Email Page •
Print Page
Data must be collected, analyzed, and shared on a routine basis to be useful for program improvement. The timeline for collection and analysis of unit assessment system data and for making changes to programs, to the unit as a whole, or to the assessment system is shown below.
Table 2.1: Unit Assessment System Timeline |
|
Component |
Collection Time & Frequency |
Collect and analyze course evaluation data (C&I Survey) and share with faculty and administrative staff |
End of each semester |
Collect and analyze undergraduate, fifth-year, and graduate candidate survey data and share with faculty and administrative staff |
Annually in the spring |
Collect student norm-referenced performance data (e.g., PRAXIS I & II, GRE) and make them available to students and advisors through ARTS |
ARTS updated at least monthly |
Collect student course grades and make them available to students and advisors through ARTS |
End of each semester |
Collect placement data and Summative Assessment and Practice KPA ratings and make them available to students and advisors through Tk20 |
Annually in the spring |
Collect survey data from employers and unit graduates and share with faculty and administrative staff |
Biennially in the spring |
Obtain license and assignment data from state, disaggregate by program area, and share with faculty and administrative staff |
Annually in the spring |
Obtain personnel and operations data from the university’s data system, analyze the data, and share with faculty and administrative staff |
Annually in the spring |
Identify successful practices in teacher education from current professional literature/research |
Throughout the year |
Integrate the information from all unit assessments and the literature reviews and develop an annual report; share the report with faculty and administrative staff and with a broader audience through the Internet |
Annually in the summer |
Work with coordination committees, TEC, and Administrative Council to identify program, unit, or assessment changes needed, based on the data |
Annually in the fall |
Submit changes for approval |
Annually in the spring |
Unit Integrated Data Management System: So that data can be more easily analyzed, reported, and used, they are being placed into an integrated data management system. The unit’s data management system will be connected to the university’s data management system to ensure that the unit has accurate candidate, faculty, and resource data. Table 2.2 summarizes the university data and unit assessment system data that will be integrated into the unit data management system as well as the sources of the data.
Table 2.2: Unit Assessment System Data Elements |
|
Data |
Source |
Student Demographics & Admission Data |
|
1. Race/ethnicity, age, gender |
University data management system |
2. Major/program area |
Program area advisor |
1. Academic information, such as overall and core GPA; Praxis I scores (GRE for advanced programs) |
University data management system; |
2. Faculty ratings related to candidate’s qualifications and dispositions and the subsequent standard scores |
Admissions folio, including essay and recommendation letters; Faculty ratings |
3.Degree, for advanced programs |
University data management system |
Course Content Information |
|
1. Knowledge, skills, and dispositions emphasized in courses (tied to standards) |
Syllabi reviews; |
2. Documentation of teaching and learning technologies being integrated into course content |
Syllabi reviews; |
Candidate Progress Data |
|
1. Grades in core courses |
University data management system |
2. Ratings on lesson plans/units requiring the use of instructional technology, research, assessment development/use, planning for diverse students, reflection |
Teaching Portfolios; |
3. University and clinical supervisor ratings of candidates knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are demonstrated during student teaching/internship/practicum |
Summative Assessments |
4. Perception of quality and adequacy of programs, support services, advising, technology, and facilities |
Undergraduate Satisfaction Survey; |
5. Disposition data |
Admissions Essay; |
| 6.Degrees completed | University data management system |
Graduation/Completion |
|
1. Academic information, such as PLT & Praxis II scores |
ETS assessment data file |
2. Data related to diversity of clinical experiences |
Placement database |
3.KSDE approved program completion data |
University data management system |
Licensed Teachers |
|
1. Employment after licensure data (1 & 5 years) |
KSDE Assignment Database |
2. Employer ratings of teachers |
KU Employer Survey |
3. Kansas Performance Assessment (KPA) results |
KSDE Licensure Database |
4. Type of license and year received |
KSDE Licensure Database |
Faculty |
|
1. Faculty demographics, such as race, gender, and teaching area |
University data management system |
2. Education and experience levels of faculty |
University data management system |
3. Research and service contributions of faculty |
University data management system |
4. Student satisfaction with faculty |
C&I Survey |
State and National Comparison Data |
|
1. Race, gender, other demographic, and achievement information related to college students in state and nation |
NCES Reports |
2. State and national educator retention data |
KSDE Reports; NCES & NEA Reports |
3. School of Education national ranking |
US News and World Report; NCES Reports |
4. Faculty demographics in state and nation |
NCES Reports |
Records of Formal Candidate Problems and Complaints and Their Resolutions. As admission criteria are high, it is rare that candidates are faced with academic difficulties. If such situations do occur, candidates typically will work first with their faculty academic advisors, then through the department chairs, and then with the offices of the associate deans to overcome the difficulties. Formal petitioning processes for exceptions to established policies are routinely followed. These require candidates to file written materials with their advisors, who send the requests to the department level, that, assuming approbation, are forwarded to the appropriate associate dean. In the extremely rare instance when a candidate faces difficulties not of an academic nature—as with a field-based situation—the problem(s) is handled collaboratively with the field-based partner, the university supervisor, campus faculty, and the appropriate associate dean—who has the ultimate decision-making responsibility.
Processes are in place to assure that candidates are assessed fairly. Potential candidates are provided clear and accurate information about the unit’s programs through both the university’s print and online catalogs and other print and web-based materials developed at the unit, department, or program levels. Examples of these materials can be found at the School of Education web site (www.soe.ku.edu) and the School of Fine Arts (www.arts.ku.edu). The use of standard measures at admission and exit assures a degree of fairness. After admission, clear academic information is available online to candidates through the university’s Academic Requirements Tracking System (ARTS). Grading policies and expectations appear on course syllabi. Some assessment instruments were developed by the university’s Office of Institutional Research and Planning. Other instruments used in the assessment process were developed with the assistance of the greater professional community, to include members of the faculty outside the unit and those in the unit’s partner schools. Both the School of Fine Arts http://soe.ku.edu/ncate/exhibits/Fine-Arts-Grievance-Procedure.pdf and the School of Education (http://soe.ku.edu/about/docs/Grievance Procedure for SOE.pdf) have extensive grievance procedures should candidates believe they have been treated unfairly. Appeals procedures are available to all. Potential candidates or candidates can utilize the resources of the greater university as well, through the Vice Provost of Student Success, the Office of Equal Opportunity and Human Resources, or the University Ombudsman. The primary point of contact for candidates or potential candidates dealing with issues where they believe they may have been treated unfairly are the appropriate associate deans in the School of Education and the School of Fine Arts.
