- Apply
- Visit
- Request Info
- Give
Summarize processes for development and outcomes from key assessments based on candidates'
demonstration of the pedagogical content knowledge delineated in professional, state, and
institutional standards.
Pedagogical content knowledge is embedded in Connecticut's Common Core of Teaching Domains 2, 3,
and 4 and requires that our teacher candidates "promote student engagement, independence and
interdependence in learning by facilitating a positive learning community," that they "plan instruction in
order to engage students in rigorous and relevant learning and to promote their curiosity about the world
at large" and that they "implement instruction in order to engage students in rigorous and relevant
learning and to promote their curiosity about the world at large." Our EPP has cross-aligned this with
relevant NCATE, CAEP and InTASC standards and relevant professional association (SPA) standards.
They have been integrated within methods courses, related assessments and rubrics and candidates'
progress monitored through the program as they become more proficient. Initial candidates demonstrate
their pedagogical content knowledge of these indicators during course work and course-embedded
assessments that are specific to their discipline. Additionally, all field and clinical observations provide
feedback to both the candidates and the EPP about the progress and performance of our candidates.
To evaluate our candidates' pedagogical content knowledge, we examined specific items from the
student teaching evaluations that relate to this construct. Specifically, we examined the data and trends
seen in three semesters of data (Fall 14, Spring 15, Fall 15) related to items 2.1 (creating a class climate)
2.2 (promoting engagement), 2.3 (providing explicit instruction about social skills), 3.1 (demonstrating
discipline-specific knowledge), 3.2 (developing coherent units), 4.1 (using evidence-based instructional
strategies), 4.2 (using technological resources to support learning), 4.3 (leading students to construct
meaning), 4.5 (using differentiated instruction). The instrument with complete description of these items
and their performance indicators are in the exhibits. Data indicates a positive trend, with all of these
competencies carrying a mean score of 3 or higher (indicating proficiency). In fact, while two items (2.3
and 4.5) had mean scores less than 3 in Fall 14 and Spring 15, they both carry mean scores of 3.13 and
3.19 in Fall 15. During the May 2016 retreat, EPP faculty paid particular attention to these items and
planned to enhance differentiated instruction in our coursework and clinical practice.
These data and positive trends are particularly powerful juxtaposed with pre-student teaching data. The
Pre-student teaching experience is typically completed the semester or term before student teaching and
often in the same setting (classroom and cooperating teacher) as student teaching. Pre-student teaching
is evaluated with a rubric that contains 16 of the 30 competencies of the student teaching rubric (see
exhibits). Specific data from Fall 2014, Spring 2015 and Fall 2015 were evaluated to determine
candidates' developing pedagogical content knowledge. Not surprisingly, the data do not reveal any
mean score higher than 3. Mean scores range between limited proficiency (score of 2) and proficiency
(3). Some areas that our teacher candidates showed limited proficiency in their pre-student teaching
experience include promoting engagement (2.2), demonstrating discipline-specific knowledge (3.1),
using evidence-based instructional strategies (4.1), and using differentiated instruction (4.5). These data
are important both to identify the competencies that our teacher candidates need additional help at the
start of student teaching and to demonstrate that they do progress and master these proficiencies by the
end of student teaching. Some of the ways in which our EPP has utilized the pre-student teaching data
include programmatic revisions to include more dedicated classroom time and discussions on these
topics (by course instructors), to intentionally set goals and consciously work towards these
competencies right from the start of student teaching (by university supervisor and cooperating
teaching), and to mindfully seek additional help, opportunity and support to develop these competencies
(by the teacher candidate).
Advanced candidates demonstrate proficiency in pedagogical content knowledge as appropriate to their
field of study. It is measured at the end of the program as the capstone portfolio during the capstone
seminar, a course taken by all advanced candidates in Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
programs (see course syllabus for EDU 570, Capstone Seminar). Advanced Educational
Technology candidates complete a similar digital portfolio. Data (see exhibits) on the item related to
student engagement were examined to gather evidence of our candidates' competency related to
pedagogical content knowledge. Our candidates perform at acceptable levels, with most of them scoring
at target or at acceptable levels. The few who received a score of 1 (unacceptable) were counseled and
allowed to revise and re-submit. The EPP faculty are in the process of revising the Advanced program.
Moving forward, our plan is to phase out the Advanced master's programs in Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary with an Advanced program in Educational Studies with concentrations in
STEM and Humanities. In this new program, a clinical assessment, called Action Research project, will
be utilized to measure candidate's pedagogical content knowledge. This new assessment will mitigate
some of the concerns with the current assessment. It will be completed soon after mid-point thereby
allowing both candidates and faculty to evaluate and address the needs of our candidates sooner. It will
be completed by all advanced candidates thereby allowing uniformity in data collection and evaluation.
Return to Standard 1 Main Page
Return to Institutional Report Main Page