|
© 2008 Eastern Michigan University.
All Rights Reserved.
|
John
W.
Porter
Building |
|
Print this page
Standard 2-C
Use of Data for Program Improvement
Target:
The unit has fully developed evaluations and continuously
searches for stronger relationships in the evaluations, revising
both the underlying data systems and analytic techniques as
necessary. The
unit not only makes changes when evaluations indicate, but also
systematically studies
the effects of any changes to assure that the intended program
strengthening occurs and that there are no adverse consequences. Candidates
and faculty review data on their performance regularly and develop
plans for improvement.
Development
of evaluations. The EMU Professional
Educator Assessment System has been evolving for many years,
although at an accelerating rate in recent years. For example, admission
and retention requirements (to the university, to the program)
and Student Teaching evaluation
forms have been in place, modified from time to time, for
many years. The
Michigan Tests for Teacher Certification have been in place,
with modifications, for approximately a decade. Educational Benchmarking
Inc. survey data have been gathered for four years. The post-completion
self-assessments by new professionals and the post-completion
assessment by the supervisor of the
new professional now include two years worth
of data. See the Exhibits
for Standard 2.
Most of the mid-program assessments of students have been in
development for around four years. See Exhibit
2.10. They have been pilot-tested
and revised. In general, the first data collection from the
"final" versions
of these was done during the 2002-2003 year. See the results posted in
the Exhibits
for Standard 2. Clearly,
there is more to be done: samples need to be extended to populations,
exceptions/outliers in the
initial program need to be incorporated into the mainstream assessment
activities, advanced programs need to be brought into greater
parallelism with the initial
preparation program, and the like. These activities are stated or implied
in the EMU Professional Education Assessment System Implementation
Plan. See Exhibit
2.1.B.
Changes
Made. Numerous changes in recent years have
been made as a result of assessment information. The most significant of
these are changes that have been made in the academic majors
and minors for the initial teacher preparation program as a result of feedback
from the results
of the Michigan Tests for Teacher Certification. A comparison of the academic
requirements as found in the 1997 Professional
Education Supplement to the Catalog with those of the 2003 Professional
Education Supplement to the Undergraduate Catalog will reveal
many changes made to bring curricula into greater alignment
with State Standards. The
need for these changes has been revealed because of relatively
poor test performance in certain fields. These changes are reflected,
in the order in which they occurred, in the minutes of
the Basic Programs Committee, the minutes of
the College of Education Council, and, in a few instances, the minutes of
the Advanced Programs Committee. Numerous other changes are expected
to be made as the reporting called for in the EMU Professional
Educator Assessment
System Implementation Plan ( Exhibit
2.1.B) is accomplished.
Review
of Performance. As the College
of Education Data Information System is implemented in 2003-04
and thereafter (See Standard 2.B),
several opportunities for review of performance will exist that
have existed only in very limited form to date.
(A) Review
of performance of an individual. At any given time, advisers
will be able to review a number of performance indicators
for any given student. Based
on this information, advisers might undertake to counsel
a candidate out of the program or into another teaching
field for which the
candidate is
better suited, might suggest remediation in areas of
individual weakness, or take other action. Longer-range, if a first-year
professional is not performing at a high level (either
by self-assessment or assessment of the
immediate supervisor), this can trigger a review of that
former student's professional preparation
record with an eye toward "what
should we have seen in this case that we need to be alert
to in future cases."
(B) Review
of performance of groups of individuals similarly situated. Many
times, the circulation of assessment data (e.g., results from the
EBI survey) is met with comments to the effect that "these
data may be true for our candidates in general, but there
is evidence to suggest that the data are
not very applicable to students in _______ (teaching
field)." A
more comprehensive Data Information System will permit
the disaggregation of assessment data, in many instances,
by teaching field, by gender, by ethnicity,
by student status (e.g., undergraduate vs. post-baccalaureate),
and the like. This will permit a greater identification of program strengths
and weaknesses and target areas for improvement.
(C) Review
of program components. The evolving
Data Information System will permit the identification
of program components that are and are not working
sufficiently well. For
example, if the various measures of, say, initial program
outcome/benchmark IV-N
"Larger Community" are
not at desired levels, then program changes can and will
be made.
For
additional
information
on the
accreditation/approval
process,
please
contact
Jerry H. Robbins,
Dean, at
734.487.1414
or by e-mail
at jerry.robbins@emich.edu.
If you
have any
questions,
comments
or problems
with these
web pages
or this
web server,
please
contact: coe_webmaster@emich.edu.
|
|