STANDARD 2. ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT EVALUATION
The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant qualifications, the candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs.
[In this section the unit must include (1) initial and advanced programs for teachers, (2) programs for other school professionals, and (3) off-campus, distance learning, and alternate route programs, noting differences when they exist.]
2a. Assessment System
2a.1. How does the unit ensure that the assessment system collects information on candidate proficiencies outlined in the unit's conceptual framework, state standards, and professional standards?
The Delaware State University’s Professional Education Unit’s Conceptual Framework standards are aligned with NCATE standards, the respective specialized professional association standards, and the State of Delaware Professional Teaching Standards. Teacher candidates’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions are reflected across all standards.
Program Coordinators and members of the Professional Education Unit developed, reviewed, and revised the assessment system in 2006 through departmental and unit-wide processes. The teacher education programs are articulated in accordance with standards and expectations in institutional goals, state, national and specialized professional associations. The curriculum, instruction, field experiences, clinical practice and assessment make up the common elements of all teacher education programs. In 2006 the program was experiencing difficulties with students passing PRAXIS II as part of their program completion. Therefore, in order to produce highly qualified teachers, the unit revised the assessment system and the teacher education programs, in accordance to standards and expectations, articulated in institutional goals, state, national and specialized professional associations. This change is reflected in the conceptual frame work.
PRAXIS I is required by the State of Delaware and is used in the evaluation of the Teacher Education program candidates’ entry into the Teacher Education Program (TEP). Members of the Professional Education Unit (respective content area advisor, and professional education faculty) serve on the interview admittance team in the selection and approval of teacher candidates. The interview of the teacher candidate must be completed at an acceptable level in order to be admitted into the program. Team members evaluate the candidate’s performance during interview by using a common TEP rubric. Candidates are required to develop an introductory portfolio which is examined for quality and completeness during the interview. The portfolio must meet an "acceptable" level on the rubric. The professional education community is involved with the assessment of the teacher candidates’ performance during their teacher candidacy transitional points. School faculties (practicum locale) assess a teacher candidates' application of content knowledge, skills and dispositions during early field experiences. Teacher candidate’s working portfolios are an extension of the introductory portfolio.
The working portfolio is compiled by each teacher candidate with artifacts organized according to the Professional Education Unit Standards that document the teacher candidate’s acquisition of knowledge, skills and professional dispositions. The working portfolios are reviewed by the respective program coordinators, and the coordinator of early field experiences. The PRAXIS II examination (required by the State of Delaware) is used in the evaluation of the Teacher Education Program candidates for admittance to internship. Admission to internship also requires that teacher candidates maintain a minimum GPA of 2.5. The teacher candidate must successfully complete his/her program of study prior to the internship which is followed by submission of a professional portfolio which demonstrates acceptable levels of performance in knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The Teacher Work Sample, which is completed during the internship, is reviewed by the university supervisor, the Teacher Work Sample primary reviewer, and one additional professional education unit faculty member.
Mentor teachers evaluate teacher candidates during the internship on the application of content and pedagogical knowledge, skills and dispositions. The student teaching evaluation instrument is used by mentor teachers and university supervisors to assess the teacher candidates. The
University supervisor visits the class to observe and evaluate the teacher candidate in a teaching setting a minimum of four times during the semester; meets with the mentor teacher and teacher candidate to discuss and evaluate the progress of the teacher. The internship occurs during the last semester of enrollment prior to graduation and is used as the capstone experience for teacher candidates. The teacher candidate must submit professional portfolio and it must meet an acceptable or target level of performance as evaluated by the Director of Clinical and Early Field Experiences.
2a.2. What are the key assessments used by the unit and its programs to monitor and make decisions about candidate performance at transition points such as those listed in Table 6? Please complete Table 6 or upload your own table at Prompt 2a.6 below.
Table 6 is located in TK20 Document Room 
2a.3. How is the unit assessment system evaluated? Who is involved and how?
The system is based on the unit’s conceptual framework and its commitment to comprehensive assessment. In spring 2004, the unit assessment committee was formed to review new unit assessments and make recommendations regarding validity and reliability of the unit the assessments. Up to this point, the unit has systemically evaluated individual programs but has not systemically evaluated the unit assessment system. The Unit has reviewed the responsibilities of the assessment committee, and has recommended that the unit establish a model to review the assessment system and maintain ongoing processes to self evaluate. The expanded purpose of this committee will be to review the assessment system and make further recommendations for modifications and improvements based on actual use of assessment data. The Professional Education Unit is comprised of the Education Department and representatives from associated content area departments that have faculty members responsible for preparing teacher candidates within the PEU. The Education Department is the administrative body within the Professional Education Unit headed by the Department Chairperson, who also chairs the Council for Professional Education.
The Council for Professional Education (CPE) is a standing committee of the Faculty Senate. The council membership is comprised of representatives from all teacher education programs. The purpose of the council is both advisory and policy making. It formulates and approves policies and procedures pertaining to the teacher education program. In addition, the CPE approves all phases of students’ admission to the Teacher Education Program and admission to student teaching.
The Community Advisory Board periodically reviews and provides input to evaluation of the unit assessment system. The Community Advisory Board is structured to encompass representation from throughout the state (CAB Binder is located in EH 109). The Education Department Chairperson works with the Community Advisory Board relative to issues involving changes and modifications to the curricula. The CPE reviews all change proposals regarding the Unit Assessment System. The PEU began its electronic (TK20 program assessment system in the spring, 2007 in preparation for the 2011 NCATE reaffirmation visit as a result of feedback from the previous visit. The PEU revised the unit assessment system and hired a technology analyst to create and manage the TK20 technology data management system. The purpose of TK20  is to provide a repository to collect, organize, maintain, and analyze information toward the evaluation and improvement of candidate, program, and unit performance.
2a.4. How does the unit ensure that its assessment procedures are fair, accurate, consistent, and free of bias?
The Professional Education Unit employs multiple procedures to ensure fairness, consistency, accuracy, and avoidance of bias to teacher candidates in the initial program. In spring of 2004, a Unit Assessment Committee comprised of a panel of statistical experts was formed to review and validate unit and program assessment tools used for evaluation of teacher candidates and advance level students.
Key assessments are reviewed by program coordinators or the clinical and field experience Director and brought to the Council for Professional Education as assessment issues arise. If there is a concern with validity, the documents are reviewed by the assessment committee. For example, concerns regarding the use of the zero to ten point rating scale were discussed in Council for Professional Education regarding the instructional unit and lesson plan rubrics. It was decided that the target range from eight to ten was broad and ambiguous. Therefore, the zero to ten point rating scale was subsequently changed to a 1-3 point rating scale. Documents were revised by the technology analyst for the Education Department in our TK20  technological assessment system.
A team of evaluators is trained to assess the Teacher Work Sample. Each Teacher Work Sample is assessed by two to three evaluators. If two evaluators are used, then inter-rater agreement is calculated. The student teaching evaluations are triangulated between the university supervisors, Director of clinical and field experience and mentor teachers as facilitated by electronic assessment on the TK20  technological assessment system.
The process used to address bias in the requirements for advance level students include a number of procedures: 1) Writing samples are analyzed by a minimum of three professional education unit faculty members to ensure fairness, consistency and avoidance of bias in the admittance to the program transition point 2) At the program completion transition point, a minimum of two professional education faculty members assess the candidates’ research-based or multi-media presentation, 3) A minimum grade of “B” is required of all candidates on program completion assessments, and 4) If a discrepancy occurs relative to the writing sample the research-based multi-media presentation, or thesis/dissertation research, the ultimate resolution follows the established appeals process.
These procedures ensure the credibility of assessments relative to fairness, consistency, accuracy, and avoidance of bias in the selection and matriculation of candidates.
2a.5. What assessments and evaluation measures are used to manage and improve the operations and programs of the unit?
The program assessment and evaluation measures used to manage and improve the programs and operations of the unit evolve from the conceptualization of the Professional Education Unit Model. More specifically, the program assessments consist of these five assessment paradigms: Program Admission, Candidacy, and Admission to Internship, Program Completion, and Work Force Induction.
Evaluating the critical area of program admissions, the Unit employs multiple indicators. Therefore, interviews, GPA (2.5 minimum), an Introductory Portfolio, Completion of 45-60 semester hours and Praxis I scores are used. For advanced level students letters of recommendation, application form data, essays and GRE/GMAT scores are used.
At the point of evaluating the critical area of candidacy, the Unit employs GPA (minimum 2.5 for undergraduates; 3.0 for advanced level), knowledge (program of study), dispositions (attitudes and values), skills (performance) and the working portfolio. For advanced level, with the exception of the 3.0 GPA the same indicators are used as specified for the undergraduate level.
Evaluating the critical area of admission to internship, the Unit continues to employ multiple indicators. Therefore, the GPA (minimum 2.5), the program of study completed, the working portfolio and Praxis II scores are used. For advance level students, GPA 3.0 , internship - Educational Leadership & Special Education only, requirement of within 2 semesters of graduation and data from the Completion of Application Form are used.
At the point of Program Completion, the Unit uses teaching certification eligibility, exit interviews, GPA, student internship completion (capstone), the professional portfolio and the teacher work sample. For advance level the unit also uses the GPA, internship completion, completion of dissertation and/or multimedia research presentation.
For the final critical area in the conceptual model—work force indication—the unit uses employer satisfaction surveys for both program levels. In addition, the Unit also uses the data from graduate follow up surveys at both levels.
With these streams of data flowing in consistently, the professional unit is able to evaluate its performance. The information used from the data generated enables the faculty and administrators to affirm management and program operation policies and procedures or to identify where modifications are essential to enhance or improve the unit programs and operation.
Results of analysis of data from teacher candidate performance based assessments are used to evaluate and improve unit programs by analyzing curricula, delivery of instruction, clinical and field experiences. Data analyzed from teacher candidate performance based assessments are also used to make changes in unit procedures for data collection, analysis and storage via the TK20  assessment system.
Student intern evaluate their mentor teacher and university supervisor using an exit survey during their exit interview at program completion. This survey is used to explore strengths and weaknesses of candidate student experiences with his/her mentor teacher and university supervisor. Employer survey is administered to administrators in local school districts in Northern and Southern Delaware where program completers are employed as teachers and other school personnel. This survey provides information about the competence of our program completers’ content knowledge, their professional skills and professional dispositions.
The survey was sent to 134 administrators of local Delaware school systems with a 16 percent return rate. A copy of the 2008 employer survey is on file in the documents room in TK20  and/or as a hard copy in EH109. The 2008 survey included questions that evaluated pedagogical knowledge and skills (planning, implementation, assessment, classroom management, reflection) and dispositions (professional dispositions, diversity, collaboration), but not content knowledge. Based on the responses from the survey, the candidates met the target level performance in the areas of pedagogical knowledge, skills and dispositions (See table 1a.4: Employer Survey SU 2008 ). An updated employer follow up survey is scheduled to be administered in the spring 2011. The new survey will include questions that will help us evaluate all three areas of Standard 1; content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and skills, and dispositions (See exhibit 1a.4: New Employer Survey ).
2a.6. (Optional Upload for Online IR) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the unit's assessment system may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-5) should be uploaded.]
The Key Assessments for the Unit are: Oral Presentation, Student Teaching Evaluation, Working and Professional Portfolios, Teacher Work Sample, Unit Plan, Lesson Plans, and GPA. See Table 2a.6.1 
2b. Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation
2b.1. What are the processes and timelines used by the unit to collect, compile, aggregate, summarize, and analyze data on candidate performance, unit operations, and program quality?
l How are the data collected?
l From whom (e.g., applicants, candidates, graduates, faculty) are data collected?
l How often are the data summarized and analyzed?
l Whose responsibility is it to summarize and analyze the data? (dean, assistant dean, data coordinator, etc.)
l In what formats are the data summarized and analyzed? (reports, tables, charts, graphs, etc.)
l What information technologies are used to maintain the unit's assessment system?
The following discussion highlights the processes and timelines used by the unit to collect, compile, aggregate, summarize, and analyze data on candidate performance, unit operations, and program quality. Currently the Unit is using the TK-20 Campus Tools to facilitate the Comprehensive Assessment System in which the Unit and program assessment data are saved. This system enables the Unit to view and analyze data. Many questions are answered through this system. The technology analyst who serves as the system administrator provides training and administrative support to faculty, students and external evaluators throughout the academic year. Technical support is also provided by the technology analyst.
The student information data is compiled by a representative from Institutional Research. The data are disseminated to the technology analyst of the Unit. The data is then sent to the TK20  engineers twice a semester; at the beginning and after add/drop period of each academic semester. This data is loaded into the TK20 technological system in order to send out program assignments to students in unit courses and program courses. Student teaching assessments are sent through the TK20  assessment system to mentor teachers and university supervisors in order to capture performance data electronically for analysis. The technology analyst for the Unit has the responsibility of compiling data and creating reports. The data is then analyzed by the program coordinators. The evidence is presented to the Council for Professional Education, the Professional Education Unit faculty, alumni groups, the community advisory board. The data is compiled by the technology analyst and the director of student services. The office of institutional research and the office of student services for the College serve as alternative backup in situations where technology does not work.
The office of student services for the College plays a vital role in continuously collecting evidence from the teacher education program admissions. The office of student services for the College collects and compiles information related to PRAXIS I Pre-Professional Skills Test (PPST), introductory portfolios, course grades, and semester grade point averages. Teacher Education Program admittance evidence is stored in an excel spreadsheet by the Director of student services. No undergraduate student may take 300 – 400 level methods courses without admission to the teacher education program, an approved teacher education program card, and a written approval/acceptance letter from the chair of the Council for Professional Education. An undergraduate student who is denied admission to the teacher education program may reapply the following semester, and if all criteria have been met, admission to the teacher education program will be granted. Introductory portfolios that are determined to be unacceptable may be resubmitted by the teacher candidates for re-evaluation and must meet the acceptable criteria. Evidence of the teacher education program admittance and/or updates of program admittance are discussed at the CPE's monthly meetings.
The advance level candidates, (master and doctoral students) are assessed on a course by course basis. Course syllabi reflect the levels of assessment and evaluation standards. Teacher or leader candidates in this phase of their knowledge base must maintain a minimum 3.0 cumulative grade point average on a 4.0 scale. Each content course must be completed with a minimum grade of “C” (no more than two Cs are permitted throughout the program). Failure to maintain the minimum 3.0 grade point average results in dismissal from the program. Teacher candidates may reapply to the program via the office of student services for the Education Department when minimum standards are met. Quality grade point averages are required for the Teacher Education Program to maintain its academic integrity.
The content areas are assessed in each course by use of evaluation and minimum standards, as specified by the syllabus in each course. In addition to the program of study, a working portfolio is compiled by each teacher candidate that documents the teacher candidate’s acquisition of knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions.
Admission to internship requires that teacher candidates must maintain a minimum 2.5 cumulative grade point average and pass the PRAXIS II examination. Each content course must be completed with a minimum grade of “C”. The teacher candidate must successfully complete his/her program of study except for the student teaching experience, and submit a working portfolio which is an extension of the introductory portfolio documenting acceptable levels of performance in knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
Teacher candidates are assessed at the completion of their senior capstone, student teaching. To successfully exit the program, teacher candidates must meet the following minimum standards; complete the student teaching experience with a grade of “C” or better, submit a professional portfolio that is evaluated at an acceptable level of performance, have a 2.5 minimum cumulative grade point average, successfully complete an exit interview at an acceptable level of performance, and be eligible to meet the State of Delaware teacher certification standards.
Evidence from student teaching is collected and compiled by the TK20  technological assessment system. The technology analyst compiles all aggregated and disaggregated reports. The reports for the student teaching evaluations are evaluated, analyzed and summarized by the Director of field and clinical experiences and program coordinators at the end of each semester. Evidence from student intern surveys and employer surveys is collected and compiled by the technology analyst for the Education Department. The analysis and summarization is completed by the Director of clinical and field experiences and program coordinators at the end of each semester.
Evidence gathered from assessments in key courses related to program data are collected and evaluated to make program improvements. The analysis is completed by program coordinators on a semester by semester basis. Based on the data assessments the program coordinators and program directors make recommendations for future course offerings and curriculum revisions.
The teacher candidate’s final transition point occurs after the teacher candidate has secured a position in the work force. This assessment focuses on the Unit’s operations and program assessment, including courses, programs, and clinical experiences. Graduates are contacted via follow-up questionnaires and employers are contacted via satisfaction surveys in order to (1) determine the quality of the Delaware State University teacher education program and (2) to be able to determine if revisions to the program are needed for improvement. The preceding discussion has presented the processes and timelines used by the unit to collect, compile, aggregate, summarize, and analyze data on candidate performance, unit operations, and program quality.
2b.2 How does the unit disaggregate candidate assessment data for candidates on the main campus, at off-campus sites, in distance learning programs, and in alternate route programs?
Using the Tk20  assessment system, individual students submit data. This data can be reported on each student and aggregated on key variables. Therefore the data received is already disaggregated by program. Since the Unit does not offer programs off-campus, or through distance learning, nor through alternate route programs, disaggregating in these modes is not required.
2b.3. How does the unit maintain records of formal candidate complaints and their resolutions?
The Unit follows the institution’s Student Complaint of Instruction policy to assure fairness, and unbiased treatment of teacher candidates and advanced students. All records are maintained in the Education Department Chair’s office. However, if the complaint is not resolved at the instructor and chairperson levels, the respective dean has the final authority in the resolution of the complaint. The records of formal student complaints are maintained in the respective chairs’ and deans’ offices.
2b.4. (Optional Upload for Online IR) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the unit's data collection, analysis, and evaluation may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-5) should be uploaded.]
2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement
2c.1. In what ways does the unit regularly and systematically use data to evaluate the efficacy of and initiate changes to its courses, programs, and clinical experiences?
The CPE has charged the assessment committee with the task of creating a regular and systematic evaluation of Unit and SPA data to evaluate the efficacy of and initiate changes to its courses, programs, and clinical experiences. The committee is responsible for reviewing Unit data and providing feedback to the CPE and the SPA coordinators. In addition, the committee creates timelines for Unit and program review to ensure that regular and systematic review occurs to improve Unit and programs assessments. The committee reviews new key rubric assessments and makes recommendations for change prior to the piloting of new and revised key assessments. SPA coordinators oversee the implementation of new and/or revised key assessments and report pilot results.
Results of analysis of data from teacher candidate performance-based assessments are shared with teacher candidates regularly during their matriculation in their courses, student teaching, and during field experiences so that plans may be designed and implemented for the teacher candidates’ knowledge, skills and dispositions.
The Unit also systematically analyzes teacher candidates’ performance as a group, e.g., PRAXIS I and II examination passage rates. In an effort to increase the population of teacher education candidates in the Unit, the mathematics course sequence of the General Education Program ensures that teacher candidates include a three-course block sequence instead of a two course sequence. The effects of this change has shown an increase in the pass rate of the mathematics PRAXIS I examination.
2c.2. What data-driven changes have occurred over the past three years?
As a result of the 2003 recommendations, a technology analyst was hired to improve information technologies and continue data collection, analysis and storage via an electronic assessment system. The technology analyst who serves as the system administrator provides training and administrative support to faculty, students and external evaluators throughout the academic year. Technical support is also provided by the technology analyst.
In fall 2006, the members of the professional unit selected and purchased TK20  (CampusTools Higher Ed). This electronic secure web-based program enables the unit to collect, aggregate, disaggregate and summarize candidates’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The system was piloted in spring 2007 to assess student interns during their student teaching experience. The buy-in across the unit with the electronic assessment system has increased and the system is now utilized more efficiently than in the past. Students are trained by the technology analyst to upload assignments that are sent to them via the TK20  electronic assessment system by instructors. The transitional points of teacher candidates are now housed in the TK20  assessment system which has increased the reporting efforts of students. The system assists in assessing candidate’s performance, knowledge, skills and disposition at different transitional points. Data are aggregated, analyzed, and summarized by a team of Professional Education Faculty. Results are reported on a monthly basis to the Council of Professional Education and to the Education Department.
The unit’s assessment system collects, stores and analyses data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performances, and unit operations to improve unit and program outcomes. All faculty members are now trained to use the TK20  technological assessment system as it relates to analysis and aggregation of data to improve unit and program outcomes.
In fall 2007 six programs underwent curriculum revisions and overall credit hour reduction. This was in response to a university wide directive to make our programs more competitive and to increase enrollment. Also, a Smart classroom was planned and approved for the Unit. During that year the College of Education increased the number of courses that are now web-enhanced using the Blackboard System. As a result, two courses were developed to be taught on-line during the 2007 academic year.
Based on the findings from the Teacher Work Sample in academic year 2007, all teacher candidates were within acceptable or target range, however, qualitative analysis of candidates’ reflections indicated that they needed to reference and address contextual factors. In spring 2007 the Science Education SPA requirements were aligned to the teacher work sample for assessing science education candidate performance. All other teacher education program coordinators have aligned teacher work to their respective SPA standards.
The coordinator of the early field experiences established a new electronic data base for tracking all completed early field experience hours in order to streamline data collection. However, that assessment and system for tracking all early field experiences is under revision.
In order to produce highly qualified teachers, the Unit revised the assessment system and the teacher education programs, in accordance with standards and expectations, articulated in institutional learning goals, state, national and SPA standards. In an effort to improve our program completer data, the PRAXIS II is now required before student internship. All of our program completers are highly qualified and certifiable.
In summer 2008, the rating categories on all major Unit assessments were revised by standardizing the performance ranges to ensure fairness, reduce possibility of bias, and to maintain consistency in the assessments of student performance, knowledge and skills. The student teaching assessment was also revised to reflect a developing category.
In fall 2008, a full time PRAXIS coordinator was added to the Education Department to assist teacher candidates in specially designed courses in writing, reading, and mathematics to help them prepare for the PRAXIS I and PRAXIS II examinations. The number of Teacher Education Program admittance has increased due to the addition of the full time PRAXIS coordinator and the inclusion of PRAXIS instruction with the students in their freshman year.
2c.3. What access do faculty members have to candidate assessment data and/or data systems?
Faculty has access to the TK20  technological assessment system to create and score assignments and align rubrics with program specific standards.
· Faculty sends out assignment
· Faculty receives assignments, assess and give feedback
· Faculty receives disaggregated/aggregated report on coursework assessment at the end of each academic semester
· Based on the report, faculty in conjunction with program coordinator make informed decisions about courses and program improvement.
2c.4. How are assessment data shared with candidates, faculty, and other stakeholders to help them reflect on and improve their performance and programs?
Course and unit assessment data are captured in our TK20  technological system. The data are reviewed at the end of each academic semester by program coordinators and the Director of clinical and field experiences. There is feed-back functionality on the TK20  technological system whereby students can view any suggestions or comments for improvement. Students can view any assessment that was completed by the evaluator. Surveys regarding clinical experiences from student interns are collected at the end of the academic semester and are reviewed by the Director of clinical and field experiences. A Mentor teacher evaluates a student intern throughout his/her experience and completes two evaluations on the Tk20  assessment system. Student interns can view his/her results as soon as the evaluation(s) are completed. The university supervisor also evaluates a student intern throughout his/her experience and the university supervisor completes a minimum of four evaluations on the Tk20  assessment system. The evaluations are reviewed by the student intern, and, the student intern is mentored by the university supervisor and mentor teacher on his/her strengths and needs within the classroom.
There is a regularly scheduled meeting for the Council for Professional Education and the Education Department where data is reported by the Director of Student Services, the Director of clinical and field experiences, the Coordinator of clinical and field experiences, program coordinators and the technology analyst. The summaries of reports are then disseminated to the Community Advisory Board by the Chair of the Council of Professional Education. See the TK-20 folder titled, "Quick Reference Guide" TK20 Document Room 
2c.5. (Optional Upload for Online IR) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to the use of data for program improvement may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-5) should be uploaded.]
1. What does your unit do particularly well related to Standard 2?
The Professional Education Unit employs multiple procedures to assure fairness, consistency, accuracy, and avoidance of bias in the selection and matriculation of teacher candidates in the initial program and advanced students.
The TK20  assessment system has been enhanced to engage users in a continuous process. The mentor teachers and university supervisor use the system to evaluate student interns; thus electronic evaluations are received in a timely manner. The assessment system is also reviewed and evaluated each semester by the faculty, university supervisors, mentor teachers and the students.
Results of analysis of data from teacher candidate performance-based assessments are shared with teacher candidates regularly during their matriculation in their courses of student and during field experiences so that plans for the teacher candidates’ knowledge, skills and dispositions may be designed and implemented.
2. What research related to Standard 2 is being conducted by the unit or its faculty?
The following examples are evidence of faculty research related to assessment:
1. Document describing the unit’s assessment system in detail, including assessment of candidate performance and evaluations of unit operations (Exhibit room EH 109)
2. Samples of formative and summative key assessments used to ensure candidates are ready to progress through the program and enter the profession (see TK20 )
3. Summaries of data from key assessments used at transition points (a) at entry to programs, (b) prior to the student teaching/internship, (c) at completion of the student teaching/internship, and (d) at program completion (see TK20 )
4. Minutes of meetings on the development and refinement of the assessment system and the use of data (Exhibit room EH 109)
5. Procedures for ensuring that key assessments and unit operations are fair, accurate, consistent, and free of bias (Exhibit room EH 109)
6. Policies and procedures that ensure that data are regularly collected, compiled, aggregated, summarized, analyzed, and used to make improvements (Exhibit room EH 109)
7. Sample of candidate assessment data disaggregated by alternate route, off-campus, and distance learning programs N/A
8. Unit or institutional policies for handling student complaints Office of Judicial Affairs 
9. File of student complaints and the unit’s response (Exhibit Room EH 109)
10. Description of information technology used to manage performance data. (see TK20 )
11. Schedule for when unit analyzes data to make changes
12. Examples of changes made to courses, programs, and the unit in response to data gathered from the assessment system (see AACTE/NCATE annual reports)