Exhibit 2.4.G.8.A Secondary English BS/MAT Comprehensive Data Analysis Report (DAR) Summary

Exhibit 2.4.g.8.a Secondary English BS/MAT Comprehensive Data Analysis Report (DAR) Summary 2011-2013

AY11:

1.Have the change(s) in response to data that you documented last year had the desired effect on your program? Please provide specifics referencing prior changes that you submitted in [AY 2009-2010].

There were no concerns raised from the 2010 data. In last year’s report, however, it was noted that the Secondary Education Department recently introduced a new requirement, the Culturally Relevant Pedagogy project to address diversity proficiencies. It was recommended that the Secondary Education Department begin to analyze the impact of the project.

2.What significant findings emerge from your examination of these data?

•Portfolio and Student Teaching evaluation scores and the unit plan scores remain high.

•Candidates continue to demonstrate an impact on student learning as evidenced by the English Reading Project. However, it was determined to increase efforts to reduce the percentage of students who show no change or a decline from pre- to post-test.

•The English Reading Project demonstrates the need for improving candidates’ knowledge and skills in creating effective curriculum goals and assessment.

•Similar to findings from the English Reading Projects, scores on the English Unit Plan revealed slightly lower scores in the areas of establishing lesson goals aligned with national and state curriculum standards and creating appropriate and accurate assessment tools to measure students’ learning.

•Candidates demonstrate weakness in their general understanding of English pedagogy as evidenced by the significant decline in Praxis II scores. This exam, however, will no longer be administered to English teacher candidates in the state of Maryland (effective May 2012).

3.How have you involved faculty in your identification of the implications of these data?

Assessment data are analyzed by the four members of the English Education Committee (one from the English Department; three members from SCED). Conclusions and actions are reported back to all members of the two departments by the representatives.

4.What specific actions will you take in response to these data?

•Instructors will review and revise materials related to the principles of accurate and informative formal assessment in the two courses that administer Assessment 5 (VPP) and Assessment 3 (English unit plan) in order to ensure consistency and emphasis on building candidates’ understanding.

•Instructors will integrate explicit instruction related to assessment and rubrics into each topic covered in the methods course.

•Instructors of the methods course will consider an additional summative assessment to ensure candidates’ understanding of general English pedagogy because the Praxis will no longer be administered.

AY12:

1.Have the change(s) in response to data that you documented last year had the desired effect on your program? Please provide specifics referencing prior changes that you submitted in [AY 2010-2011].

•There was a concern from last year’s report about a significant decline in Praxis II scores; however no changes were made in the program because will no longer be administered to English teacher candidates in the state of Maryland (effective May 2012).

•In last year’s report, data from the English Unit Plan demonstrated the need for improving candidates’ knowledge and skills in creating effective curriculum goals and assessment. Subsequently, attention to more effectively creating curriculum goals and assessment have been incorporated into the English Methods course.

•Based on data from the English Validated Practices Project it was determined to increase efforts to reduce the percentage of students who show no change or a decline from pre- to post-test. Subsequently, reading instructors have been meeting regularly each semester to foster collaboration and common expectations of student teachers completing the VPP. Similar to the English Unit Plan, clear guidance in aligning curriculum and assessment on the VPP would have an impact on the validity of VPP assessments; therefore, students pre and post assessment scores would more reliably demonstrate actual student growth.

2.What significant findings emerge from your examination of these data?

•There continues to be a less than optimal growth between students’ pre and post assessment scores on the Validated Practices Project. This small growth is due to high averages on pre-assessments, which demonstrates that (a) students in our teacher candidates’ classes know a lot more about what they are about to be taught than expected, or (b) the strength of these pre- and post-assessments as truly aligning with curriculum goals of our teacher candidates continues to be questionable.

•Teacher candidates continue to show growth in their values and beliefs about teaching English as demonstrated by scores on the Philosophy of Teaching English Paper with the exception of some categories in Spring, 2012 just for the undergraduate teacher candidates (n=7). Because undergraduate teacher candidates take the course with the MAT candidates, the scores of whom indicate growth, the lack of growth in some categories just for the undergraduate students of question. We will continue to monitor these scores to see if the pattern of growth continues before considering just these Spring, 2012 undergraduate scores an issue about which to be concerned.

•When examining MAT teacher candidates’ ratings on English Attitude, Knowledge, and Pedagogy Standards as Rated by Mentor Teachers and University Supervisors, some discrepancies emerge. For the Spring, 2012 MAT teacher candidates, university supervisors rated the teacher candidates significantly higher in every category as compared to the mentor teachers.

3.How have you involved faculty in your identification of the implications of these data?

•As our department faculty members explore the new Student Learning Objective process within the new teacher evaluation system of Maryland, the issue of our teacher candidates’ abilities to effectively create curriculum-based classroom assessment was raised. The issue is now a priority for our department as we just begin to learn more about the SLO’s. Though our department has made the issue of teacher-created assessments that accurately capture student growth a priority, faculty have determined that they need to know more about the new SLO’s and the PARCC system before determining a plan of action. of

•We will share the discrepancies we found between mentor teacher and university supervisor ratings with the MAT program; perhaps these discrepancies are due to differing expectations of teacher candidates. It will be suggested that university supervisors and mentor teachers be involved in a dialogue about common expectations of teacher candidates.

4.What specific actions will you take in response to these data?

•Instructors of courses in which the VPP is implemented will continue to meet each semester to collaboratively determine means of helping teacher candidates become better at creating assessments that more validly and reliably measure the actual curriculum they plan to teach; with better assessments, we feel that student growth as demonstrated between pre and post assessments on the VPP will improve. As noted above, the issue of teacher-constructed assessments will continue to be a priority for the SCED faculty as we begin to learn more about the implications of the Maryland SLO’s. Teachers of the methods course will continue identify means of teaching candidates to more effectively creating curriculum goals aligned with assessment.

•Instructors of the methods course will closely monitor the growth or lack of growth as demonstrated by the Philosophy of Teaching English Paper to determine if a pattern of slow or lack of growth is emerging.