|
Goal |
Element/Tasks |
Individuals
Involved |
Current Status/Next Steps |
NEXT
STEPS
|
Target Date |
|
A. Institutionalize
continuous planning for assessment and evaluation
|
Determine structures and roles
Identify resources available and needed |
GSPP Dean,
PEP Officers,
GSPP Office of Technical Support
|
PEP-C committee has been functioning with a more limited role; other roles and structures are new |
 |
9/02 |
|
Formation of PEP assessment committee |
PEP Faculty
University Assessment Office, partners in schools and other units |
PEP-C has been functioning as PEP curricular committee but not charged with implementation of assessment |
|
11/02 |
|
Define "institutional standards" based on Conceptual Framework |
PEP assessment committee
PEP
Departments |
Institutional standards have been described conceptually as part of the process of developing Conceptual Frameworks; "Valued Dispositions" have been defined based on these; next step is to describe candidate knowledge and skills outcomes more specifically |
Describe candidate knowledge and skills outcomes more specifically |
11/02 |
|
Goal |
Element/Tasks |
Individuals
Involved |
Current Status |
NEXT STEPS |
Target Date |
|
B.
Develop a plan for systematic program-level
assessment |
Describe 5-year assessment plan |
Assessment Task Force |
Initial plan completed |
To be reviewed by PEP Assessment Committee |
6/01
11/02 |
|
Define/describe program transition points for candidates |
Program faculty
PEP Assessment committee |
Program transition points have been defined for all programs |
|
5/02 |
|
Define/describe assessment information (to be) collected and reviewed at transition points |
Program faculty
PEP Assessment committee |
Assessment information has been defined for most programs |
|
11/02 |
|
Define/describe criteria for candidates at programmatic transition points |
Program faculty
PEP Assessment committee |
Some responses have been defined for some decisions in programs but not all |
Candidate work samples will be reviewed in Fall, 02, and Spring, 02 to establish initial criteria and benchmarks |
12/02
5/02
ongoing |
|
Define/describe programmatic response for students who are not meeting criteria at transition points |
Program faculty
PEP Assessment committee |
Some responses have been defined for some decisions in programs but not all candidate |
Cases will be reviewed in Fall, 02, and Spring, 02 to establish pilot responses |
12/02
5/02
ongoing |
|
Goal |
Element/Task |
Individuals
Involved |
Current Status |
NEXT STEPS
|
Target Date |
|
C. Assess how candidates demonstrate standards-based proficiencies on explicit institutional and professional standards |
Curricular review of performance-based assessments in courses and programs |
All unit faculty |
Initial curricular review completed; Assessments are formative and summative and embedded into curriculum; some, but not all, have performance criteria |
|
10/02 – teacher prep
5/02- all unit faculty |
|
Curricular scan of performance assessment and relationship to professional standards (e.g., Conceptual Framework; Ed = INTASC) |
All unit faculty |
Initial alignment completed |
Review for gaps and overlap needed |
11/02 |
|
Curricular scan of performance assessments related to professional standards professional standards (e.g., Conceptual Framework; Ed = INTASC |
All unit faculty |
Initial alignment completed |
Review for gaps and overlap needed |
11/02 |
|
Goal |
Element/Task |
Individuals
Involved
|
Current Status |
NEXT STEPS |
Target Date |
|
D. Communicate standards, criteria, and assessments to candidates |
Develop guidelines for WHEN and HOW candidates’ proficiencies and performances will be communicated and documented |
Program team faculty
Program directors
PEP Assessment Committee
PEP-C |
Checklists for evaluating syllabi
Orientation
Handbooks |
|
9/02 |
|
Develop guidelines for WHEN and HOW candidates’ proficiencies and performances will be communicated and documented |
Program team faculty
Program directors
PEP Assessment Committee
PEP-C |
Course proposals
Syllabi
|
|
1/03 |
|
E. Collect data, analyze data, aggregate data, use data for candidate and program improvement |
Identify relevant data, users, and potential use |
Unit head
GSPP Office of Technical Services
PEP Assessment committee |
Data and users identified for teacher preparation programs |
|
6/02 |
|
Identify information management systems (roles, processes, and structures) for data collection, aggregation and use |
Unit head
GSPP Office of Technical Services
Program faculty
|
Roles, processes and structures identified for teacher preparation |
|
6/02 |
|
Develop plan to systematically review data for candidate decisions and program revision |
Unit head
PEP Assessment committee
Department Chairs
Program Directors
Program teams |
Plans for systematicunit-wide review developed (9/02); piloted in teacher preparation in 2001-2002 |
|
9/02
01-02 |
|
Goal |
Element/Task |
Individuals
Involved |
Current Status/Next Steps |
Target Date |
|
F. Develop plan for evaluating validity, reliability, limitation of bias of assessments |
Review relationship between aggregated data and candidate decisions |
GSPP Office of Technical Services
PEP Assessment committee |
Will begin to aggregate data and decisions in Fall, 02 |
Summer, 04 |
|
Review assessments for reliability |
GSPP Office of Technical Services
PEP Assessment committee
External resources |
Will initially pilot the use of assessments in 02-03 |
Spring, 04 |
|
Request input from external experts on bias of pilot assessments |
GSPP Office of Technical Services
PEP Assessment committee
External resources |
Will initially pilot the use of assessments in 02-03 |
Spring, 04 |