Report on UAS Narrative Data for
Field Experience: Service Learning for Diversity
Reviewer: Phyllis Agness
Position: Assistant Professor, IPFWSchool of Education
Date: August 2, 2005
Data Reviewed:
SemesterNumber of Classes Standards Measured
Fall 20042 # 1 & #5 of Conceptual Framework
This is a review of the reflections of students and the scoring of the rubric by the faculty in two graduate courses in which the students participated in a “Service Learning for Diversity” field experience. During this experience, the student is required to complete a minimum of ten hours of participation in a setting that will provide him/her with “…an opportunity to observe, interact with, and learn about populations of diverse learners, in order to enrich their understanding of and sensitivity to diversity issues.” This setting is to be other than the work place of the student.
1. Review of reflections, by element
Standard # 1 Democracy and Community:
Class # 1
Score of 4 (excellent) = 5 students
Score or 3 (good) = 6 students
Score of 2 (fair) = 1 student
Class # 2
Score of 4 (excellent) = 14 students
Standard # 5 Experience:
Class # 1
Score of 4 (excellent) = 7 students
Score of 3 (good) = 5 students
Class # 2
Score of 4 (excellent) = 14 students
2. Analysis of the findings
As is obvious at a glance, the scores given by the professors in both classes are very high. The scores in class #1 do show some variation. Although it was difficult to determine why the professor gave the specific scores, there was a spread from a score of four to a score of two. The overall scores were higher for standard #5 than for standard #1. This becomes very understandable upon the reading of the students’ reflections. Most students responded very positively to the assignment and felt that the field experience had provided them with valuable opportunities to become better teachers. They related this information to the standard of Experience. Responses were also positive related to Democracy and Community, but students seemed to struggle a bit more with expressing this growth.
It appeared that the reflections had not truly been read or evaluated for class #2. All students received four points on each standard. This was in spite of the fact that there were significant differences in the quality of the various reflections. Some were very poorly written and showed no level of true reflection, while others were very reflective and much better written.
The artifacts differed dramatically for the two classes. It was impossible to compare the two. The students in class #1 had all done interviews with immigrants and had responded to a set list of questions answered by their interviewee. No field experience site was used, other than the home of either the interviewer or interviewee. The students in class #2 all did have experiences at field sites. These, however, were also not consistent with the intent of the assignment. Some experiences were mere visits to sites to gather information, others were observations in special education or ESL classrooms, and others were tutoring or direct involvement. Some students stayed within the building where they teach and others wrote about experiences they had previous to the semester.
3. Implications of the analysis for
a. the assignment
The artifact assignments were disappointing, in that they did not keep with the spirit of the field experience assignment. Some students did use the opportunity to experience a diverse setting and a situation that was totally new to them. However, this did not appear to have been a requirement.
The reflection assignment asks for the student to show significant learning and growth in the category. If the students perceive that their grades in the class will somehow be affected by their responses, they will respond in the expected way, rather than honestly.
b. the rubric
The rubric will only be beneficial in UAS evaluation if all faculty members use it in the same way.
c. the students
The students’ responses about their experiences were enthusiastic. Some responses seemed to be genuinely stated, and others appeared to be saying what was expected.
d. the instructors
The instructors appeared to either not understand or not “buy into” the purpose of the field experience. This was, in fact, the first semester that this experience was implemented in the program, and faculty members were genuinely confused about the best way to organize a part of the program that would take place away from the university.
e. the program
Student responses need to be reviewed in order to determine if the goals of the service learning experience are being met. If honest responses can be obtained from students, instructors will know what changes can be made for future semesters and which experiences they should encourage students to pursue.
f. the program’s UAS
The “Service Learning for Diversity” assignment was designed to meet weaknesses in the program noted during the most recent NCATE visit. This has been an honest attempt to respond to the demands to change the program. Significant time and effort has gone into the design and implementation of this experience. The UAS committee will need to evaluate the effectiveness of the assignment and make necessary changes each semester in order to make it a practical and beneficial assignment for students.
g. other
It is important to note students’ comments regarding their field experiences. The comments are overwhelmingly positive and indicate that the students understand the value of this type of assignment. Sample comments follow:
Class #1 – Standard #1
“It has opened my eyes.”
“It [the experience] allowed me to reflect on how diverse experiences influence all aspects of living”
“I believe this experience has shown me how important each and every person in our community is.”
“…experience has provided me with a different lens in which to see the world….this experience has helped me understand that there are communities of learners that bring with them completely different experiences than my own.”
Class #1 – Standard #5
“Every educator should have some sort of experiences with students from different countries. The more and more we are diversified as a country, the more of a blending of students we are going to encounter.”
“This field experience has given me new insight into the world of ESL students. I have a better understanding of language barriers…and cultural adaptations.”
“It is hard to relate to others unless we are first able to understand their backgrounds.”
“More than the knowledge itself, it [the experience] has brought a unique aspect of another’s experiences that will broaden my mind and make me a more tolerant educator.”
Class #2 – Standard #5
“What real worth are you to society if you only see one aspect of life? Everyone needs to be grounded from time to time because we all get caught up in our own lives.”
“After such an experience one will be able to draw upon personal examples of situations and knowledge in order to teach key concepts such as tolerance and individual self worth. Without first-hand experiences like this one, an educator would be left somewhat ignorant and would be more likely to fill the voids of knowledge with stereotypes and prejudices. It is imperative that educators draw upon their time spent in actual settings so that we can relate our lessons from them to the students in meaningful and educational ways.”
4. Recommendations for changes in the
a. assignment format
b. rubric
c. assessment procedures
If the students are told that their grade for the assignment will be based on their artifact, rather than their reflection, they may feel more comfortable about responding honestly. This can only be done if the artifact is a written paper that is assigned related to the field experience. The artifacts submitted for class #2 were merely one item (brochure, IEP, child’s letter, etc.) from the field experience site. These could not be evaluated. This leaves an option of either grading the reflection or giving no credit for the assignment. This eliminates the option for the students to criticize the experience.
The assignment, rubric, and assessment procedures will only be successful if faculty members are in agreement about the appropriate experiences, scoring of the rubric, and use of the artifact and reflection as a part of the evaluation for a course grade.
It is the reviewer’s opinion that the students should receive a well-explained grade for their field experience assignment. If they know that their score on the rubric will not count for or against their grade in the course, they will feel more comfortable expressing their true feelings about their experience. This will make the reflections more valuable. It does not appear to be necessary that the students even know what they scored on the rubric. The only purpose of the rubric is to inform the program, not to evaluate the student.
d. the program
e. the program’s UAS
All members of the SOE (both full-time and part-time) need to be trained in the purposes of the assessment system and the part that each member must play. If there is not a consensus on site-placements and rubric scoring, the department chair and SOE dean and assistant dean will need to make the decision and insist on its implementation. The system is useless for purposes of assessment unless more uniformity is managed.
Summary:
This assessment process was being implemented for the first time during the semester that these reflections were gathered. It was new and confusing for both faculty and students. It is not surprising that there was lack of conformity. It is highly likely that the system has worked more efficiently during spring and summer terms. At this point, it is only necessary that this material and evaluation be used as a learning tool. That, after all, is the role of education.
1