education courses with no grade below a C in pre-professional education courses and no grade below a C+ in professional education courses.

4. Must meet student teaching application deadlines.5. Must meet criminal history requirements at all times.

Transition PointsA summary of the transition points can be found in the Appendix in Table 2.

Requirements to Complete the Teacher Education Program1. Successful completion of student teaching.2. Successful completion of all remaining courses as identified in the senior check with grades

meeting the minimum requirements as identified in the “Admission to Student Teaching” section as described above.

3. Satisfy any additional requirements as described under teacher education in the undergraduate bulletin.

4. Address all financial obligations tied to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.5. Apply for the degree.

The Student Advising Sheet for the program(s) associated with this Folio can be found at:http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising

1C. FIELD EXPERIENCES

The link to the Rule 20 Folio is:http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

Field experience “courses” can be divided into the following areas:Early Childhood, Inclusive, Elementary Education, Elementary Education/Mild Moderate Disabilities, and Secondary Education. Practicum experiences at the 200 level are initial experiences in the schools for our students. They can be placed in a classroom with a teacher at the appropriate grade level for their respective content area. Secondary students are placed individually in middle grades or secondary classrooms, whereas elementary students are placed in pairs in elementary classrooms. In all instances university students have opportunities to work with K-12 learners individually or in small groups. In some instances, they may be given full-class opportunities to work with learners. Students completing 397 level practica have expanded responsibilities where they will have greater classroom responsibilities that will include the teaching of multiple lessons as a requirement for the experience as well as teacher assistant roles during each day. The 497 experience is student teaching where the university student takes on more and more responsibilities that would be equivalent to those taken on by the classroom teacher. These responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the preparation of lesson plans and materials for teaching and assessment, the teaching of classes, grading formative and summative materials, working with students after class, attending staff/faculty meetings, and speaking with parents where necessary, all under the guidance of a cooperating teacher. Please see Table 3 in the Appendices for a summary of the Field Experience hour requirements associated with each practicum course and the related endorsements.

1D. PROGRAM COMPLETERS

Table 4—Program Completers

http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising

Program Completers and Level – Content AreaAcademic Year Number of Endorsement Program Completers

Bac Post BacAlternate

Route Masters

Ed. Specialis

t PhD

2014 to 20 15 11 4

2015 to 20 16 17 5

SECTION 2: ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM KEY ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED DATA

ARTIFACT 1Table 5

Summary Table of Endorsement Program Key AssessmentsREGULAR FOLIOS

Name of Assessmentused for the following areas:

Type or Form of Assessment

Brief Description of Assessment, including indicated information obtained from Assessment

When Assessment is Administered

Specific Items

1Content-Praxis II or GPA

Cumulative GPASummative

Numerical computation of grades based onquality points earned divided by credithours completed

Ongoing—throughout one’s college career. Cumulative GPA is what is reported.

Specific to content area

Praxis II Comparison to a Standard

For elementary students, this test has been

Just before or during clinical practicum (student


used todocument one being highly qualified (minimumscore of 159) for No Child Left Behind.For secondary students, we piloted results for the2014-2015 academic year. Results will be used as a requirement fro teacher certification at all levelsstarting September 1, 2015.

teaching)

CEHS Student Teaching Instrument

Summative This instrument consists of 14 items that is completedby the student teacher supervisor and cooperatingteacher on the basis of one being proficient, basic orunsatisfactory on each item.

At the end of the Clinical Experience

Item 1

Administrator Survey

Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed by

In March/April at the end of the candidate’s first

Standards 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

school administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.

year of teaching

Candidate Teacher Survey

Summative This is a 23-item instrument that is completed byprogram completers at the end of the first year ofteaching. It is administered by the College ofEducation and Human Sciences at UN-L.

In March/April at the end of the candidate’s first year of teaching

Items 1 & 2

2 Content - Knowledge

Cumulative GPA Summative Numerical computation of grades based onquality points earned divided by credithours completed

Ongoing—throughout one’s college career. Cumulative GPA is what is reported.


Praxis II Comparison to a Standard

For elementary students, this test has been used todocument one being highly qualified

Just before or during clinical practicum (student teaching)


(minimumscore of 159) for No Child Left Behind.For secondary students, we piloted results for the2014-2015 academic year. Results will be used as a requirement fro teacher certification at all levelsstarting September 1, 2015.




Item 1


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’s


Standards 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2

first year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.




Item 14

3 Learner/Learning Environments




Items 2 & 3


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool

In March/April at the end of the candidate’s first

Standards 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3,

administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.

year of teaching 3.1, 3.2, 3.3




Items 3 & 4

4 Instructional Practices - Knowledge




Items 2, 3, & 6

Administrator Summative This is a 21-item In March/April at Standards

Survey instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.

the end of the candidate’s first year of teaching

7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3




Items 7, 8, 9, 16, 17 & 20

5 Instructional Practices - Effectiveness


Summative This instrument consists of 14 items that is completedby the student teacher supervisor and cooperatingteacher on the basis of one being proficient, basic or


Items 2, 3, & 5

unsatisfactory on each item.


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.


Standards 6.1, 6.2




Item 10

6 Professional Responsibility


Summative This instrument consists of 14 items that is completedby the student teacher supervisor and cooperating


Items 12 & 14

teacher on the basis of one being proficient, basic orunsatisfactory on each item.


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.


Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 10.1, 10.2




Items 12 & 15

7 Overall Proficiency


Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at


Standard 11.1

the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.




Item 23

8 Optional Assessment

REQUIRED RULE 24 FOLIO APPENDICES

Table 1UN-L Admission Requirements

English 4 units of EnglishAll units must include intensive reading and writing experience

Mathematics 4 units of mathematicsMust include Algebra I, II. Geometry and one additional unit that builds on a knowledge of algebra or geometry.

Natural Science

3 units of natural sciencesIncluding at least 2 units selected from biology, chemistry, physics, and earth sciences. One of the units must include laboratory instruction.

Social Studies

3 units of social studiesAt least one unit of American and/or world history and one additional unit of history, American government and/or geography

Foreign Language

2 units of foreign languageMust include 2 units of the same foreign language. Students who are unable to take two years of foreign language in high school may still qualify for admission. Such students will be required to take two semesters of foreign language at the University of Nebraska. These students are required to complete 16 units of academic courses for admission.

Class Rank or ACT/SAT

For assured admission you must also graduate in the upper half of your class, or have an ACT composite

score of 20 or higher, or an SAT combined score of 950. All freshman applicants under the age of 23 are required to submit an official ACT or SAT score.

Transfer For assured admission, in addition to completion of core course requirements, you must also show a C average (2.0 on a 4.0 scale) for your cumulative grade point average and a C average on your most recent term of college enrollment

Table 2Major Transition Points

Acceptance into University(Prior to Freshman year)

Acceptance into Teacher Education program(Sophomore year)

Acceptance into Student Teaching(Semester before Student Teaching)

Program Completion/Graduation(After Student Teaching)

-- Completion of specific number of high school units.

--Credit hour minimum--Minimum grades in specific courses

-- Admission to TEP-- Credit Hour /overall 2.75 GPA minimum-- 2.5 GPA in content area

-- 120 + credit hours-- successful completion of Student Teaching

-- Appropriate ACT /SAT score

-- PPST-- Faculty recommendations-- Completion of Prof. & Personal Fitness Form-- Criminal History check

courses, no grade below a C--2.5 GPA in Prof. ed – specific grade requirements for methods courses-- Criminal History check

-- Maintain GPA minimum requirements-- Completion of a senior check--Met all financial obligations-- Apply for degree

Table 3Summary Table of Practicum and Clinical Experiences

Course

Cr

Days/Wk

Hrs/Day

Weeks

Total Hrs

ELED

Sec. Ed.

ELED/SPED

ECE Unif

ELED/ECE

TEAC 297A

1 2 3 14 84 84 84 84 84

297B 2 2 7 14 140 140 140 140EDPS 297

1 2 1 14 25

397A 3 2 7 14 196 196 196 196497A 1 5 8 16 640 640 640 640

2297 1 2 1 10 20 20397 3 5 2 12 120 12

0397D 3 2 8 15 240 240497 1

25 8 16 640 64

0497A 6 5 8 40 400 400SPED 397

3 3 4 12 144 120

SPED 496Y

1 2 4 14 56 56

497M 9 5 8 10 400 400CYAF 270L

2 1 4 14 52 52 52

271L 1 1 3 12 36 36 36374L 1 1 3 15 45 45 45497A 9 5 4 16 320 320 320Total -- ----- -------

---------- ------- 106

0780

1340 1473

1513

Instruments Used in Key Assessments:

In order to view the instruments used for the different surveys the provided data for this report, go to the “Instruments” folder at the State Approval website and select each of the following:

Student Teaching Final Evaluation used in Fall 2014–Spring 2015—All Program Completers

Student Teaching Final Evaluation used in Fall 2015–Spring 2016—All Program Completers

NDE First-Year Administrator Survey

First-Year Teacher Survey

SECTION 2: KEY ASSESSMENTS AND FINDINGS—Artifact 2

1. Content KnowledgeBelow are the measures used specifically for addressing the content knowledge or teacher candidates at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Table 1AGrade Point Average in the Content Area and Cumulative GPA

Year Endorsement

Subject Area/Content GPA

Cumulative GPA Total Students

2014-2015

Secondary Education

3.49 3.56 95

Elementary Education

3.43 3.57 125

Special Education

3.82 3.68 59

Early Childhood

3.81 3.70 25

Content area

2015-2016

Secondary Education 3.54250 3.55747 108Elementary Education 3.36632 3.56379 153Special Education 3.80480 3.64881 72Early Childhood Education

3.74777 3.5820340

Content area

Table 1BGrade Point Average in the Content Area and Cumulative GPA

Year Code Subject Area/Content GPA

Cumulative GPA

Total Students

Notes

2014-2015

BECE 3.21 2.79 1 Business & Cooperative Education

BMIT 3.35 3.32 6 Business, Marketing & Information Education

CYEC 3.85 3.74 18 Inclusive Early Childhood EducationCYFC 3.37 3.24 4 Family & Consumer Science Education 6-12ECED 3.57 3.65 6 Elementary Education & Early Childhood

EducationELED 3.43 3.52 83 Elementary Education K-6EMATH

3.25 3.61 13 Mathematics 7-12

ENGL 3.79 3.78 15 EnglishESPAN 3.67 3.58 9 SpanishLART 3.63 3.67 4 Language ArtsNTSC 3.50 3.64 12 Science (Field endorsement)PHSC 3.67 3.78 1 PhysicsSPEN ( 3.44 3.54 1 English and Speech ( old program)SPM7 3.29 3.68 37 Elementary & Special Education K-6SPM8 3.65 3.47 4 Special Education 7-12SSCI 3.40 3.49 27 Social Science Education 7-12

2015-16AEDU 3.45000 3.43140 10 Agriculture EducationCYEC 3.77413 3.62275 24 Inclusive Early Childhood EducationCYFC 3.64486 3.60000 7 Family & Consumer Science, 6-12ECED 3.58122 9 Elementary Education & Early Childhood

EducationELAT 3.80000 3.68300 1 English/language ArtsELED 3.36632 3.54869 103 Elementary EducationENGL 3.66375 3.65475 12 EnglishERSS 3.13100 3.09600 1 Earth and space ScienceMATH 3.25427 3.48267 15 MathMUED 3.57743 3.54290 21 Music EducationNTSC 3.13850 3.40900 4 Science (formerly natural science)(old endorsement)

SCIE 3.38650 3.52800 2 Science (new science endorsement)SENG 4.00000 3.99000 1 Secondary English????SPAN 3.77157 3.61343 7 SpanishSPM7 3.63335 37 Elementary and Special Education, K-6SPM8 3.87173 3.75764 11 Special Education, 7-12SSCI 3.56767 3.59950 12 Social Science

Table 2APraxis II—September 2014—August 2015

Pass Rate Based on Nebraska Cut Score

Praxis II – September 2014 – August 2015Pass Rate Based on Nebraska Cut Score

Endrsmnt

Test #

Cut Score

UN-L N

UN-L # Passing

UN-L # Failing

UN-L %age Pass

UN-L Mean

State N

State %age Pass

StateMean

National N

National %age

National Mean

Curr Sup.

None

Principal 5411 145 1 1 0 100 123

93.5 163.85

2778

83.59 164.95

Supt 6021 152 1 1 0 100 163 26 96.15 167.23

637 96.39 168.15

Unified 5024 160 17 16 1 94.2 174.47

101

77.23 168.15

1917

78.87 167.57

Agric Ed 5701 147 19 18 1 94.74 166.53

20 95 166.65

436 95.64 167.52

BMIT 5101 154 8 8 0 100 174.2 36 100 174.6 184 89.72 170.4

5 4 8 5ELED 5017 153 151 142 9 94.04 170.6

6803

90.78 167.94

4491

91.27 168.74

FACS 5122 153 12 7 5 58.33 158.42

17 58.82 160.00

630 77.46 160.21

ITE None

Math 5161 146 30 26 4 86.67 163.87

101

77.23 158.12

8090

65.7 153.20

Music 5114 152 20 20 0 100 173.90

61 88.52 164.28

1178

85.48 164.50

Science 5435 148 12 12 0 100 176.25

53 94.34 173.00

3091

81.11 163.75

Biology 5235 148 3 3 0 100 160.67

21 80.95 159.62

3910

83.43 162.16

Chemistry

5245 140 1 1 0 100 176.00

7 100 161.57

1582

84.39 159.79

Earth & Space Sc

5571 147 2 2 0 100 162.00

3 67 157 816 84.44 164.48

Physics 5265 131 1 1 0 100 169 6 83.33 147.50

951 80.34 150.34

LA & Sec. English

5039 168 22 18 4 81.82 175.86

109

76.15 173.33

2831

75.27 173.28

Soc. Sci. 5081 154 27 23 4 85.19 168 88 77.27 165.02

6037

79.41 165.57

SPED 5354 151 42 42 0 100 175.40

239

98.33 172.08

5825

95.91 171.85

SPED HH

5272 160 10 10 0 100 173.9 11 100 173.45

125 70.40 163.72

ECSE 5691 159 1 1 0 100 191 1 100 191 761 91.33 173.71

SPED V I 5282 163 1 1 0 100 167 1 100 167 169 73.96 167.24

SLPA 5331 162 13 11 2 84.62 173 35 91.43 174.51

8384

92.20 176.41

French 5174 162 1 1 0 100 168 5 80 175.20

482 69.92 169.59

German 5183 163 1 1 0 100 183 2 100 182 122 70.49 170.50

Latin 5601 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 84.62 175.30

Russian None

Spanish 5195 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 178School Counslr

5421 156 0 0 0 0 0 31 96.76 169.97

3196

90.18 168.57

School Psychlgst

5402 147 7 7 0 100 175.29

23 100 170.83

2633

97.27 169.02

TOTAL 403 373 30 92.56%

Table 2BPraxis II—September 2015—August 2016

Pass Rate Based on Nebraska Cut Score

Endrsmnt

Test #

Cut Score

UN-L N

UN-L # Passing

UN-L # Failing

UN-L %age Pass

UN-L Mean

State N

State %age Pass

StateMean

National N

National %age

National Mean

Curr Sup.

None

Principal 5411 145 21 20 1 95.24 171.33

286

98.25 166.33

3070

94.40 164.17

Supt 6021 152 3 3 0 100.00 171.67

27 100 169.59

658 94.68 168.32

Unified 5024 160 27 26 1 96.30 173.93

110

84.55 167.56

2450

79.63 167.25

Agric Ed 5701 147 5 5 0 100.00 170.00

7 100.00 167.29

398 96.98 168.69

BMIT 5101 154 6 5 1 83.33 172.33

35 97.14 174.31

1821

88.69 169.89

ELED 5017 153 197 190 7 96.45 171.98

849

94.35 168.85

4996

92.77 169.15

FACS 5122 153 20 19 1 95.00 165.65

31 96.77 164.48

1049

80.46 160.84

ITE None

Math 5161 146 25 22 3 88.00 166.32

102

86.27 159.63

7961

66.66 153.77

Music 5114 152 27 26 1 96.30 175.41

92 92.39 167.29

1191

85.14 164.58

Science 5435 148 15 15 0 100.00 175.87

53 98.11 175.34

2848

81.85 164.12

Biology 5235 148 13 12 1 92.31 165.23

31 93.55 164.65

3556

85.18 163.10

Chemistry

5245 140 3 2 1 66.67 159.67

6 83.33 165.33

1545

84.53 158.76

Earth & Space Sc

5571 147 3 2 1 66.67 156 4 75.00 156.00

721 84.60 164.47

Physics 5265 131 2 2 0 100.00 167 9 100.00 165.11

844 81.52 150.77

LA & Sec. English

5039 168 24 23 1 95.83 177.58

130

89.23 176.12

2943

76.79 173.51

Soc. Sci. 5081 154 18 18 0 100.00 170.06

90 90.00 169.38

5599

80.62 165.76

SPED 5354 151 52 52 0 100.00 176.49

316

99.68 173.80

5977

96.29 171.97

SPED HH

5272 160 2 2 0 100.00 176.00

7 100.00 170.14

136 88.97 168.82

ECSE 5691 159 7 7 0 100.00 184.29

8 100.00 182.85

816 93.01 173.88

SPED VI 5282 163 4 3 1 75.00 168.75

4 75.00 168.75

142 71.13 166.97

SLPA 5331 162 4 3 1 75.00 173.25

9 77.78 167.89

9013

93.38 176.21

French 5174 162 1 0 1 0 159.00

4 50.00 168.00

407 67.57 168.57

German 5183 163 2 2 0 100.00 197.5 3 100.00 186.33

116 66.38 171.88

Latin 5601 155 - - - - - 2 100.00 174.5 52 84.62 176.02

Russian None

Spanish 5195 156 9 6 3 66.67 161.89

36 72.22 166 1842

73.13 167.22

School Counselor

5421 156 2 2 0 100.00 177.00

66 96.97 171.39

3327

89.93 168.90

School Psychlgst

5402 147 11 11 0 100.00 178.00

38 100.00 170.66

2586

97.56 169.36

TOTAL 503 478 25 95.03%

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Subject Matter Knowledge for the 2014-2015 Academic Year for Teaching in General (Item 1).

Table 3AItem 1: Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in General

2014-2015Subject Area Scoring

Year

# Item Endorsement Unsatisfactory

Basic Proficient Grand Total

2014-

1 Subject Matter Knowledge for

Math (EMATH) 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 16 100.00%

16

2015

Teaching in general. Demonstrates capacity to make content knowledge accessible to students.

Early Childhood

0 0.0% 4 8.2% 45 91.8% 49


0 0% 0 0% 121

100% 121

Secondary Education

0 0% 9 7.5% 111

92.5% 120

Special Education

0 0% 5 10.2%

44 89.8% 49

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching (Item 3—Table 3B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 3BItem 3: Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in General


Year

# Item Endorsement Unacceptable

Emergent

Sufficient Advanced Grand Total

2015- 2016

3 Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching.

Subject matter Knowledge for Teaching. Make content knowledge accessible for students

Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 15

88.24% 2 11.76% 17

Early Childhood Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 13

38.24% 21 13.00% 34


0 0.00% 3 1.63% 71

38.59% 110

59.78% 184

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 4 4.60% 48

55.17% 35 40.23% 87

Special Education

0 0.00% 2 2.35% 29

34.12% 54 63.53% 85

Responses from First Year Administrator Survey: Preparation of Candidate to Teach Content Area.

Table 4Standards 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 – Content Knowledge

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand

Information Total

4.1 --Theteacher understands thecentral concepts, tools of inquiry, and structuresof the discipline(s) s/he teaches.

2014-2015Mathematics 0 0.00% 1 16.67% 1 16.67% 4 66.67% 6

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 2 3.23% 22 35.48% 38 61.29% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 3 5.08% 17 28.81% 39 66.10% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 1 5.88% 6 35.29% 9 52.94% 17 Total 1 0.67% 7 4.70% 48 32.21% 93 62.42% 149

2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalCoaching, Mathematics

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 1 33.33% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 40.00% 6 60.00% 10

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 0.00% 27 50.94% 25 47.17% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 1 1.45% 25 36.23% 43 62.32% 69

Special Education 0.00% 2 10.00% 10 50.00% 8 40.00% 20 Total 1 0.68% 3 2.04% 65 44.22% 78 53.06% 147

4.2 Theteacher

2014-2015 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalMathematics 0 0.00% 1 16.67% 1 16.67% 4 66.67% 6

creates learningexperiences that make these aspects of thediscipline accessible and meaningful for studentsto assure mastery of content.

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 24 38.71% 34 54.84% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 3 5.08% 24 40.68% 32 54.24% 59Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 4 23.53% 10 58.82% 17 Total 0.00% 11 7.38% 55 36.91% 83 55.70% 149


0 0.00% 1 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 50.00% 5 50.00% 10

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 3 5.66% 25 47.17% 24 45.28% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 3 4.35% 25 36.23% 41 59.42% 69

Special Education 0.00% 1 5.00% 10 50.00% 9 45.00% 20Total

4.3 Theteacher integrates


NebraskaContent Standards and/or professional standardswithin instruction.

Early Childhood

0.00% 7 11.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7

Elementary 0.00% 0.00% 19 30.65% 36 58.06% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 6.25% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 1 14.29% 24 40.68% 32 54.24% 59

Special Education

1 6.25% 12 8.11% 6 37.50% 8 50.00% 16

Total 1 0.68% 1 14.29% 52 35.14% 83 56.08% 148


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 1 33.33% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 20.00% 8 80.00% 10

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.92% 0.00% 20 38.46% 31 59.62% 52Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 2 2.90% 20 28.99% 47 68.12% 69


Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Preparation to Teach Content Knowledge (Item 1) and Prepared to Teach Content Area (Item 2).

Table 5Item 1: Prepared to Teach Content Area

Year # Item Endorsement

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

Grand Total

2014 - 2015

1 I am well prepared to teach in my content area.

Math (EMATH)

0 0.00% 0

0.00% 0 0.00% 9 81.8

2% 2 18.18% 11


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 9 75.0%

2 16.7%

12


0 0% 3 6.1%

3 6.1% 30

61.2%

13

26.5%

49

Secondary Education

0 0% 1 2.0%

1 2.0% 33

67.3%

14

28.6%

49

Special Education

0 0% 2 9.5%

2 9.5% 11

52.4%

6 28.6%

21

2015 - 2016

1 I am well prepared to teach in my content area.

EMATH 0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 5 71.43%

2 28.57%

7


0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 12.50% 2 25.00%

5 62.50%

8


0 0.00%

1 2.00%

2 4.00% 30

60.00%

17 34.00%

50

Secondary Education

0 0.00%

1 1.61%

4 6.45% 44

70.97%

13 20.97%

62

Special Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 15

68.18%

7 31.82%

22



Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand

Total2014 - 2015

2 I am confident in my level of subject matter knowledge.

Math (EMATH)

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 7 63.64%

4 36.36%

11

. Early Childhood Education

0 0% 0 0% 3 25.0% 7 58.3% 2 16.7% 12


0 0% 3 6.1% 4 8.2% 26

53.1% 16

32.7% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 27

55.1% 20

40.8% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 3 14.3% 11

52.4% 7 33.3% 21

2015-2016

2 I am confident in my subject matter knowledge.

EMATH 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 42.86%

4 57.14% 7


0 0.00%

0 0.00% 1 12.50% 4 50.00%

3 37.50% 8


0 0.00%

1 2.00% 3 6.00% 26 52.00%

20 40.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 6 9.68% 31 50.00%

25 40.32% 62

Special Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 14 63.64%

7 31.82% 22

Narrative:Mathematics TEP completers, between 2014 and 2016 are proficient in their subject matter knowledge as shown in Table 1.1, above. Both overall and subject area GPAs are well above program minimum admission requirements (overall GPA of 2.75), and Praxis II scores exceed both the Nebraska minimum and the national average scores. In addition, mathematics TEP completers are consistently rated proficient/advanced or frequently/consistently demonstrate Subject Matter Knowledge (SMK) by their university student teaching supervisors/cooperating teachers and by administrators. Mathematics TEP completers report high confidence in their subject matter knowledge and ability to teach required content.

2. Content AreaSee Tables 1-6 from Content Area #1 above (first 8 tables in that section)

Table 7Responses from First Year Administrator Survey: Application of content

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent

Consistent Grand Information Total5.1 The teacher candidate understands how to connect concepts across disciplines

2014-15Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 33.33% 3 50.00% 6

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 3 42.86% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 6 9.68% 27 43.55% 28 45.16% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 3 75.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 2 2.90% 20 28.99% 47 68.12% 69



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00%

0 0.00% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 5 0.00% 1 10.00% 4 40.00% 10


1 1.45% 9 13.04% 26 37.68% 33 47.83% 69


5.2 The teacher candidate uses differing perspectives to engage students in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 5 71.43% 2 28.57% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 7 11.29% 24 38.71% 30 48.39% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 7 11.67% 21 35.00% 32 53.33% 60Special Education 0.00% 4 23.53% 5 29.41% 8 47.06% 17 Total 1 0.67% 18 12.00% 57 38.00% 74 49.33% 150


0 0.00% 1 0.00% 2 66.67% 0 0.00% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 3 0.00% 3 30.00% 4 40.00% 10


0.00% 9 13.04% 24 34.78% 36 52.17% 69


Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Teaching Subject Matter Materials in Ways Meaningful to Learners (Item 14).


Year # Item Endorsemen

tStrongly Disagree

Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree


Grand

Total2014 - 2015

14

I teach subject matter in ways that are meaningful to learners.

Math (EMATH)

0 0.00%

2 18.18%

1 9.09% 7 63.64%

1 9.09% 11


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 7 58.3% 4 33.3% 12


0 0% 0 0% 3 6.1% 27

55.1% 18

36.7% 48

Secondary Education

0 0% 2 4.1% 5 10.2% 29

59.2% 13

26.5% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 9.5% 10

47.6% 9 42.9% 21

2015-2016

14

I teach subject matter in ways that are meaningful to learners.

EMATH 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 14.29% 6 85.71% 0 0.00% 7


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 50.00% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 12.00% 26 52.00% 18 36.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 11.48% 40 65.57% 14 22.95% 61

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 9.09% 13 59.09% 7 31.82% 22

Narrative:Data from both the first year administrator’s and first year teacher survey indicate that Mathematics TEP are well-prepared to teach in their content area. Mathematics TEP completers agreed or strongly agreed that they “teach the subject matter in ways that are meaningful to learners” (Item 14; Table 8). Administrators report either frequently or consistently observing TEP completers understanding “how to connect concepts across disciplines” (Item 5.1; Table 7) and using “differing perspectives to engage students in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues” (Item 5.2; Table 7).

3. Learner/Learning Environments

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2014-2015 Academic Year (Item 2—Table 9A).

Table 9AItem 2: Subject Planning for Learning


Year # Item Endorsement Unsatisfactory


2014- 2015

2 Demonstrates capacity to create useable lesson and unit plans that are based upon knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals

Math (EMATH) 0 0.00% 1 6.25% 15 93.75% 16


1 2.1% 6 12.5% 41 85.4% 48


0 0% 5 4.0% 120

96.0% 54

Secondary Education

0 0% 21 17.5% 99 82.5% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 7 14.0% 42 84.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 4—Table 9B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 9BItem 4: Planning for Learning


Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

4 Planning for learning:Creates usable lessons and unit plans based on knowledge of

Mathematics 0 0.00% 1 5.56% 13

72.22% 4 22.22% 18

the discipline, students, and curricular goals


0 0.00% 1 2.94% 8 23.53% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 53

28.65% 130 70.27% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 2.27% 47

53.41% 39 44.32% 88

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 24

27.91% 62 72.09% 86

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Instructional Enactment (Item 3—Table 10A).

Table 10AItem 3: Instructional Enactment



Unsatisfactory


2014- 201

3 Demonstrates Capacity to implement,

Math (EMATH)

0 0.00% 2 12.50% 14 87.50% 16

5 modify, and adapt plans that are responsive to students and curricular goals


0 0% 5 10.2% 44 89.8% 49


0 0% 8 6.4% 117

93.6% 125

Secondary Education

1 0.8% 12 10.0% 107

89.2% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 5 10.0% 44 88.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Responsive Teaching (Item 5—Table 10B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 10BItem 5: Responsive Teaching


Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

5 Responsive Teaching:Skillfully implements lessons that are flexible and intentional to meet individual student needs

Mathematics 0 0.00% 3 16.67%

13

72.22% 2 11.11% 18


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 26.47% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 58

31.35% 125 67.57% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 6 6.90% 38

43.68% 43 49.43% 87

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 24

27.91% 61 70.93% 86

Responses from First Year Administrator Survey: Items Related to Student Development, Learning Differences, and Learning Environments: Student Development (Standards 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3); Learning Differences (Standards 2.1 and 2.2); Learning Environments (Standards 3.1 and 3.2).

Table 11Standards 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3: Student Development

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total

1.1 The teacher understands

2014-2015Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 33.33% 4 66.67% 6

Early 0.00% 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7

how students grow and develop.

ChildhoodElementary 0.00% 3 4.84% 26 41.94% 33 53.23% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 2 3.33% 26 43.33% 32 53.33% 60Special Education 0.00% 2 11.76% 3 17.65% 12 70.59% 17 Total 0.00% 7 4.67% 60 40.00% 83 55.33% 150


0 0.00% 1 0.00% 2 66.67% 0 0.00% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 60.00% 4 40.00% 10


0.00% 2 2.90% 32 46.38% 35 50.72% 69


1.2 The teacher recognizes that patterns of learning


Early Childhood

0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7

and development vary individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical areas.

Elementary 0.00% 3 4.84% 26 41.94% 33 53.23% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 3 5.00% 25 41.67% 32 53.33% 60Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 2 11.76% 12 70.59% 17 Total 0.00% 10 6.67% 57 38.00% 83 55.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 0 0.00% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 2 0.00% 5 50.00% 3 30.00% 10


1 1.45% 3 4.35% 31 44.93% 34 49.28% 69


1.3 The teacher implements developmentally appropriate and challenging


Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 21 33.87% 37 59.68% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4

learning experiences.

Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 5 8.47% 22 37.29% 32 54.24% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 6 35.29% 8 47.06% 17 Total 1 0.67% 12 8.05% 53 35.57% 83 55.70% 149


0 0.00% 1 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 2 0.00% 4 40.00% 4 40.00% 10


0.00% 5 7.25% 25 36.23% 39 56.52% 69


Table 12Standards 2.1 and 2.2: Learning Differences

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total2.1 The teacher understands individual differences and diverse cultures and communities

2014-2015Mathematics 0 0.00% 1 16.67% 0 0.00% 5 83.33% 6

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 27 43.55% 4 50.00% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 6 10.17% 18 30.51% 6 59.32% 59Special Education 0.00% 0.00% 6 35.29% 64.71% 17 Total 0.00% 10 6.71% 57 38.26% 10 55.03% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 0 0.00% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 3 0.00% 4 40.00% 3 30.00% 10

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 5 9.43% 14 26.42% 33 62.26% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1

Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 7 10.14% 25 36.23% 37 53.62% 69


2.2 The teacher ensures inclusive learning environments that enable each student to meet high demands


Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 1 14.29% 5 71.43% 7Elementary 0.00% 3 4.84% 23 37.10% 36 58.06% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 3 5.08% 24 40.68% 32 54.24% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 4 23.53% 10 58.82% 17 Total 1 0.67% 10 6.71% 52 34.90% 86 57.72% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 1 33.33% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 1 0.00% 4 40.00% 5 50.00% 10


0.00% 5 7.25% 26 37.68% 38 55.07% 69


Table 13Standards 3.1 and 3.2: Learning Environments

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total3.1 The teacher works with others to create environments that support individual and collaborative learning.

2014-2015Mathematics 0 0.00% 1 16.67% 0 0.00% 5 83.33% 6

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 1 14.29% 5 71.43% 7Elementary 0.00% 2 3.28% 21 34.43% 38 62.30% 61Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 5 8.62% 15 25.86% 38 65.52% 58Special Education 0.00% 2 11.76% 3 17.65% 12 70.59% 17 Total 0.00% 11 7.48% 41 27.89% 95 64.63% 147


0 0.00% 1 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 1 0.00% 4 40.00% 5 50.00% 10


0.00% 6 8.82% 21 30.88% 41 60.29% 68


3.2 The teacher creates environments that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.


Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 2 3.23% 20 32.26% 39 62.90% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 3 5.17% 16 27.59% 39 67.24% 58Special Education 0.00% 1 5.88% 5 29.41% 11 64.71% 17 Total 1 0.68% 7 4.73% 45 30.41% 95 64.19% 148


0 0.00% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 2 0.00% 4 40.00% 4 40.00% 10

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 0.00% 4

Elementary 1 1.89% 6 11.32% 14 26.42% 32 60.38% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 8 11.76% 19 27.94% 41 60.29% 68


3.3 The teacher manages student behavior to promote a positive learning environment.


Early Childhood 0 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0 0.00% 3 4.84% 22 35.48% 37 59.68% 62Middle Grades 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0 0.00% 7 12.07% 23 39.66% 28 48.28% 58Special Education 0 0.00% 2 11.76% 5 29.41% 10 58.82% 17Total 0 0.00% 13 8.78% 54 36.49% 81 54.73% 148


0 0.00% 1 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 4 0.00% 3 30.00% 3 30.00% 10

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 0.00% 4Elementary 2 3.77% 8 15.09% 20 37.74% 23 43.40% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1

Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 13 19.12% 25 36.76% 30 44.12% 68


Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Student Learning: Understands How Learners Learn (Item 3), and Adapts to Developmental Strategies of Learners (Item 4).

Table 14Item 3: Understands How Learners Learn


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

3 I positively impact the learning and development of all students.

Math (EMATH)

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 9.09% 5 45.45% 5 45.45% 11


0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 7 58.3% 5 41.7% 12


0 0% 1 2.0% 0 0% 22

44.9% 26

53.1% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 3 6.1% 26

53.1% 19

38.8% 48

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 10

47.6% 11

52.4% 21

2015-2016

3 I positively impact the learning and development of all students.

EMATH 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 5 71.43% 2 28.57% 7


0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 2 25.00% 6 75.00% 8


0 0.00% 0 0.00%

5 10.00% 21 42.00% 24 48.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

10 16.13% 33 53.23% 19 30.65% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

1 4.55% 11 50.00% 10 45.45% 22

Table 15Item 4: Adapts to Developmental Strategies of Learners

Year # Item Endorsement Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

4 I adapt to different developmental stages of learners.

Math (EMATH)

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 9.09% 8 72.73%

2 18.18%

11


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 8 66.7%

3 25.0%

12


0 0% 0 0% 4 8.2% 22

44.9%

23

46.9%

49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 9 18.4% 29

59.2%

11

22.4%

49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 9.5% 10

47.6%

9 42.9%

21

2015-

4 I adapt to different

EMATH 0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 6 85.71%

1 14.29%

7

2016

developmental stages of learners


0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 3 37.50%

5 62.50%

8


0 0.00%

0 0.00%

8 16.00% 20

40.00%

22 44.00%

50

Secondary Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

17

27.87% 31

50.82%

13 21.31%

61

Special Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 4.55% 10

45.45%

11 50.00%

22

Narrative:Based on evidence from observations during student teaching, first year teacher survey responses, and administrator surveys, UNL Mathematics TEPs were well prepared in lesson planning (Tables 9A–10B); were confident in their abilities to recognize and understand how students grown and develop including cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical development (Table 11); recognized individual differences and diversity, with knowing how to use individual differences and differences in culture being

an area of growth (Table 12); and were able to create environments that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation, thereby having a positive impact on the learning and development of all students (Tables 13-14).

4. Instructional Practices–Candidate Knowledge and SkillsResponse from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Planning for Learning, Instructional Enactment (Item 2—Table 16A)

Table 16AItem 2: Subject Planning for Learning




2014- 2015

2 Demonstrates capacity to create useable lesson and unit plans that are based upon knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals

Math (EMATH) 0 0.00% 1 6.25% 15 93.75% 16


1 2.1% 6 12.5% 41 85.4% 48


0 0% 5 4.0% 120

96.0% 125

Secondary Education

0 0% 21 17.5% 99 82.5% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 7 14.0% 42 84.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-2016 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 4—Table 16B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 16BItem 4: Planning for Learning


Year


Emergent


2015- 201

4 Planning for learning:Creates usable

Mathematics 0 0.00% 1 5.56% 13

72.22% 4 22.22% 18

6 lessons and unit plans based on knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals


0 0.00% 1 2.94% 8 23.53% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 53

28.65% 130 70.27% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 2.27% 47

53.41% 39 44.32% 88

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 24

27.91% 62 72.09% 86

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on the Learning Environment (Item 3)





2014- 2015

3 Demonstrates Capacity to implement, modify, and adapt plans that are responsive to students and curricular goals

Math (EMATH) 0 0.00% 2 12.50% 14 87.50% 16


0 0% 5 10.2% 44 89.8% 49


0 0% 8 6.4% 117

93.6% 125

Secondary Education

1 0.8% 12 10.0% 107

89.2% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 5 10.0% 44 88.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Responsive Teaching (Item 5—Table 17B)—LIVETEXT version.



Year


Emergent


2015- 201

5 Responsive Teaching:

Mathematics 0 0.00% 3 16.67%

13

72.22% 2 11.11% 18

6 Skillfully implements lessons that are flexible and intentional to meet individual student needs


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 26.47% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 58

31.35% 125 67.57% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 6 6.90% 38

43.68% 43 49.43% 87

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 24

27.91% 61 70.93% 86

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on the Learning Environment (Item 6—Table 18A).

Table 18AItem 6: Learning Environment




2014- 2015

6 Learning Environment. Demonstrates capacity to create classroom communities that invite students’ engagement and learning, encourages positive

Math (EMATH) 0 0.00% 1 6.25% 15 93.75% 16

social interaction and self-motivation.


0 0% 1 2.0% 48 98.0% 49


0 0% 9 7.2% 116

92.8% 125

Secondary Education

0 0.0% 12 10.0% 108

90.0% 120

Special Education

0 0% 5 10.0% 45 90.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Learning Culture (Item 10—Table 18B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 18B—Item 10: Learning Culture


Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

10

Learning Culture:Creates classroom communities that invite student engagement and learning and encourage positive social interactions.

Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

11

61.11% 7 38.89% 18


0 0.00% 1 2.94%

11

32.35% 22 64.71% 34


0 0.00% 1 0.55%

51

28.18% 129 71.27% 181

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

39

45.35% 47 54.65% 86

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.20%

19

22.89% 63 75.90% 83

Responses from First Year Administrator Survey: Items Related to Planning for Instruction (Standards 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3) and Instructional Strategies (Standards 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3)

Table 19Standards 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3: Planning for Instruction

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total7.1 The teacher

2014-2015Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 16.67% 5 83.33% 6

plans instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals.

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 5 8.06% 24 38.71% 33 53.23% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 4 6.78% 22 37.29% 33 55.93% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 4 23.53% 6 35.29% 6 35.29% 17 Total 1 0.67% 14 9.40% 55 36.91% 79 53.02% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 1 33.33% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 1 0.00% 5 50.00% 4 40.00% 10


0.00% 5 7.25% 33 47.83% 31 44.93% 69


7.2 The teacher candidate draws


Early 0.00% 1 14.29% 3 42.86% 3 42.86% 7

upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, technology, and pedagogy.

ChildhoodElementary 0.00% 5 8.06% 23 37.10% 34 54.84% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 4 6.78% 23 38.98% 32 54.24% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 3 17.65% 4 23.53% 9 52.94% 17 Total 1 0.67% 14 9.40% 54 36.24% 80 53.69% 149


0 0.00% 1 0.00% 2 66.67% 0 0.00% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 1 0.00% 4 40.00% 5 50.00% 10


0.00% 6 8.70% 29 42.03% 34 49.28%


7.3 The teacher draws upon knowledge of


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 23 37.10% 35 56.45% 62

students and the community context.

Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.69% 4 6.78% 24 40.68% 30 50.85% 59Special Education 1 5.88% 4 23.53% 3 17.65% 9 52.94% 17 Total 2 1.34% 13 8.72% 55 36.91% 79 53.02% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 0 0.00% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 2 0.00% 5 50.00% 3 30.00% 10


0.00% 8 11.59% 26 37.68% 35 50.72% 69


Table 20Standard 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3: Instructional Strategies

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total8.1 The teacher understands a variety of instructional strategies.

2014-2015Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 16.67% 5 83.33% 6

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 7 11.29% 18 29.03% 37 59.68% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 6 10.00% 19 31.67% 35 58.33% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total

1 0.67%16 10.67% 45 30.00% 88 58.67% 150


0 0.00% 1 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 60.00% 4 40.00% 10

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4


0.00% 5 7.35% 27 39.71% 36 52.94% 68


8.2 The teacher uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students to develop deep understanding of content areas and their connection and to build skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.


Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 7 11.29% 24 38.71% 31 50.00% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 7 11.67% 23 38.33% 30 50.00% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total

1 0.67%18 12.00% 54 36.00% 77 51.33% 150


0 0.00% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 1 0.00% 6 60.00% 3 30.00% 10

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.92% 3 5.77% 21 40.38% 27 51.92% 52

Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 8 11.76% 25 36.76% 35 51.47% 68

Special Education 0.00% 1 5.00% 9 45.00% 10 50.00% 20 Total 1 0.69% 1

28.28% 58 40.00% 74 51.03% 145

8.3 The teacher utilizes available technology for instruction and assessment.


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 5 71.43% 2 28.57% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 23 37.10% 35 56.45% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 1 25.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.67% 4 6.67% 17 28.33% 38 63.33% 60Special Education 0.00% 4 23.53% 6 35.29% 7 41.18% 17 Total

1 0.67%12 8.00% 54 36.00% 83 55.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 2 66.67% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 4 0.00% 4 40.00% 2 20.00% 10

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.92% 4 7.69% 19 36.54% 28 53.85% 52

Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 8 11.94% 24 35.82% 35 52.24% 67


49.72% 54 37.50% 75 52.08% 144

Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Creating Effective Instructional Plans (Item 7), Working Effectively as Part of an Instructional Planning Team (Item 8), Classroom Management (Item 9), Instruction Requires Problem Solving or Critical Thinking Skills (Item 16), Instruction is Adapted to the Needs of Learners with Special Needs (Item 17), and Use of Multiple Methods to Teach ( (Item 20).

Table 21Item 7: Create Effective Instructional Plans


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

7 I create effective instructional plans.

Math (EMATH)

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

1 9.09% 7 63.64%

3 27.27%

11


0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 66.7% 4 33.3% 12


0 0% 0 0% 3 6.1% 26

53.1% 20

40.8% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 1 2.1% 4 8.3% 27

56.3% 16

33.3% 48

Special Education

0 0% 1 4.8% 1 4.8% 13

61.9% 6 28.6% 21

2015-2016

7 I create effective new lesson plans

EMATH 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 1 14.29% 7


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 3 37.50% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 7 14.00% 28 56.00% 14 28.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.61% 2 3.23% 6 9.68% 37 59.68% 16 25.81% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 2 9.09% 3 13.64% 12 54.55% 5 22.73% 22

Table 22Item 8: Work Effectively as a Part of an Instructional Team


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand

Total2014 - 2015

8 I work effectively as part of an instructional planning team.

Math (EMATH)

0 0.00%

1 9.09%

1 9.09% 8 72.73%

1 9.09% 11


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 4 33.3% 7 58.3% 12


0 0% 2 4.1% 3 6.1% 20

40.8% 24

49.0% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 1 2.0% 10

20.4% 23

46.9% 15

30.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 1 4.8% 1 4.8% 9 42.9% 10

47.6% 21

2015-2016

8 I work effectively as part of an instructional team

EMATH 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 28.57% 4 57.14% 1 14.29% 7


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 2 25.00% 5 62.50% 8


0 0.00% 3 6.00% 2 4.00% 23 46.00% 22 44.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 1 1.61% 9 14.52% 27 43.55% 25 40.32% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 4 18.18% 9 40.91% 8 36.36% 22

Table 23Item 9: Manages Classroom Management


Strongly Disagre

e



Grand

Total201 9 I apply Math 1 9.09 1 9.09% 2 18.18 5 45.45 2 18.18 11

4 - 2015

effective methods to manage the classroom environment.

(EMATH) % % % %


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 6 50.0% 5 41.7% 12


0 0% 1 2.0% 4 8.2% 21

42.9% 23

46.9% 49

Secondary Education

1 2.0% 3 6.1% 11

22.4% 20

40.8% 14

28.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 1 4.8% 7 33.3% 13

61.9% 21

2015-

9 I apply effective

EMATH 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 28.57% 4 57.14%

1 14.29% 7

2016

methods to manage the classroom environment


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 3 37.50%

4 50.00% 8


1 2.00% 1 2.00% 8 16.00% 21 42.00%

19 38.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.61% 8 12.90%

15 24.19% 28 45.16%

10 16.13% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 3 13.64% 8 36.36%

10 45.45% 22

Table 24Item 16: Instruction Requires Student Problem Solving and/or Critical Thinking Skills

Year # Item Endorsemen Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Gran

t Disagree Agree nor Disagree

Agree d Total

2014 - 2015

16

My instruction requires student problem solving and/or critical thinking skills.

Math (EMATH)

0 0.00%

2 18.18%

2 18.18% 5 45.45%

2 18.18%

11


0 0% 0 0% 2 16.7% 6 50.0% 4 33.3% 12


0 0% 0 0% 6 12.2% 27

55.1% 16

32.7% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 3 6.1% 8 16.3% 23

46.9% 15

30.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 4 19.0% 11

52.4% 6 28.6% 21

2015-2016

16

My instruction requires student problem solving and/or critical thinking skills

EMATH 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 62.50% 3 37.50% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 5 10.00% 30 60.00% 14 28.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.61% 1 1.61% 8 12.90% 31 50.00% 21 33.87% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 9.09% 14 63.64% 6 27.27% 22

Table 25Item 17: Adapt Instruction to Meet Needs of Learners With Special Needs


Strongly Disagree



Grand

Total2014 - 2015

17

I adapt my instruction to the needs of learners with special needs.

Math (EMATH)

0 0.00%

1 9.09% 1 9.09% 6 54.55%

3 27.27%

11


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 6 50.0% 5 41.7% 12


0 0% 1 2.0% 6 12.2% 22

44.9% 20

40.8% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 2 4.1% 3 6.1% 26

53.1% 18

36.7% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 38.1% 13

61.9% 21

2015-2016

17

I adapt my instruction to the needs of learners with special needs.

EMATH 0 0.00% 1 14.29% 2 28.57% 3 42.86%

1 14.29% 7


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 3 37.50%

4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 16.00% 23 46.00%

19 38.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 1 1.61% 9 14.52% 39 62.90%

13 20.97% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 1 4.55% 9 40.91%

11 50.00% 22

Table 26Item 20: Use Multiple Methods to Teach


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

20

I use multiple methods to teach.

Math (EMATH)

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 6 54.55%

5 45.45%

11


0 0% 0 0% 3 25.0% 2 16.7% 7 58.3% 12


0 0% 0 0% 6 12.2% 21

42.9% 22

44.9% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 27

55.1% 2 40.8% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 4 19.0% 11

52.4% 6 28.6% 21

2015-2016

20

I use multiple methods to teach

EMATH 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 71.43% 2 28.57% 7


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 37.50% 5 62.50% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 4 8.00% 25 50.00% 20 40.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 1 1.61% 4 6.45% 36 58.06% 21 33.87% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 4.55% 1 4.55% 9 40.91% 11 50.00% 22

Narrative:Based on evidence from observations during student teaching, first year teacher survey responses, and administrator surveys (Tables 16A-19), UNL Mathematics TEPs were well prepared in creating useable and engaging lesson and unit plans based upon knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals and were somewhat able to adapt these plans to meet curricular goals and needs of students (Tables 17B). There were also some Mathematics TEP completers who neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement “I create effective instructional plans” (Table 21). In addition, most UNL Mathematics TEPs frequently or consistently demonstrated an understanding of a variety of instructional strategies and used this variety to encourage students’ development of deep understanding of mathematics (Tables 20-21, 26). Both administrator and first year teacher results (Table 23-25) indicate areas of needed growth include the use of technology, classroom management, engaging students in problem solving, and adapting to the needs of students with special needs.

5. Instructional Practices—Assessment That Demonstrates Effects or Impact on P-12 Student Learning

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 2—Table 27A).

Table 27AItem 5: Planning for Learning




2014- 2015

2 Demonstrates capacity to create useable lesson and unit plans that are based upon knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular

Math (EMATH) 0 0.00% 1 6.25% 15 93.75% 16

goals


1 2.1% 6 12.5% 41 85.4% 48


0 0% 5 4.0% 120

96.0% 54

Secondary Education

0 0% 21 17.5% 99 82.5% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 7 14.0% 42 84.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-2016 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 4—Table 27B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 27B Item 4: Planning for Learning


Yea # Item Endorsement Unaccepta Emergen Sufficient Advanced Gran

r ble t d Total

2015- 2016

4 Planning for learning:Creates usable lessons and unit plans based on knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals

Mathematics 0 0.00% 1 5.56% 13

72.22% 4 22.22% 18


0 0.00% 1 2.94% 8 23.53% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 53

28.65% 130 70.27% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 2.27% 47

53.41% 39 44.32% 88

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 24

27.91% 62 72.09% 86

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Instructional Enactment (Item 3—Table 28A).





2014- 2015

3 Demonstrates Capacity to implement, modify, and adapt plans that are responsive to students and curricular goals

Math (EMATH) 0 0.00% 2 12.50% 14 87.50% 16


0 0% 5 10.2% 44 89.8% 49


0 0% 8 6.4% 117

93.6% 125

Secondary Education

1 0.8% 12 10.0% 107

89.2% 120

Special Education

1 2.0% 5 10.0% 44 88.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-2016 Academic Year on Responsive Teaching (Item 5—Table 28B)—LIVETEXT version.



Year


Emergent

Sufficient Advanced Grand

Total2015- 2016

5 Responsive Teaching:

Skillfully implements lessons that are flexible and intentional to meet individual student needs

Mathematics 0 0.00% 3 16.67%

13

72.22% 2 11.11% 18


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 26.47% 25 73.53% 34


0 0.00% 2 1.08% 58

31.35% 125 67.57% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 6 6.90% 38

43.68% 43 49.43% 87

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 24

27.91% 61 70.93% 86

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Classroom Interaction with Students (Item 5—Table 29A).

Table 29AItem 5: Classroom Interaction With Students




2014- 2015

5 Demonstrate a capacity to interact with learners in supportive and constructive ways

Math (EMATH) 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 16 100.00%

16


0 0% 1 2.0% 48 98.0% 49


0 0% 2 1.6% 123

98.4% 125

Secondary Education

0 0% 8 6.7% 112

93.3% 120

Special Education

0 0% 1 2.0% 49 98.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2015-2016 Academic Year on Relationships with Students (Item 7—Table 29B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 29BItem 7: Relationships With Students


Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

7 Relationships with Students:Develops and Maintains rapport with individual and groups of students

Mathematics 0 0.00% 2 11.11%

11

61.11% 5 27.78% 18


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 11.76% 30 88.24% 34


0 0.00% 1 0.54% 27

14.59% 157 84.86% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 4 4.55% 25

28.41% 59 67.05% 88

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 8 9.30% 77 89.53% 86

Responses from First Year Administrator Survey on Assessment (Items 6.1 and 6.2)

Table 30Standard 6.1 and 6.2: Assessment

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total6.1 The teacher understands multiple methods of assessment

2014-2015Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 33.33% 4 66.67% 6

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 5 8.06% 26 41.94% 31 50.00% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.67% 8 13.33% 24 40.00% 27 45.00% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total 2 1.33% 16 10.67% 59 39.33% 73 48.67% 150


0 0.00% 1 0.00% 2 66.67% 0 0.00% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 70.00% 3 30.00% 10


0.00% 7 10.29% 29 42.65% 32 47.06% 68


6.2 The teacher uses multiple methods of assessment to engage students in their own growth, to monitor student progress, and to guide the teacher candidate’


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 27 43.55% 31 50.00% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.67% 8 13.33% 30 50.00% 21 35.00% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 3 17.65% 5 29.41% 8 47.06% 17 Total 2 1.33% 16 10.67% 67 44.67% 65 43.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 1 33.33% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 1 0.00% 4 40.00% 5 50.00% 10

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 0.00% 4

s and student’s decision making.


0.00% 8 11.76% 24 35.29% 36 52.94% 68


Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Assessment: Create Effective Assessments to Measure Learning (Item 10).

Table 31 Standard 10: Creates Effective Assessments to Measure Learning


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand

Total2014 - 2015

10

I create effective assessments to measure learning.

Math (EMATH)

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 9.09% 8 72.73%

2 18.18%

11


1 8.3% 2 16.7%

2 16.7% 5 41.7% 2 16.7% 12


0 0% 3 6.1% 4 8.2% 33

67.3% 9 18.4% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 1 2.0% 8 16.3% 33

67.3% 7 14.3% 49

Special Education

0 0% 4 19.0%

2 9.5% 11

52.4% 4 19.0% 21

2015-2016

10

I create effective assessments to measure learning

EMATH 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

1 14.29% 5 71.43% 1 14.29% 7


0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 4 50.00% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 2 4.08%

5 10.20% 29

59.18% 13 26.53% 49

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 3.23%

10 16.13% 37

59.68% 13 20.97% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

2 9.09% 15

68.18% 5 22.73% 22

Narrative:Based on evidence from observations during student teaching, first year teacher survey responses, and administrator surveys (Tables 27A–28B), UNL Mathematics TEPs consistently plan for and enact instructional practices consistent with the discipline, students, and curricular goals, and to some extent can skillfully enact lessons that are flexible in meeting the individual needs of students (Table 28B). Most Mathematics TEP completers were able to use multiple methods to engage students and develop rapport (Tables 29A, B) and all were able to use and felt confident in developing multiple methods of assessment (Tables 30-31).

6. Professional Responsibility

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Collaborative Relationships (Item 12—Table 32A).

Table 32AItem 12: Collaborative Relationships and Professional Conduct




2014- 2015

12

Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct. Demonstrates a capacity to work with other practitioners to improve teaching for

Math (EMATH) 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 16 100.00% 16

the benefit of students’ learning.


0 0% 2 4.1% 47 95.9% 49


0 0% 8 6.4% 117

93.6% 125

Secondary Education

0 0% 13 10.8% 107

89.2% 120

Special Education

0 0% 5 10.0% 45 90.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-2016 Academic Year on Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct (Item 13—Table 32B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 32BItem 13: Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct


Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

13

Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct:Uses effective communication and consultation techniques with other professionals and families for the benefit of student learning

Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 17

100.00%

0 0.00% 17


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 13

38.24% 21 61.76% 34


0 0.00% 1 0.54% 66

35.68% 118 63.78% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 2 2.30% 56

64.37% 29 33.33% 87

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 28

32.56% 57 66.28% 86

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation Relationships for the 2014-2015 Academic Year on Reflection and Professional Growth (Item 14—Table 33A).

Table 33AItem 14: Reflection and Professional Growth




2014- 2015

14

Reflection and Professional Growth. Demonstrates capacity to continually evaluate how choices and actions affect students and others in the learning community and actively seeks opportunities to grow professionally.

Math (EMATH) 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 16 100.00%

16


0 0% 3 6.1% 46 93.9% 49


0 0% 9 7.2% 116

92.8% 125

Secondary Education

0 0% 9 7.5% 111

92.5% 120

Special Education

0 0% 5 10.0% 45 90.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-2016 Academic Year —Reflective Practices and Professional Growth (Item 14—Table 33B)—LIVETEXT version.

Table 33BItem 14: Reflective Practices and Professional Growth


Year


Emergent


2015- 2016

14

Reflective Practices and Professional Growth:Continually evaluates how choices and actions affects students and

Mathematics 0 0.00% 2 11.76%

14

82.35% 1 5.88% 17

others in the learning community, makes necessary adjustments and actively seeks opportunities to grow professionally


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 16

47.06% 18 52.94% 34


1 0.54% 1 0.54% 66

35.68% 117 63.24% 185

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 5 6.25% 47

58.75% 28 35.00% 80

Special Education

1 1.16% 0 0.00% 31

36.05% 54 62.79% 86

Responses from First Year Administrator Survey: Items Related to Professional Learning and Ethical Practice (Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4) and Leadership and Collaboration (Standards 10.1 and 10.2)

Table 34Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Information Total9.1 The teacher engages in

2014-2015Mathematics 0 0.00% 1 16.67% 0 0.00% 5 83.33% 6

ongoing professional learning.

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 9 14.52% 12 19.35% 41 66.13% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 0.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 2 3.33% 18 30.00% 40 66.67% 60Special Education 1 5.88% 2 11.76% 3 17.65% 11 64.71% 17 Total

1 0.67%14 9.33% 36 24.00% 99 66.00% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 2 66.67% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 50.00% 5 50.00% 10


0.00% 2 2.90% 25 36.23% 42 60.87% 69


06.80% 44 29.93% 92 62.59% 147

9.2 The teacher models


ethical professional practice.

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 2 28.57% 5 71.43% 7Elementary 0.00% 4 6.45% 10 16.13% 48 77.42% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 2 3.33% 14 23.33% 44 73.33% 60Special Education 0.00% 1 5.88% 4 23.53% 12 70.59% 17 Total

0.00% 7 4.67% 31 20.67%112 74.67% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 10.00% 9 90.00% 10

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 0.00% 14 26.42% 38 71.70% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Special Education 0.00% 1 5.00% 5 25.00% 14 70.00% 20Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 1 1.45% 8 11.59% 60 86.96% 69

Total 1 0.68% 2 1.36% 28 19.05% 116

78.91% 147

9.3 The teacher uses evidence to


continually evaluate his/her practice, particularly the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students, families, other professionals, and the community), and adapts practice to meet the needs of each student.

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 1 1.61% 0.00% 28 45.16% 33 53.23% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 25.00% 1 25.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 1 1.67% 26 43.33% 33 55.00% 60Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 4 23.53% 10 58.82% 17 Total 1 0.67% 5 3.33% 62 41.33% 82 54.67% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 1 33.33% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 1 0.00% 4 40.00% 5 50.00% 10

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 3 5.66% 19 35.85% 30 56.60% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 4 5.80% 27 39.13% 38 55.07% 69


9.4 The teacher models professional dispositions


Early Childhood

0.00% 0.00% 2 28.57% 5 71.43% 7

for teaching. Elementary 1 1.61% 2 3.23% 15 24.19% 44 70.97% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 4 6.78% 15 25.42% 40 67.80% 59Special Education 0.00% 2 11.76% 4 23.53% 11 64.71% 17 Total

1 0.67% 8 5.37% 38 25.50%102 68.46% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 100.00% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 30.00% 7 70.00% 10

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4 0.00% 4Elementary 1 1.89% 2 3.77% 18 33.96% 32 60.38% 53Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 1 100.00% 0.00% 1Content (Subject Area) Endorsements

0.00% 1 1.45% 14 20.29% 54 78.26% 69

Special Education 0.00% 1 5.00% 7 35.00% 12 60.00% 20 Total 1 0.68% 4 2.72% 40 27.21% 10

269.39% 147

Table 35Standards 10.1 and 10.2: Leadership and Collaboration

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand

Information Total

10.1 The teacher seeks opportunities to take responsibility for student learning.

Mathematics 0 0.00% 1 16.67% 0 0.00% 5 83.33% 6

Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 7Elementary 0.00% 5 8.06% 19 30.65% 38 61.29% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 1 33.33% 0.00% 2 66.67% 3Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 4 6.78% 17 28.81% 38 64.41% 59Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total 0.00% 13 8.78% 44 29.73% 91 61.49% 148


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 66.67% 1 33.33% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 60.00% 4 40.00% 10


0.00% 1 1.45% 25 36.23% 43 62.32% 69


10.2 The teacher seeks opportunities, including appropriate technology, to collaborate with students, families, colleagues, and other school professionals, and community members to ensure student growth


Early Childhood 0.00% 0.00% 4 57.14% 3 42.86% 7Elementary 0.00% 3 4.92% 25 40.98% 33 54.10% 61Middle Grades 0.00% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 3Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 1 1.72% 2 3.45% 23 39.66% 32 55.17% 58Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17 Total 1 0.68% 9 6.16% 58 39.73% 78 53.42% 146


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 2 66.67% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 3 0.00% 3 30.00% 4 40.00% 10


0.00% 4 5.80% 22 31.88% 43 62.32% 69


Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Professional Responsibility: Works Effectively With Parents (Item 12) and Takes Advantage of Opportunities to Grow Professionally (Item 15).

Table 36Item 12: Works Effectively with Parents


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

12

I work effectively with parents

Math (EMATH)

1 9.09% 1 9.09%

3 27.27% 3 27.27%

3 27.27%

11


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 8 66.7% 3 25.0% 12


0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 24

49.0% 23

46.9% 49

Secondary Education

1 2.0% 3 6.1% 9 18.4% 15

30.6% 21

42.6% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 11

52.4% 10

47.6% 21

2015-2016

12

I work effectively with parents

EMATH 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 57.14% 2 28.57% 1 14.29% 7


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 50.00% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 2 4.00% 6 12.00% 30 60.00% 12 24.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.64% 2 3.28% 15 24.59% 33 54.10% 10 16.39% 61

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 9.09% 15 68.18% 5 22.73% 22

Table 37Item 15: Takes Advantage of Opportunities to Grow Professionally


Strongly Disagree

Disagree



Grand

Total2014 - 2015

15

I take advantage of opportunities to grow professionally.

Math (EMATH)

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 9.09% 5 45.45%

5 45.45%

11


0 0% 0 0% 1 8.3% 5 41.7% 6 50.0% 12


0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 21

42.9% 26

53.1% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 4.1% 21

42.9% 26

53.1% 49

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 9.5% 8 38.1% 11

52.4% 21

2015-2016

15

I take advantage of opportunities to grow professionally

EMATH 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 14.29% 4 57.14% 2 28.57% 7


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 3 37.50% 4 50.00% 8


0 0.00% 1 2.00% 1 2.00% 30 60.00% 18 36.00% 50

Secondary Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 11.29% 32 51.61% 23 37.10% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 4.55% 14 63.64% 7 31.82% 22

Narrative:Based on evidence from observations during student teaching, first year teacher survey responses, and administrator surveys (Tables 32A–35), UNL Mathematics TEPs demonstrate the ability to work with other practitioners, students, families, and the community. To some extent they seek out ways to grow professionally including engaging in ongoing professional learning, and seeking out opportunities to collaborate with students’ families, and other colleagues. Most Mathematics TEP completers feel that they seek out opportunities to grow professionally (Table 36), but feel less confident in their abilities to work effectively with parents (Table 36).

7. Overall Proficiency

Response to Administrative Survey: Items on Impact of Student Learning and Development (Standard 11.1)

Table 38Standard 11.1: Impact of Student Learning and Development

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent

Consistent Grand Information Total11.1 The teacher positively impacts the learning and development for all students

2014-2015Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 16.67% 5 83.33% 6

Early Childhood 0.00% 1 14.29% 1 14.29% 5 71.43% 7Elementary 0.00% 2 3.23% 18 29.03% 42 67.74% 62Middle Grades 0.00% 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 50.00% 4Content (Subject Area) Endorsements 0.00% 2 3.33% 16 26.67% 42 70.00% 60Special Education 0.00% 3 17.65% 4 23.53% 10 58.82% 17 Total 0.00% 8 5.33% 41 27.33% 101 67.33% 150


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 33.33% 2 66.67% 3

Mathematics 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 30.00% 7 70.00% 10


0.00% 2 2.90% 19 27.54% 48 69.57% 69


Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Overall Proficiency: I Am an Excellent Teacher (Item 23).

Table 39Item 23: I Am an Excellent Teacher


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

23

I am an excellent teacher.

Math (EMATH)

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

1 9.09% 8 72.73%

2 18.18%

11


0 0% 0 0% 2 16.7% 8 66.7% 2 16.7% 12


1 2.0% 2 4.1% 11 22.4% 27

55.1% 8 16.3% 49

Secondary Education

0 0% 3 6.1% 9 18.4% 28

57.1% 9 18.4% 49

Special Education

0 0% 2 9.5% 5 23.8% 11

52.4% 3 14.3% 21

2015-2016

23

I am an excellent teacher

EMATH 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 0 0.00% 7


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 2 25.00% 5 62.50% 8


0 0.00% 3 6.00% 7 14.00% 29

58.00% 11 22.00% 50

Secondary Education

1 1.61% 4 6.45% 19 30.65% 35

56.45% 3 4.84% 62

Special Education

0 0.00% 2 9.09% 4 18.18% 9 40.91% 7 31.82% 22

Narrative:Based on evidence from first year teacher survey responses and administrator surveys, UNL Mathematics TEPs are proficient. According to administrators, they consistently or frequently positively impact the learning and development for all students and most of these teachers agree or strongly agree that they are excellent teachers. A few teachers neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement (Table 39). One important note is that teachers that did not yet see themselves as excellent teachers may be some of our most reflective teachers. These teachers may see achieving excellence as a process and that because there is always room to grow, excellence is something for which they must continue to strive.

SECTION 3: USE OF RELATED DATA AND INFORMATION FOR CONTINUOUS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT OF ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM—Artifact 3

Artifact 3: Provide a narrative

Artifact 3.Provide a narrative interpretation/summary of the assessment data from the institution’s perspective. Although data are not required for Mini-Folios, any institutional analysis and summary statements regarding these programs should be addressed and included.

Artifact 3 is also required for Advanced Program and for Mini-Folios.

Section 3: Use of Related Data and Information for Continuous Program Improvement of Endorsement Program

Provide the 3-5 Page Summary Narrative Here:

Based on evidence from observations during student teaching, first year teacher survey responses, and administrator surveys, UNL Mathematics TEP completers are well-prepared to teach mathematics in Grades 6–12. Student teaching supervisors often rated teachers as proficient or advanced and administrators consistently or frequently observed best practices in the classrooms of these teachers. In addition, a majority of these teachers feel confident in their abilities to plan for and enact teaching that addresses the disciplinary, student, and curricular goals, and have a healthy orientation towards the pursuit of excellence and growing as a professional.

According to administrators, UNL Mathematics TEP completers positively impact the learning and development for all students and most of these teachers agree or strongly agree that they are excellent teachers. The few teachers who neither agreed nor disagreed that they were “excellent teachers” may not yet see themselves as excellent teachers. Instead, they may see achieving excellence as a process and

that because there is always room to grow excellence is something for which they must always continue to strive.

In the following sections, we summarize the results from each of the competencies. This is followed by a description of areas of strength and areas of needed growth and our plans to address these areas.

1. Content Knowledge

Mathematics TEP completers, between 2014 and 2016 are proficient in their subject matter knowledge as shown in Table 1.1, above. Both overall and subject area GPAs are well above program minimum admission requirements (overall GPA of 2.75), and Praxis II scores exceed both the Nebraska minimum and the national average scores. In addition, mathematics TEP completers are consistently rated proficient/advanced or frequently/consistently demonstrate Subject Matter Knowledge (SMK) by their university student teaching supervisors/cooperating teachers and by administrators. Mathematics TEP completers report high confidence in their subject matter knowledge and ability to teach required content.

2. Content Area Data from both the first year administrator’s and first year teacher survey indicates that Mathematics TEP are well-prepared to teach in their content area. Mathematics TEP completers agreed or strongly agreed that they “teach the subject matter in ways that are meaningful to learners” (Table 8). Administrators report either frequently or consistently observing TEP completers understanding “how to connect concepts across disciplines” (Table 7) and using “differing perspectives to engage students in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues” (Table 7).

3. Learner/Learning Environments

Based on evidence from observations during student teaching, first year teacher survey responses, and administrator surveys, UNL Mathematics TEPs were well prepared in lesson planning (Tables 9A–10B), were confident in their abilities to recognize and understand how students grow and develop including cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical development (Table 11), recognized individual differences and diversity, with knowing how to use individual differences and differences in culture being an area of growth (Table 12), and were able to create environments that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation, thereby having a positive impact on the learning and development of all students (Tables 13-14).

4. Instructional Practices—Candidate Knowledge and Skills

Based on evidence from observations during student teaching, first year teacher survey responses, and administrator surveys (Tables 16A–19), UNL Mathematics TEPs were well prepared in creating useable and engaging lesson and unit plans based upon knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals and were somewhat able to adapt these plans to meet curricular goals and needs of students (Table 17B). There were also some Mathematics TEP completers who neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement “I create effective instructional plans” (Table 21). In addition, most UNL Mathematics TEPs frequently or consistently demonstrated an understanding of a variety of instructional strategies and used this variety to encourage students’ development of deep understanding of mathematics (Tables 20–21, 26). Both administrator and first year teacher results (Tables 23–25) indicate areas of needed growth that include the use of technology, classroom management, engaging students in problem solving, and adapting to the needs of students with special needs.

5. Instructional Practices—Assessment that Demonstrates Effects or Impact on P-12 Student Learning

Based on evidence from observations during student teaching, first year teacher survey responses, and administrator surveys (Tables 27A–28B), UNL Mathematics TEPs consistently plan for and enact instructional practices consistent with the discipline, students, and curricular goals, and to

some extent can skillfully enact lessons that are flexible in meeting the individual needs of students (Table 28B). Most Mathematics TEP completers were able to use multiple methods to engage students and develop rapport (Tables 29A,B) and all were able to use and felt confident in developing multiple methods of assessment (Tables 30-31).

6. Professional Responsibility

Based on evidence from observations during student teaching, first year teacher survey responses, and administrator surveys (Tables 32A – 35), UNL Mathematics TEPs demonstrate the ability to work with other practitioners, students, families, and the community. To some extent they seek out ways to grow professionally, including engaging in ongoing professional learning, and seeking out opportunities to collaborate with students’ families, and other colleagues. Most Mathematics TEP completers feel that they seek out opportunities to grow professionally (Table 36), but feel less confident in their abilities to work effectively with parents (Table 36).

Areas of Strength

UNL Mathematics TEP completers feel confident in their mathematics subject matter knowledge and in most of their abilities to plan for and enact instruction that has a positive impact on student learning. They are well-prepared to teach mathematics to students in Grades 6–12 and this is supported by observations from their student teaching supervisors and their administrators.

Particular areas of strength include subject matter knowledge; preparedness to teach the mathematics content; planning and enacting meaningful lessons that meet disciplinary, student, and curricular goals; teaching with a variety of methods and strategies,;and recognizing cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, cultural, and physical needs and differences.

As described above in the subject matter knowledge and content area sections, UNL Mathematics TEP completers have strong subject matter knowledge and are prepared to teach mathematics. This is evidenced by both overall and subject area GPAs that are well above program minimum admission

requirements (overall GPA of 2.75), and mean Praxis II scores (2014-2015: 163; 2015-2016: 166) that exceed both the Nebraska minimum (146) and the national average (153) scores. Supervisors and administrators rate teachers highly in understanding mathematics and being able to plan and enact lessons that: (a) are meaningful to learners, (b) address the Nebraska standards, (c) connect concepts across disciplines, and (d) use different perspectives to teach content. Mathematics TEP completers report high confidence in their subject matter knowledge and ability to teach required content with 100% stating they agree or strongly agree with the statement “I am prepared to teach in my content area.”

As described in the learning environment and instructional practices sections, UNL Mathematics TEP completers were well prepared to plan meaningful and engaging lessons that meet disciplinary, student, and curricular goals by using a variety of methods and strategies and even though they may not fully know how to adapt to the needs of diverse students (see areas of improvement below) they recognize cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, cultural, and physical needs and differences.

Areas of Needed Growth and Plans for This Growth

Although UNL Mathematics TEP completers and their supervisors and administrators generally believe that they are excellent teachers, these teachers are still learning and growing. As described in the learning environments, instructional practices, and professional responsibility sections above, four areas of needed growth are: (a) use of technology, (b) classroom management, (c) adapting to the needs of students with special needs, and (d) working effectively with parents. Plans for supporting Mathematics TEP completers to grow in these areas is underway in each of the two secondary mathematics teaching methods courses, in their practicum and student teaching experiences, and as a part of improvements to the UNL secondary education program as a whole.

First, learning to use technology in appropriate ways has been one of the foci of the second methods course and Mathematics TEP completers are placed in teaching environments for their practicum and student teaching where they have access to instructional technology, are expected to use it, and receive constructive feedback from student teaching supervisors as part of regular observations throughout the

semester.

Second, classroom management has become a major focus of the second methods course. This has included inviting guest speakers and/or watching videos of local classrooms to explore positive management strategies and their impact on student engagement and behavior. One of the main foci related to management has been around getting to know students and the community in order to develop appropriate strategies. In the second methods course students are required to complete a Community Mathematics Exploration in order to get to know the communities in which their practicum school is located. This has proven to be one of the most meaningful assignments in the second methods course as it immerses Mathematics TEP completers in the community and helps support them in understanding their students in order to develop positive relationships and management techniques.

Third, classrooms are diverse and the needs of students vary greatly. To support students in learning to adapt to the needs of a diverse student body, students are placed in diverse schools and teach a diverse set of classes with a focus on working with teachers who teach both upper and lower level classes including courses that have high percentages of special needs students including students with IEPs, students labeled gifted, and ELLs. Over the course of five years the practicum syllabus has been revised to provide a structured set of observation, analysis, and interview assignments that Mathematics TEP completers complete by observing, analyzing, and interviewing their cooperating teachers about various aspects of teaching in a diverse environment. In addition, with the growing number of ELLs in classrooms, the secondary education program at UNL will require that all students becoming secondary teachers take a course on teaching ELLs in the content areas. This will provide the much-needed support that all secondary teachers need to teach ELLs.

Fourth, greater attention will be given to support Mathematics TEP completers in effectively working with parents. Greater attention will be given to this during the second teaching methods course and during practicum and student teaching, with one of our practicum observation, analysis, and interview assignments being devoted to communicating with parents. Methods instructors will work with cooperating teachers to provide opportunities for Mathematics TEP completers to communicate with parents.

At the end of the Clinical Experience - College of … FOLIO... · Web viewProgram(s) Covered by...

Documents

Transcript of At the end of the Clinical Experience - College of … FOLIO... · Web viewProgram(s) Covered by...