log inhelp

 | 

  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

IR Addendum

Page history last edited by Sandra McLendon 9 years, 7 months ago

Southern Wesleyan University NCATE Exhibit Space

 

 

 Overview and Conceptual Framework  |   Standard 1  |  Standard 2  |  Standard 3  |  Standard 4  |  Standard 5  |  Standard 6  |  IR Addendum |  SC Standards

 

The Southern Wesleyan  University School of Eduation thanks the BOE/State team members for their thorough off-site review and feedback.  Our addendum report includes a response to each item noted in the report as an area of concern.  Each section contains references to exhibits posted on this wepage.  Southern Wesleyan University IR Addendum.pdf

 

1.4 Areas of Concern to continue to meet the standard--If question mark shows, click on the question mark or click Download to open the document.

1. The level of performance for candidates in initial programs regarding candidates’ impact on student learning cannot be determined. 

1.4.1a Unit Work Aggregate Data 2013-2014

1.4.1b Unit Work Aggregate Data 2012-2013

1.4.1c Elementary Work Sample Data 2009-2012
1.4.1.d Early Childhood Work Sample Data
1.4.1.e Special Education Work Sample
1.4.1f Unit Work Sample Directions & Rubrics

                                        
2. Assessment data for content knowledge in the MEDAS program are not adequate. 1.4.2.a Assessment 1 PRAXIS II Data by Cohorts
1.4.2.b Assessment 2 GPA Data for MEDAS cohorts by sites
3. There are limited data for candidates in the MEDAS program regarding pedagogical content knowledge.

1.4.3.a Assessment 1 PRAXIS Data by Cohorts
1.4.3.b Assessment 2 GPA Data for MEDAS cohorts by sites

1.4.3c Assessment 3 Curriculum Redesign Project for MEDAS and Curriculum Redesign Data 2011-2013

1.4.3d Assessment 6 Action Research  MEDAS

 
4. Assessment data presented for the MEDCL program are confusing and may not be adequate. No artifacts or data concerning student learning are submitted for candidates in the MEDCL program.

1.4.4a MEDCL Assessment 3: Lesson Plan

1.4.4b MEDCL Assessment 5: Learning Strategies & Characteristics
1.4.4c MEDCL Assessment 6: Curriculum Unit
 1.4.4d MEDCL SPA Like Report 
5. Assessments in the MEDAS and MEDCL programs are not clearly focused on professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. 

1.4.5a Assessment 3 Curriculum Redesign for MEDAS and Curriculum Redesign Data 2011-2013

1.4.5b Assessment 6 Action Research  MEDAS

1.4.5c Assessment 5 School Strategic Plan MEDAS

1.4.5d MEDCL Assessment 6: Curriculum Unit

1.4.5e MEDCL Lesson Plan 

1.4.5f MEDCL SPA Like Report 
6. Candidate performance on content knowledge in advanced programs is not clear.

1.4.6a Assessment 1 PRAXIS Data by Cohorts
1.4.6b Assessment 2 GPA Data for MEDAS cohorts by sites
1.4.6c Assessment 8 Ethical Response Paper for MEDAS 

 
7. Candidate performance regarding student learning in the MEDAS advanced program is not clear. 

1.4.7a Strategic Plan for MEDAS

1.4.7b  Strategic Plan for MEDAS for 2011-2014
1.4.7c Action Research  MEDAS

 
8. Professional dispositions data for candidates in advanced programs are not presented. 

1.4.8a EDAS 5224 Dispositions

1.4.8b EDAS 5714 Dispositions

1.4.8c  EDAS Entrance & Exit Dispositions

1.4.8d MEDCL Dispositions for 2011-2014

 

2.4 Areas of Concern to continue to meet the standard

1. The unit does not provide evidence on the extent to which the professional community evaluates the assessment system.

 

2.4.1a Supervisors Points for Observation
2.4.1b SWU Clinical Classroom Evaluation
2.4.1c SWU NIET Classroom Observation Form (Enhanced ADEPT)

2.4.1d Educator Preparation Advisory Council

2.4.1e Advisory Council Agenda

2.4.1f Educator Advisory Committee 

2.4.1g Advisory Committee Agenda Spring 2014

2.4.1h Timeline for Enhancing Assessments
2. The unit does not make clear what steps it is taking to address consistency, fairness, accuracy, and elimination of bias in assessments.

2.4.2a Steps for consistency, fairness, accuracy,

and elimination of bias

2.4.2b Inter-rater Reliability Study on Clinicals

2.4.2c Inter-rater Reliability Study on Lock I Interviews

2.4.2d Inter-rater Reliability Study for Advanced MEDAS Practicum by Site
3. There is no evidence concerning feedback provided to candidates on their performance.

2.4.3a  Feedback to advanced candidates on performance

2.4.3b Feedback to initial candidates on performance

2.4.3.c System for Providing Feedback on Candidate Performance
4. The unit does not systematically evaluate the performance of candidates in programs at the advanced level.

2.4.4a ELCC Assessment Alignment

2.4.4b NBPTS Assessment Alignment Old

2.4.4c NBPTS Assessment Alignment New
 2.4.4d Assessment 1 PRAXIS Data by Cohorts
2.4.4e Assessment 2 GPA Data for MEDAS cohorts by sites
2.4.4f Assessment MEDCL GPA

2.4.4g MEDCL EDUC 5263 Action Research I 

2.4.4h MEDCL EDUC 5463 Action Research II 

 

 

3.4 Areas of Concern to continue to meet the standard

1. The unit does not provide aggregated data for three of the assessments in the initial teaching program related to field experience as reported in the IR. 

 3.4.1a  Table 3.3g.10 PSP Evaluation
3.4.1b Table 3.3g.11 Visit Reports
3.4.1c Table 3.3f.2 Written Lesson Plan
2. The unit does not provide aggregated assessment data of field experiences for the MEDAS program. 

3.4.2a EDAS 5224 Practicum Data

3.4.2b EDAS 5424 Practicum Data

3.4.2c  EDAS 5714 Practicum Data

3.4.2d  EDAS Internship Data
3. The unit does not provide aggregated assessment data of field experiences for the MEDCL program.  3.4.3a See IR Response 3.3 for MEDCL Field Placement-No Field Placements in Old MEDCL
4. The unit does not provide aggregated assessment data for professional dispositions related to field experience for all advanced programs. 

3.4.4a See IR Response 3.3 for MEDCL Field Placement-No Field Placements in Old MEDCL

3.4.4b EDAS 5224 Dispositions and Practicum

3.4.4c EDAS 5714 Dispositions and Practicum

3.4.4d  EDAS Entrance & Exit Dispositions and Practicum
5. The unit does not provide placement data for advanced programs 

3.4.5a Advanced Placement in Diverse Settings
by Sites 

 

 

4.4 Areas of Concern to continue to meet the standard

 

1. Faculty diversity is sought in the advanced programs but not in the initial teacher preparation program. It is unclear how many candidates are exposed to diverse faculty and at what campuses these faculty teach.

4.4.1a Faculty Initial Programs Diversity

4.4.1b Faculty Advanced Programs Diversity by Sites 
2. Ongoing unit commitment to diversity is not evident from the sources provided. 4.4.2a Draft Diversity Plan
3. There is no evidence provided that advanced level candidates are placed into P-12 sites with diverse populations of students.

4.4.3a Advanced Placement in Diverse Settings by Sites 

4.4.3b Initial Placement in Diverse Settings Updated
4.The unit’s “lifestyle expectations” are unclear.

4.4.4a Lifestyle Expectations in Contract
4.4.4b Lifestyle Expectations in Faculty Handbook

 
5. Little evidence has been presented that candidates in initial or advanced programs are exposed to experiences working with other diverse candidates.

4.5.1a Diversity of Candidates in Initial and Advanced Programs

4.5.1b Advanced Placement in Diverse Settings by Sites 

4.5.1c Initial Placement in Diverse Settings

 

5.4 Areas of Concern to continue to meet the standard

 

1. The unit process for evaluating the teaching performance of full-time and adjunct faculty members does not appear to be systematic and comprehensive.

 

5.4.1a Correlation of Collected Teaching Evaluation Data

 on Full time Faculty

5.4.1b Evaluation Adjunct Faculty

5.4.1c Faculty Online Evaluation Form

 
2. The unit faculty do not appear to be implementing current, research-based practices in the courses supporting their teacher preparation program.

5.4.2a Chart of Best Practices by Courses

5.4.2b Professional Development 8.13.2014

 

Reviewers should contact School of Education representatives below as needed during the review process.

 

 

Dr. Sandra McLendon                                  Dr. Mona Thornton
Dean, School of Education                             Associate Dean, School of Education                      
Southern Wesleyan University                        Southern Wesleyan University

864-644-5354                                               864-644-5353

smclendon@swu.edu                                    mthornton@swu.edu

 

 

Back to Home

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.

Printable version