KEY:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .

Professional Skill

[A. Professional Knowledge]

[B. Assessment of and for Student Learning]

[C. Instructional Planning]

[D. Learning Environment]

[E. Instructional Delivery]

[F Reflection for Student Academic Progress]

[G. Professionalism]

0 - Unacceptable/Not Passing 1 - Acceptable/Passing

SIP 1: Evidence of student growth/learning as a direct result of the candidate’s instructional actions (Performance)

SIP 2: Evidence of reflecting on student data in order to make instructional decisions (Reflection)

SIP 3: Documentation of use of research and evidence to guide instructional decision making

SIP 4: Evidence of linking Career and College Readiness Initiative (CCRI) standards to lesson goals and objectives as related to SIP at an appropriate developmental level.

SIP 5: Evidence of modeling technology standards as they design, implement and assess learning experiences.

0 - Unacceptable 1 - Minimal Evidence 2 - Adequate Evidence 3 - Very Clear Evidence

Link to Recommendation of Final Grade Form (SIP and professional skills) 

Growth Tables MidTERM to FINAL 

All students (N=32), based on evaluation by University Supervisors (US) met expectations and showed growth on all indicators except InTASC 2 (G.5) which had lateral growth.

Students are demonstrating the most growth [percentage indicates percentage points of growth from Mid to Final evaluation] for principles of learner development InTASC 1: C2 (19%) and principles of learning differences InTASC 2: E6 (13%) 

In consideration of the data collected at the midterm and final analyses for students in the undergraduate  and graduate  programs, an overall score was developed to provide numerical interpretation of the candidates’ ability to adjust to learning differences, apply critical concepts and principles of learner development, and create a safe and supportive learning environment in the P-12 setting. 

All students made either gains or lateral progress from the midterm to the final analysis checkpoint, with all achieving the target score of 2.00. 

All students (N=32), based on evaluation by University Supervisors (US) met expectations and showed growth on all indicators except InTASC 2 (G.5) which had lateral growth.

Students are demonstrating the most growth [percentage indicates percentage points of growth from Mid to Final evaluation] for principles of learner development InTASC 1: C2 (19%) and principles of learning differences InTASC 2: E6 (13%)

In consideration of the data collected at the midterm and final analyses for students in the undergraduate and graduate programs, an overall score was developed to provide numerical interpretation of the candidates’ ability to apply knowledge of content at the appropriate progression levels and develop equitable and inclusive learning experiences for diverse P-12 learners.

Students in all programs made gains from the midterm to the final analysis checkpoint, with all achieving the target score of 2.00 or better.  For students in the undergraduate program (n=4), all students made significant gains or lateral progress while also achieving a final target score of 2.00 or above. For graduate students, all students made gains from midterm to the final analysis checkpoint, with all achieving a target score of 2.00 or better. 

• The data suggests that the educational programs are effective in facilitating student progress and achievement, as evidenced by the gains made by all students across the programs.

• The fact that all students achieved the target score of 2.00 or better reflects positively on the quality of instruction, curriculum, and student engagement within the programs.

In consideration of the data collected at the midterm and final analyses for students in the undergraduate and graduate programs, an overall score was developed to provide numerical interpretation of the candidates’ ability to apply their knowledge of InTASC standards relating to instructional practice at the appropriate progression levels for P-12 learners. 

For students in the undergraduate (n=4), PBTL (n=3) and graduate (n=25)  programs, 100% of students made either gains or lateral progress from the midterm to the final analysis checkpoint, with all achieving the target score of 2.00 or above. Undergraduate students (n=4) made gains or lateral progress on all indicators and achieved a final target score of 2.00 or above.  Graduate students made gains and achieved a final target score of above 2.00.  

• The data indicates overall positive outcomes for all student groups, with significant progress and achievement observed from the midterm to the final analysis checkpoint.

• The fact that all students achieved the target score of 2.00 or above suggests that they have met or exceeded the expected standards of performance.

In consideration of the data collected at the midterm and final analyses for students in the undergraduate and graduate  programs, an overall score was developed to provide numerical interpretation of the candidates’ ability to  apply their knowledge of professional responsibility at the appropriate progression levels.  

For students in the undergraduate (n=4) and graduate (n =25)  programs, 100% of students made either gains or lateral progress from the midterm to the final analysis checkpoint, with all achieving the target score of 2.00.  Undergraduate students made gains or lateral progress on all indicators and achieved a final target score of 2.00 or above.  Graduate students made gains and achieved a final target score of above 2.00. 

All students (N=32), based on evaluation by US, met expectations and showed growth on most indicators. InTASC 9, (F3, G5) did not make gains from midterm to final. 

• The data indicates overall positive outcomes for all student groups, with lateral to minimal growth observed from the midterm to the final analysis checkpoint.

• The fact that all students achieved the target score of 2.00 or above suggests that they have met or exceeded the expected standards of performance.