1.1.d

1.1.d Student Learning for Teacher Candidates

Summary processes for development and outcomes from key assessments based on candidates'
demonstration of the knowledge, skills, and ability to affect student learning.

Coursework integrate the knowledge and skills related to student learning (Domains 3, 4, 5 and 6) from
the Connecticut Common Core of Teaching (CCCT) and monitor candidate progress carefully. They are
aligned with relevant NCATE, CAEP and SPA standards. The CCCT indicators are the focal point of
carefully selected field assessments including observations of candidates in the field and clinical
practices. Ten CCCT indicators are selected to monitor candidate progress in their development of
knowledge and skills pertinent to their ability to affect student learning. These indicators include a heavy
focus on students' progress starting with understanding the purpose and types of suitable assessments,
selecting, adapting and/or designing assessment strategies that match students' needs, monitoring student
progress, providing ongoing meaningful feedback, collecting and using data to determine student
progress, determine effectiveness of interventions and design individualized education plans.

To evaluate our candidates' impact on student learning, nine items from the Student Teaching Evaluation
instrument was examined. These are 3.4 (selecting appropriate assessment strategies), 4.6 (monitoring
student learning), 4.7 (providing meaningful feedback), 5.1 (using a variety of assessments), 5.3 (using a
comprehensive set of data), 5.4 (collaborating with colleagues), 5.5 (providing students with assessment
criteria and individualized feedback), 5.8 (using data to design interventions), 6.5 (collaborating with
colleagues to design individualized student success plans). Of these items, 3.4 (selecting appropriate
assessment strategies), 4.6 (monitoring student learning), 4.7 (providing meaningful feedback) were also
measured during pre-student teaching.

Data from pre-student teaching indicate that our candidates performed at an average at the limited
proficiency level on all three items. However, the growth shown by our candidates is telling when we
examine the student teaching data. These data indicate a positive trend of improvement during student
teaching. All but 4 of the items had mean scores above 3 (proficiency level). Even the 4 items (items 5.1,
5.3, 5.8 and 6.5) that did not have a mean score at proficient levels in Fall 2014 showed improvement
through Spring 2015 and Fall 2015. Only one (item 5.3, using a comprehensive set of data) continued to
show a mean score (2.94) less than proficient in Fall 2015. EPP faculty discussed the data during the
May retreat and it was decided that the focus on using data to plan instruction and to design interventions
would be moved earlier in the program so that candidates have more and longer exposure to this content
area.

During Spring 2016, an edTPA pilot study was conducted with candidates from Elementary, Secondary
and Physical Education. 18 candidates were able to submit their portfolio and have it scored. Data
revealed proficiency in three areas (planning, learning environment and providing feedback). EPP
faculty will examine the pilot data during their August retreat to discuss implications for program
revisions.
To further capture the growth evinced by the P-12 students, all teacher candidates will include a direct
growth measure of students in their impact portfolio, completed during student teaching, from Fall 2016
onwards. The EPP is also considering asking parents to complete a survey of the teacher candidate.

Advanced candidates are expected to demonstrate proficiency in their abilities to measure the impact of
their teaching on student learning. While many courses support our candidates' development of this
knowledge at the advanced level, the clinical assessment embedded in one of the courses at midpoint
measures their progress. Advanced candidates are assessed on their knowledge and skills for identifying
and addressing the needs of English Language Learners during field based assignments embedded within
the course EDU 518: Methods of Teaching English Learners (see syllabus). One assessment is
the Case Study (see the assignment rubric and data from Summer 2014). For the six advanced
candidates completing the case study, all performed at an acceptable level or higher for assessing the
needs of diverse learners. Their ability to reflect on their experiences via the analysis of experiential data
was revealed to be the strongest asset with 83% meeting the target level. While the results were
acceptable, advanced candidates for this administration performed at a target level to a lesser degree
(34%) for designing and implementing interventions and evaluating student learning outcomes. Faculty
are addressing this with focused assessments related to Learning from Student Work in the newly
revised Advanced program.

Additionally, at the culminating capstone seminar, candidates utilize data from their classrooms to
analyze their effect on student learning, to plan further interventions and to reflect on their continuous
impact. Data on the item related to adapting for diverse needs of students (capstone portfolio) and model
digital age learning (educational technology portfolio) were examined to gather evidence of our candidates'
abilities to effect student learning. First-attempt data (see capstone and educational technology data)
demonstrate that our candidates perform at acceptable levels, with most of them scoring at the target level or at
the acceptable level. The few who received a score of 1 (unacceptable) were counseled and allowed to revise
and re-submit. In the newly revised Advanced program, using data to examine student growth will be reinforced
during the capstone seminar.

Return to Standard 1 Main Page

Return to Institutional Report Main Page