Institutional Report - Standard 2: Program Assessment and Unit Capacity
Last Update: 1/15/04 *

In 1997 the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) mandated that each teacher preparation institution in the state develop its own assessment system.  Seven criteria were established by the IPSB for development and review of each Unit Assessment System (UAS).  Subsequently, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) utilized the work of the IPSB to develop NCATE Standard 2.  As required by the state, Purdue University submitted documentation of its UAS to the IPSB by the due date of June 30, 2002, and received a formative report.

Element 1: Assessment System

Using the research base on assessment and knowledge of best practices, Purdue University staff, faculty and partners worked together to develop working principles to guide the design, development, and implementation of an assessment system.  To guide their work, the working principles listed below were followed:

1. Assessments will be consistent with national, state, and institutional standards and best practice research.
2. Communication concerning processes and content will be open and extensive and will include a broad range of stakeholders (both on and off the West Lafayette campus).
3. Program areas will work collaboratively to design and develop assessments consistent with the Teacher Education Council (TEC) approved Unit Assessment Component for Individual Students, the ongoing work of the P³T³ project and the May 2000 Portfolio Task Force Report.

Throughout the Purdue University programmatic revisions, emphasis has been placed on broad-based stakeholder participation.  Development of the UAS has been an extension of those program efforts; conversations among stakeholders have been continuous.  The notable advantage in continuing discussions with stakeholders has been that moving to performance-based programs and developing a UAS have been inseparable. 

The following is a brief summary of stakeholders and their roles (for specific names and professional roles, see listings in the Exhibit Room) in shaping the performance-based programs/UAS and their continuing involvement:

• University Faculty (Campus-Wide and System-Wide, including representatives from the other five schools with teacher education programs on the Purdue University Teacher Education Council) - Design, reflection, decision-making
• P-12 Colleagues (Professional Development School Steering Committee, School Advisory Committee, Those Attending Summits (meetings with community members on- and off- campus), Those on College of Education (COE) Committees and Task Forces [approximately 75 people]) - Design, reflection, representative decision-making
• Undergraduate and Graduate Students (COE Committee Members, Purdue Student Education Council, Those Attending Open Forums) - Design, reflection, representative decision-making
• Community Members (Local and National Members of the Dean's Advisory Council) - Reflection, directed input
• Alumni (Purdue Education Alumni Association) - Reflection, directed input
• External Entities (School Corporations, Community Groups) - Reflection, directed input
• Academic Advisors and Counselors - Directed input and implementation

Historically, faculty and administration of the College of Education developed a shared vision of teacher education at Purdue University in collaboration with colleagues in other academic schools, colleagues in P-12 education, and other stakeholders. This shared vision is rooted in the land grant mission of Purdue University and the mission of the College of Education to serve the citizens of Indiana, the United States, and the world through discovery, learning and engagement.

In order to obtain feedback during the program reform, an Accountability Team and an Implementation Team were formed.   A mechanism was needed to facilitate successful implementation of the elementary and secondary professional core reforms.  Further, the complexity demanded that many key individuals meet together regularly to inform each other of implementation details in the purview of each, make informed decisions, communicate those decisions, and act upon them promptly.  The Accountability Team (AT) was an ad hoc committee designed to oversee the curriculum reforms.  The charge of the AT was to ensure that course proposals were consistent with the reform frameworks.

The Implementation Team was comprised of a group of faculty in key reform roles, administrators with line responsibility (i.e., personnel and budget), and academic services directors whose offices have various responsibilities related to the reforms.  This group was organized for coordination, communication, and action.  In addition, quick action and immediate accountability had to be incorporated into the procedural design. 

Implementation Team membership included both those who were ongoing participants in the Implementation Team and those who were ancillary participants as ad hoc needs arose.  In addition, ongoing members who could anticipate occasional conflicts with other very high priority commitments (e.g., membership on the University Promotions Committee and its required annual deliberations) had an interchangeable backup person who came with portfolio (i.e., who were empowered to act).

Ongoing members of the Implementation Team were the dean (with associate dean as backup) who also was the Implementation Team chair, department heads (with assistant department heads as backup), academic services directors, Chair of elementary education committee, course/block coordinators, and (Co)-chair(s) of the Accountability Team.  Ancillary participants were course instructors, Early Field Experiences Placement Coordinator, schedule deputies, Chair of secondary education committee, special education task force member, and others, as needed.

The Block Council, a School-level ad hoc group, was born of necessity during this period of implementation of new programs.  The Block Council provided review, coordination, and information central to the success of the reformed programs in Elementary Education and the Secondary Education Professional Core.  Key individuals (see below) met periodically to review Block, course, and Theory Into Practice (TIP) activities and content to ensure two important elements of the reformed programs:  sequencing and coherence.  These Block Council discussions resulted in adjustments in Blocks, courses, TIPs (as needed) through minor changes made by Council members.  More substantial curricular changes had to be promulgated by the programs and departments with assigned responsibility for each Block and then approved through formal governance.  In addition to the purposes listed above, the Block Council also reviewed formative evaluations of Blocks, courses, and TIPs; however, major responsibility for developing a plan for change based on those evaluations rested with the faculty associated with each Block.  In spring 2001, ongoing membership included the dean, department heads, Block coordinators/instructors of record, directors of academic services, chairs of Elementary and Secondary Education committees.  Invited guests were determined by the agenda of each meeting.

During Fall 2001, a Unit Assessment System Task Force was established to oversee the assessment work of the Purdue University teacher education program areas and provide input for the June 30, 2002, UAS report to the IPSB and supplemental information.  Members included an Assessment Coordinator, representatives from the P-12 community, the College of Education, Department of Educational Studies, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, and the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to use Technology (P³T³) Project.

Following the UAS Task Force, an Assessment Council was formed to continue the assessment work.  The Assessment Council is composed of representatives from the College of Education, Department of Curriculum and Instruction (elementary and secondary education, all Blocks), Department of Educational Studies, Office of Field Experiences, Office of Professional Preparation and Licensure, P³T³  Project, Assessment Research Center, education graduate students, and P-12 educators.  The charge of the Assessment Council is to coordinate the development, implementation and ongoing review of the candidate assessment system of the Purdue University teacher education program areas.  The Assessment Council also provides input for the College of Education's Unit Assessment System (UAS), its externally funded projects involving candidate assessments, and the Purdue University strategic planning processes. 

In addition to these formalized mechanisms, feedback on the reformed programs came from student forums and a brief Block survey disseminated by the COE Office Advising and Recruiting.  More substantial feedback was obtained via the work of the Block Working Group.  These types of feedback continue today.

As part of the reform, faculty mapped the respective standards to their curriculum.  A mapping specialist was hired to analyze the mapping guides and report the results to the faculty (Program Evaluation Report - June 2001, Unit Assessment Component, Analysis of Block I, Analysis of Block II, Analysis of Block III, Analysis of Block IV).  Faculty completed a final review of closing gaps and eliminating unintended redundancies in their curriculum during the fall of 2001.  As new standards are approved and previous standards revised, faculty will continue to review and revise their curriculum as needed.  The mapping guides are referenced under the applicable initial teacher preparation program summaries or advanced preparation program summaries.  The mapping guides include all IPSB developmental and content standards and have provided assurance of the inclusion of relevant national (professional) standards and Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) principles.  In addition, faculty matched curricula to the Unit's Conceptual Framework Model for Professional Preparation (which adheres to the INTASC principles; also see P³T³ alignment to INTASC principles document). 

Following is a brief chronology of the assessment system roll out:

• Block implementation began Fall 1999.
• Most components of the gate system were implemented beginning in Fall 2001.
• Although piloting of electronic portfolios began with Block I Fall 2001, faculty adopted a portfolio assessment roll out schedule of Gate A in Fall 2002, Gate B in Spring 2003, Gate C in Fall 2003, and Gate D in Spring 2004. 
• The portfolio assessment component began implementation in Fall 2002.  Subsequently, the Elementary and Secondary Education Committees decided to incorporate gate portfolio assessments within courses rather than have this process occur outside of courses.  Portfolio assessment rubrics are included within courses.  This action was due to logistical considerations and to emphasize the importance of gate assessments to the candidates as well as provide consistency for these assessments within courses. 
• The Purdue Electronic Portfolio administration established a roll out schedule for the electronic portfolio in Blocks as initial portfolio Block I (Gate A) in Fall 2002, beginning portfolio Block II (Gate B) in Spring 2003, developing portfolio Block III in Fall 2003, Block IV in Spring 2004, Block V in Fall 2004, and Block VI in Spring 2005.  The secondary program areas will roll out PEP for methods courses between Fall 2003 and Fall 2004, and student teaching during Spring 2005.   Keep in mind that this schedule is for electronic portfolios and the portfolio assessment follows the gate roll out schedule noted above.
• Beginning in the fall of 2002, the Assessment Council was formed from the College of Education Block Council and the Unit Assessment System Task Force.  This Council along with an Assessment Coordinator manages the data system and coordinates assessment initiatives. The Assessment Council will continue as an advisory body until Spring 2005.  At that time a decision will be made to determine the need to continue the Council or to forward its duties to another entity such as the College of Education Leadership Team or Teacher Education Council.
• As part of the Title II grant received, an integrated electronic portfolio pilot project was implemented.  The elementary student teaching pilot tested the use of the PEP and the Documentation of Indiana's Academic Standards (DIAS).  The Elementary and Secondary Education committees approved the use of DIAS as part of portfolio assessment.  The Elementary Committee adopted the pilot design for Gate D portfolio assessment.  The Secondary Committee will review the Elementary model for possible adaptation.
• Faculty approved a disposition exception reporting process.  This process may be used by faculty, staff, and classroom teachers to bring a deficiency with regard to professional conduct to the attention of faculty and the TEC Special Cases Committee.  This process is in addition to the already implemented function of the TEC Special Cases Committee which hears testimony in cases of the following types:  1)  candidates who have not met criteria for proceeding in a teacher education program and who desire a hearing; 2) issues of judgment that cannot be resolved by OPPL; 3) issues related to dispositions of candidates, as required by state and national licensing standards; and 4) issues related to University-approved fitness criteria that may be identified, advertised, and documented for individual students.

The following is still part of the unit assessment reporting system:The Office of Professional Preparation and Licensure (OPPL) annual reports and Office of Field Experiences annual reports (see reports in Exhibit Room)

• The Purdue University College of Education Title II reports
• The Purdue University First Year Teacher Performance Assurance Program This program provides a guarantee of support and assistance within the State of Indiana to Purdue University graduates performing below standards during the first year of teaching.  The program provides faculty and staff to collaborate with school or agency personnel by:  1)  reviewing the first year teacher's evaluation reports;  2)  working with the teacher and supervisor in planning a program of assistance, and 3)  offering consultation and professional services to both the teacher and supervisor.  It also offers an opportunity for first year teachers to participate in additional course work or non-credit professional development opportunities at no cost during the graduate's first year of teaching or the subsequent summer.  Data for this program is under the jurisdiction of the dean who then is able to aggregate the data by program area in order to analyze and address program weaknesses. 
• Data are utilized from the Indiana Professional Standards Board Beginning Teacher Internship report.  This information communicates to institutions the success of their graduates during this state beginning teacher program.  Information from this report also is utilized to contact the principal where the Purdue University beginning teacher completed the induction period for further details regarding the beginning teacher and his/her preparedness to teach.
• Other data include Purdue University course surveys, faculty/staff observation forms, graduate/employer surveys including longitudinal graduate surveys, faculty evaluation instruments, and data from the Center for Career Opportunities.  Data are reported to faculty and staff within the program areas and to various entities such as the Teacher Education Council and Assessment Council.  This information and further details may be found in the Exhibit Room.

The INTASC principles and IPSB and institutional standards are communicated to candidates by faculty via class, field experiences, and syllabi and the Office of Professional Preparation and Licensure via written materials, electronic messages, orientations, and a website with complete standards information.  In addition, as electronic portfolios from the P³T³ project were implemented beginning with Block I (note: candidates begin learning about portfolios in EDCI 270), artifacts are stored according to the standard(s) they address.  Thus, candidates are informed of standards systematically.  The INTASC principles and IPSB standards are central to candidates' preparation and gathering of artifacts.

A comprehensive, coherent, sequential assessment system for individual candidates has been in place at Purdue University for the past decade.  Thus, present efforts have been focused upon revisiting each phase of that system and ensuring that assessments are appropriately linked to performance-based standards.  The system has been changed from phases, specific checkpoints a candidate must pass through, to gates.  See graphic of the Unit Assessment Component for Individual Students approved by the faculty and the Purdue University Teacher Education Council (TEC) in 2001.  Continuous feedback to candidates occurs in individual courses, as well as at the various gates of the teacher education program (A-D), as shown.  A thorough explanation of the system and requirements are outlined for candidates in the Teacher Education Program Guide.  In essence, candidates receive ongoing feedback and are assessed at the following benchmarks:

Gate A - admission into the teacher education program
Gate B - retention in the teacher education program
Gate C - eligibility to student teach
Gate D - eligibility to graduate and/or complete requirements for licensure. 

The Purdue University UAS is designed to reflect essential components of the candidate preparation process.  Candidate knowledge, dispositions, and performances are linked to both teacher preparation standards and K-12 academic standards, thereby promoting the fundamental content validity of the system.   Initial Teacher Preparation: Portfolio Gate Assessments are now within courses.  Other assessments within courses are multiple and varied.  These include multiple choice tests, written essays, performance videos, artifacts such as lesson and unit plans, reflective essays, checklists and observation forms for field experiences, etc. 

The electronic portfolio allows the storage and accessibility of candidate self-evaluations, faculty ratings, supervising teacher ratings, and other pertinent information.  This database can generate correlational data to determine the relationship between ratings on the integrative narratives and theory into practice experiences.  The database also allows the faculty and clinical supervisors to evaluate the relationship between candidate knowledge, dispositions, and performances. Upon completion of the program, candidates are followed to determine job placement and other evidence of professional success such as successful completion of the Indiana Beginning Teacher Internship Program.  These data are related to markers of candidate success in the UAS. 

In addition, faculty developed and recently implemented a Candidate Dispositions Assessment Process.  The Dispositional Assessment Form (Form D-2) may be utilized by all faculty, staff, and classroom teachers to bring a deficiency with regard to professional conduct to the attention of the Teacher Education Council Special Cases Committee.  At the conclusion of each semester, course instructors are asked to submit a Form D-2 for any candidate who has exhibited a deficiency with respect to the INTASC dispositions listed in Form D-1.  Candidates are made aware that repeated violations of these dispositions may constitute grounds for a decision regarding separation from the Purdue University teacher education program.  Candidates also may conduct a self-assessment utilizing this instrument.

Assuring reliability of judgments is critical to the success of the Purdue University UAS.  Rubrics have been carefully constructed to capture essential elements of the candidate preparation process.  These rubrics reflect the consensus of faculty and staff on designated taskforces.  All instructors (faculty, field supervisors) are trained by course coordinators in the fair and consistent application of these rubrics.  For specific details on rubrics, see teacher education program pages and links to rubrics.

Because the review of artifacts for each course falls primarily to the course coordinators and instructors, it is necessary for course coordinators to conduct training sessions on artifact assessment prior to each semester.  It is expected that coordinators monitor and work closely with course instructors to reach consensus on how artifacts will be assessed using the artifact rubric developed by each respective course.  Samples of assessment measures may be found in the Exhibit Room.

Element 2: Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation

Multiple summative decision points are represented on the Unit Assessment Component for Individual Students by Gates A, B, C, and D.  Such reviews provide formative, ongoing feedback to candidates (and programs).  Each checkpoint also offers a summative opportunity (total of four) in which candidates proceed, if performance is assessed as satisfactory or are denied until such time (if ever) that all criteria are met for proceeding to the next gate.    

Clear documentation at four distinct gates assures that candidates have attained standards and will be able to proceed through their program.  Electronic portfolios enable candidates to organize and document artifacts according to standards.  By providing this format as one option, faculty have ensured that each candidate will be reviewed specifically for meeting each relevant standard.  Note that such a system addresses standards by incorporating systematic reviews of electronic portfolios, in addition to assessing grades, verifying the number of hours successfully completed and passing scores on tests, and providing for criminal history checks.

Candidates create and post artifacts to the Purdue Electronic Portfolio (PEP) within courses at each gate of the UAS.  These course artifact assignments and scoring rubrics are created by course coordinators, e.g., for Gate A, candidates produce an artifact for three courses:  EDCI 205, 270 and 285.  Rubrics have been designed and are continually in the process of refinement within courses.

In addition, each artifact rubric contains a common element (across all gates) that is in alignment with the INTASC principles.  Using these artifact rubrics, each artifact assignment is assessed by course instructors prior to gate review. 

Qualitative evaluations of candidates occur throughout the teacher education program using various methods.  Candidates are evaluated using gate assessments, portfolio evidence from field experiences, and supervising teacher feedback from theory into practice experiences.  These descriptive expositions are designed to describe and document the development of the candidate and are evaluated by faculty at designated points in the teacher preparation process.  This qualitative evidence, in addition to routine criminal history checks and the Candidate Disposition Assessment process, is used to evaluate candidate dispositions and suitability for continuation in the program. The process also provides an opportunity to generate formative feedback regarding candidate strengths and weaknesses.

The Office of Professional Preparation and Licensure (OPPL) provides for admission and monitoring of candidates each semester at the gates.  Monitoring candidates in this manner ensures that they meet the requirements as outlined in the Teacher Education Program Guide.  Data such as candidate information, GPAs, test scores, and portfolio status, are entered into a database and utilized for progress through the gates and analyzed annually.  This information including the Title II reports is shared with stakeholders involved in the teacher preparation program.

All portfolio gate-level "pass-fail" decisions are recorded via the Purdue Electronic Portfolio (PEP) system and database.  While not an exhaustive list, the system allows data of the following types to be aggregated and compared across program areas along with other components of the assessment system:  (a) percent of candidates passing gate review on initial review, (b) INTASC principles addressed by candidates within particular gates, (c) INTASC principles addressed by candidates across all gates, (d) COE themes addressed by candidates within particular gates, and (e) COE themes addressed by candidates across all gates.  The summative decision on a candidate passing through a gate is an aggregate assessment of GPAs, grades received in education courses, scores on tests, the portfolio, and a criminal history check as required by P-12 schools. 

Utilization of electronic portfolios began with Block I in the fall of 2001.  The system to which the Unit adheres to includes the following features (some of which are continuing and some of which are fairly new):

• OPPL collects, summarizes, and reports data on candidate success in moving from one gate to the next (continuing feature)
• Data are collected on new graduates who are the subject of superintendents' responses to The Purdue University First Year Teacher Performance Assurance Program, which has been in effect since 1983.  These data are aggregated by program in order to analyze and address program weaknesses (continuing feature)
• Follow-up studies of each program's graduates and their employers (e.g., 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03) (perceptions of their preparation at Purdue) are linked to standards in revised versions of the survey instruments; programs are directed to respond to perceived weaknesses (continuing + new feature)

Please refer to the following reports:  Office of Professional Preparation and Licensure (OPPL) annual reports, Purdue University Title II , and Office of Field Experiences annual reports in the Exhibit Room to obtain details of the above.   In addition, performance data rests with faculty via assessment rubrics keyed to standards-based mapping guides and implemented within courses.

A Unit Assessment System Task Force was formed to oversee the assessment work of the teacher education program areas and provide input to the Unit Assessment System (UAS) report that was due to the Indiana Professional Standards Board by June 30, 2002.  The composition of the Task Force included an Assessment Coordinator, one representative each from the College of Education, P³T³, and the P-12 community.  College of Education representatives consisted of two representatives from the Department of Educational Studies, and four representatives from the Department of Curriculum & Instruction (2 members from the Elementary Education Committee and 2 members from the Secondary Education Committee).

In the fall of 2002, the Assessment Council was formed by merging the College of Education Block Council and the Unit Assessment System Task Force.  This Council along with the Assessment Coordinator manages the data system and coordinates assessment initiatives (see the Unit Assessment System Action Plan).  Specific duties related to managing and coordinating assessment initiatives include: leadership for development of a database linking IPSB and K-12 standards, providing expertise in the redesign of survey instruments, providing consultation to the Office of Professional Preparation and Licensure (OPPL) regarding the assessment system for individual candidates, annually reporting assessment data on (a) programmatic concerns, (b) the conceptual framework, and (c) criteria for measuring success of aspects of the UAS, and assisting with communication efforts.

Highly technical matters are the purview of the manager of the Office of Information Technology in the COE and a staff of five (this manager provides expertise in technology for each assessment initiative).  Note:  the non-hierarchical organizational structure for all assessment initiatives (with a coordinator who assumes a management role) is typical of how the Purdue University COE does its business, i.e., a somewhat level organization in which faculty and other stakeholders play leadership roles, in addition to academic administrators.

Other data that is gathered comes from the IPSB Beginning Teacher Internship Program, employer surveys, student teacher surveys, cooperating teacher surveys, graduate surveys, and longitudinal graduate surveys.  Data from faculty and course evaluations are obtained utilizing the university-wide system.  Also, the Center for Career Opportunities provides post-graduation summaries as well as offers Teacher Recruitment Day.  Further details may be found in the Exhibit Room.

Policy and data regarding candidate complaints and resolutions are completed in a variety of ways.  "A University grade appeals system includes school grade appeals committees for each of the academic schools and a University grade appeals committee.  The grade appeals system affords recourse to a student who has evidence, or believes that evidence exists, to show that an inappropriate grade has been assigned as a result of prejudice, caprice, or other improper conditions, or assignment of a grade inconsistent with those assigned other students."  In the COE, the university grade appeals process begins with the course instructor.  If the candidate is denied the grade appeal and wishes to continue the process, the Block coordinator hears the case in circumstances involving Block courses.  The department head is the next step in the process and finally the committee and dean. For details on the grade appeals procedures, committee composition, and conduct of hearings, see the grade appeals system in University Regulations or the Academic Procedures Manual, page 0-55.

In addition, the Teacher Education Council (TEC) addresses issues at the gate level.  The TEC Special Cases Committee meets three times per year (a week prior to the start of each fall and spring semester and the third time near the end of the spring semester) to consider special cases, such as those requesting special testing accommodations from the Educational Testing Service (ETS).  Candidates who warrant special consideration to be admitted or to proceed through a gate in the Purdue University teacher education program may be heard by this committee.  The function of the TEC Special Cases Committee is to hear testimony in cases of the following types:  1)  candidates who have not met criteria for proceeding in a teacher education program and who desire a hearing; 2) issues of judgment that cannot be resolved by OPPL; 3) issues related to dispositions of candidates, as required by state and national licensing standards; and 4) issues related to University-approved fitness criteria that may be identified, advertised, and documents for individual students.  During 2002-03, three cases went before the TEC Special Cases Committee.  In all three cases candidates were allowed to proceed in the program with stipulations.  Details of these cases may be found in the Exhibit Room.

In addition, external reports are periodically commissioned to review the College of Education.  The most recent reports (see example) were provided by consultants in spring 2002 and the former COE dean in August 2002.  The Report on Alignment of Curriculum with INTASC Principles, Guiding Principles, and the Unit's Conceptual Framework may be found in the Exhibit Room.

Element 3: Use of Data for Program Improvement

Candidates receive regular, ongoing feedback.  Assessment is embedded in instruction.  As part of the Purdue Electronic Portfolio (PEP) system, candidates create electronic artifacts using course assignments, pictures, video clips, audio clips, and explanatory narratives.  Candidates receive feedback from course instructors regarding artifacts and field experiences, and OPPL regarding progress through the gates.  The Teacher Education Council Special Cases Committee provides an avenue for candidates who have not met criteria for proceeding in the teacher education program and who desire a hearing.

Information is gathered annually in a year-end report.  This information is disseminated through various means such as the Teacher Education Council and Assessment Council.  Included in the dissemination process, the director informs department heads of identified programs regarding specific weaknesses their candidates exhibit.  Each department head is charged to lead changes in program goals, content, and delivery strategies for these programs.  Such changes will be submitted in a written report to the director of teacher education, who will give final approval to changes or return the matter to the department head for additional action.

The director of teacher education collaborates with the faculty and staff to determine if data from the individual assessment system suggest changes in the conceptual framework.  Such changes must be enacted by faculty, who are in charge of the curriculum.  Therefore, the director of teacher education charges department heads to lead faculty discussions that rise to the decision-making levels of the unit and TEC.

Through collaboration of faculty and staff, the following criteria have been developed for reviewing the assessment system:

• The success of the system in identifying and screening out low performers at the earliest point in their teacher preparation programs;
• The success of the system in assessing whether candidates meet standards vis-à-vis their programs of study;
• The success of the system in providing formative feedback to candidates for strengthening knowledge, dispositions, and performances that are identified as weak;
• The success of the system in providing aggregated data on candidate performances that result in revisions of the conceptual framework and programs' goals, content, and systems of delivery;
• The success of the system in incorporating large amounts of performance data from multiple sources that are well managed and readily usable for candidate assessment;
• The success of graduates in the induction period, e.g., the IPSB Beginning Teacher Assessment Program.

The following process is utilized for revising the assessment system:

• The director of teacher education places reports on the agenda for the first fall meeting of the TEC where a determination is made concerning the need to adjust the UAS at that time;
• That determination is reported to the Unit's faculty at its first fall meeting; with suggested revisions (if any) discussed;
• Concurrence of both the Unit's faculty and the TEC at subsequent meetings will result in changes in the UAS as needed with advice from the Assessment Council;
• The director of teacher education communicates such changes and the date when they take effect to all appropriate constituencies;
• The Assessment Coordinator ensures that all changes are properly enacted and are described in teacher education materials;
• The dean reports changes in the UAS (and the rationale for such changes) in the annual NCATE/IPSB report.

Documenting Indicators of Academic Standards (DIAS) was an initiative of the Indiana Department of Education, Division of Exceptional Learners, and Purdue University, Assessment Research Center.  DIAS 2003 is grounded in the belief that all students have value, can learn with appropriate accommodations, and can be expected to make measurable gains.  The purpose of the DIAS 2003 project was to develop an electronic assessment and portfolio system that can be used to evaluate, gather, and organize P-12 student achievement of Indiana's Academic Standards.  DIAS 2003 is based upon the general education curriculum and provides a means of measuring student's progress.  The electronic portfolio was designed to provide meaningful documentation of student performance from a variety of sources across the curriculum.   In spring 2003 and fall 2003, piloting the use of DIAS was part of the Gate D portfolio assessment to evaluate K-12 student learning.

As an example of revision utilizing candidate performance data and to increase documentation of candidate impact on student learning, we originally planned redundant assessments to document candidate growth over time within the electronic portfolio.  However, we discovered that the planned redundancy was just that, redundant.  The Block II artifact has not yielded satisfactory performance data.  Therefore, the Block II artifact will be replaced with documentation of candidate performance and increased K-12 student performance.  This, indeed, was one of the lessons learned and an opportunity to improve our documentation of student performance as well as an example of how the assessment process continues to evolve at Purdue.

At the advanced level, programs adhere to the Purdue University Graduate School admission requirements, processes and procedures.  In addition, each of the programs has developed an assessment plan in alignment with the NCATE and IPSB standards as well as professional standards.  These plans are available in the Exhibit Room.

External reports are used to improve programs and the unit.  These include reviews by ASHA, CACREP and the Report on Alignment of Curriculum with INTASC Principles, Guiding Principles, the Unit's Conceptual Framework and other reports.  Although University teacher education programs have not undergone national program reviews for this accreditation visit, an option in Indiana, it is a benchmark in the COE Strategic Plan.  Because faculty already use professional standards to develop and revise curricula, they will complete this process in the future. 

The Purdue University teacher education program is in a continuous process of evaluation.  Decisions are data-based and program revisions continue as lessons are learned.  The Block I courses began in fall 1998; the gate system was implemented in fall 2002; and electronic portfolios as a program completion requirement began in fall 2002. 

Throughout the reform, numerous entities have been responsible for design development, implementation, and accountability of the new program.  The Assessment Council currently is charged to oversee the assessment work, which will continue as the various components are rolled out.

Data to date on issues such as admissions, gate assessments, and field placements, may be found in the Office of Field Experiences and Office of Professional Preparation and Licensure annual reports and will be available in the Exhibit Room.  As noted previously, performance data rests with faculty via assessment rubrics keyed to standards-based mapping guides and implemented within courses.  These, too, will be available in the Exhibit Room and as links on specific program pages on the web.

Evidence

* Please note, this site was prepared for the March 6-10, 2004, NCATE/IPSB Board of Examiners visit. The information posted here is available to the public and every attempt is being made to ensure its completeness and accuracy. If you have any updates or corrections, or have difficulty accessing or locating any documents, please contact T. J. Oakes, NCATE Coordinator, at oakest@purdue.edu or 765-494-5486, or contact Richard Frisbie, Assessment Coordinator and WebMaster at rfrisbie@purdue.edu or 765-494-2360.