��������ӰƬ

Measure 1 - Indicators of Completer Impact 

To track candidate and completer impact in their P-12 classrooms, the EPP utilizes two different measures.  The first is a Candidate Teacher Work Sample and the second is data derived from a question on the first and third-year teacher survey as completed by their supervisors.

COMPLETER TEACHER WORK SAMPLES

The EPP solicits Completer Teacher Work Samples from first-year completers each year. In the reviewed cohort (n=2, graduates from the 2021-2022 school year), there were two graduates (20%) who provided data for evidence regarding Measure. One completer was a junior high history teacher and the other one taught high school science. Completers developed their submission by following the instruction rubric used in their senior year Teacher Work Sample during student teaching.  The sections on which we encouraged them to focus for this report were Data Analysis and Reflection. Each completer chose a unit of study, administered a pretest, taught the unit, and then administered the same test as a post-test. First-year teachers were asked to share data charts and also reflect on their results.

The junior high history completer provided data from a history unit that was taught in the spring of 2023. The data show an average gain of 19% (n=54) with a range of 0 to 93% growth as a result of the unit taught. In this classroom, 82% of the students passed the unit. This class had 30 of 54 (56%) below 61% for the formative pre-test assessment. The majority of students scored below passing on the initial exam. For the posttest, 14 of 54 (30%) achieved a passing score, though the other 31% did not.

This unit, on Imperial Russia, was taught while students were experiencing Covid restrictions. Group work was not allowed and some students struggled to work independently. Many students did poorly on the two tests but also did not turn in the homework required in the unit. Engagement was minimal for some, but for those who took notes and turned in homework, scores were higher. The morning class saw more overall improvement but lower scores overall. Many were late to class and did not attempt to recover lost points. The afternoon class showed more interest in history and even though they saw less overall growth, their scores were fairly high. Minority students had a wider range of scores. More boys failed than did the girls, though they showed better engagement. This may be due to the fact that their teacher was male (one of the few at that grade level). The Completer plans to adjust the curriculum to include more group work and more student presentations.

The high school science teacher tested a class of 9 students. The unit covered weather and cloud formation information. The overall average growth for the entire class was 19%, with a range of 13 to 37%. The class had 9 of 9 (100%) below 43% for the formative pre-test assessment. Just 2 of 9 (22%) passed the posttest with a score of 61% or higher. Other homework in the unit helped them pass the unit. Scores on the post-test showed that 5 of 9 (56%) passed overall. Boys had a better pretest and post-test average score, but the girls had a larger gain percentage between the pre- and post-test. Girls scored higher in their homework, as well. Students in the class were absent often, which made for complications in catching missed material. The schedule of the school disrupted regular classes, as well as not having an LMS on which to rely. The Completer felt that the provided testing system needed revision.

The EPP values the positive growth exhibited in the data, as noted in the 19% overall gain per student. The EPP believes that data from more Completers will produce more robust results and has already begun to solicit participation from more completers.

Completer Teacher Work Sample
Fall 2021 - Spring 2022

Average gain per student = 19% | Overall pass rate per student = 74%

SUPERVISOR SURVEY OF FIRST AND THIRD YEAR TEACHERS

Supervisors of the EPP’s first and third-year completers rated their teachers an average of 3.30 out of 4.0 (n= 9) when surveyed specifically about the teacher’s impact on student learning in the classroom.

Supervisor Survey

Completers and their employers/supervisors are surveyed at the end of their first and third years of teaching. Survey questions align with the elements of the Nebraska Clinical Practice Evaluation document, as used in the junior-year practicums and the senior-year student teaching experience. The survey elements include Student Development, Learner Differences, Learning Environment, Content Knowledge, Application of Content, Assessment, Planning for Instruction, Instructional Strategies, Professional Learning and Ethical Practice, Leadership and Collaboration, Impact on Student Learning, and Professional Dispositions. The EPP chose to include two extra sections of particular interest to the EPP: Christian Influence and Technology Integration.

In Spring 2023, surveys were sent to supervisors of first-year teachers (n=8), with a response rate of 50% (n=4). Surveys were also sent to supervisors of third-year teachers (n=9), with a response rate of 56% (n=5).  

For first-year teachers, the range of scores given by their supervisors was from 2.75 to 3.44, with the low for Learning Differences (2.75) and the high given for Christian Influence (3.44). Scores at or above benchmark constitute 80% of scores (12 of 15), which is a rise of 6% from last year’s reporting. Elements with higher scores included Instructional Strategies (3.19) and Assessment (3.17--up from 2.50 a year ago). Lower scores (below benchmark) were given for Learning Environments (2.92), and Technology Integration (2.85--down slightly). The EPP notes that 80% of the scores rose for this cohort.

Third-year teacher scores had a range of 3.13 to 3.67 with a mean of 3.50--up from 3.08 a year ago. All 14 elements were above benchmark (100%) with the highest gain in Impact on Student Learning (2.50 to 3.55). The EPP notes that 100% of scores rose for this cohort (over a year ago). The number of survey responses nearly doubled, providing more robust data.

Union College First- and Third-Year Teacher Survey — Spring 2023
Supervisor Survey

Self-Evaluation Surveys from First-Year and Third-Year Teachers

First- and third-year teachers were asked to rate their success based on the elements from the Nebraska Clinical Practice Evaluation--the same survey content used in the junior and senior years. The benchmark for the First- and Third-Year Teacher Survey was 3.0 of 4.0. Participation increased for these reported cohorts from 2 to 7 (first year) and from 2 to 5 (3rd year).

Responses ratings ranged from 2.73 to 3.55 with 12 of 14 (86%) of scores remaining above benchmark (3.0 of 4.0). Lower scores surfaced for first-year Completers in Leadership and Collaboration (2.73). This would be understandable for new educators. Overall, third-year Completers rated themselves higher than first-year respondents. Scores went up for both groups in 9 of 14 elements (64%). The EPP notes that one ongoing area of concern--Assessment--rose from 3.13 to 3.36. These data compare favorably with responses from their supervisors who also saw skill increases in Assessment and Impact on Student Learning, to mention a few (see chart above for more details). 

Qualitative comments from first- and third-year teachers showed that they are working hard, wishing for more administrative support, and learning at every opportunity, but also realizing that college preparation cannot cover all the unique settings in which they find themselves. They bear many responsibilities yet are proud when their administrators share praise. One told his teacher that he wanted to clone her and that she was “as advanced as a veteran teacher!”

Union College First- and Third-Year Teacher Survey — Spring 2023
Self Evaluation

Case Study Interviews

The EPP interviewed three first-year completers from the 2022-2023 cohorts. All three respondents were elementary education teachers (or working with middle school. Completers were asked questions regarding their accomplishments thus far, their use of best practices in classroom management, assignment design, assessment options, differentiation, technology, and addressing student behavior issues, among other things. All respondents reported they were prepared well for the academic challenges presented during the first year and that they were pleased with their growth and the engagement of their students.

All three respondents had multiple things to share regarding their successes in this first year of teaching. Building relationships leads the list for all of the teachers. Learning student names early made an impression on his students for one middle school teacher. Another teacher has made learning enjoyable and has kept up a great amount of energy in the classroom. A third teacher mentioned her skill at being able to break down the steps of learning for her fifth-grade students, in particular.

The respondents all shared about the varied student needs in their classrooms and the strategies they are using for meeting those needs. Their students struggle with reading comprehension, learning disabilities, and social-emotional development. To assist them, the teachers provide spaces in the classrooms for easier learning, teach vocabulary and reading strategies, and spend time with students individually each day. Some have bought school supplies for their students and others have participated in personal professional development to strengthen their helping skills. Regarding learning environments, the respondents described project-based learning units, collaborative learning, flexible seating, using large (and small) whiteboards, and engaging writing activities. 

One area of particular interest for EPP faculty is that of assessment. The respondents reported using a wide variety of assessment strategies, including tests, reports, projects, making a video or podcast, writing assignments including comic strips, summaries, drill and practice activities, exit tickets, and creative projects (one per quarter). One respondent appreciated the standardized testing done on her students three times a year. The winter data was particularly insightful, allowing her to talk with students as to their development and to set academic goals for themselves, thus empowering them toward success. 

Technology use among the respondents shows commitment to utilizing it only for best purposes and not to entertain or pass time. The IXL program is popular for drill and practice needs. One employs the amenities of the Chromebooks provided to students as they peruse their online textbooks. The online resources for two teachers were highly engaging and provided strong support for learners. Some schools were better equipped than others, such as the mostly affluent suburban middle school with Promethean smart boards in each classroom. One respondent mentioned the undergraduate training she received and noted how well it had prepared her for her school’s technology availability. 

All three teachers provided insight as to the administrative feedback they had received thus far. One administrator suggested more variety in assessment choices. Another was counseled to post objectives more regularly and to endeavor to engage 100% of his middle school students. The third respondent felt extremely thankful for the regular and balanced feedback she received from her principal. They met once a week during the first portion of the school year, which gave the new teacher a chance to ask questions and hear immediate suggestions for developing issues with curriculum and other student needs. 

Finally, the three teachers were asked to provide feedback for the EPP and also to give advice for new teachers ready to start this fall. All three felt the EPP had provided proper guidance for getting started. The various situations in which they work require added study in areas such as reading strategies for late elementary students and other strategies appropriate for middle school. One wanted more training in administration. Another asked that the EPP spend more time teaching candidates about interacting with parents, emotion regulation strategies, more hands-on training in classroom management, and thought that perhaps all candidates should learn Spanish, given the demographics of current schools across the country. To upcoming first-year teachers, these respondents encouraged them to be open, try new things, and give yourself permission to learn even if it is difficult. Model for your students how to manage the challenges of life. Become friends with co-workers and building staff, and remember that tomorrow is a new day!

Measure 2 - Satisfaction of Employers

Supervisor Survey

The EPP relies on data from the Supervisor Survey to gauge satisfaction of work done by EPP completers each year. The format of the survey aligns with the Nebraska Clinical Practice Evaluation elements, as described above (Measure 1).

First-Year Teacher Survey (sent to supervisors/employers)

For first-year teachers, the range of scores given by their supervisors was from 2.75 to 3.44, with the low for Learning Differences (2.75) and the high given for Christian Influence (3.44). Scores at or above benchmark constitute 80% of scores (12 of 15), which is a rise of 6% from last year’s reporting. Elements with higher scores included Instructional Strategies (3.19) and Assessment (3.17--up from 2.50 a year ago). Lower scores (below benchmark) were given for Learning Environments (2.92), and Technology Integration (2.85--down slightly). The EPP notes that 80% of the scores rose for this cohort.

Responses overall were strong with employers rating first-year teachers at 75% (3 of 4 supervisors) for willingness to hire again. The low score for one teacher did not stop the supervisor from renewing the teacher’s contract, and this teacher is now a more seasoned second-year teacher/minister. 

Qualitative comments include statements of both support and concern. The teacher mentioned above struggled with classroom management. Another received low scores for technology use but as the supervisor explained, their school does not want teachers of lower grades to utilize many technological resources.

Other first-year teachers were praised for their diligent, passionate work, for being balanced and not creating adversarial relationships with students or colleagues. One was called a team player and a good listener and when he had opportunity to complain, he did not. He was called a self-starter who “lives his Christianity and is a wonderful influence upon both the students and staff at the school.” Another teacher was praised for her maturity and content knowledge. Overall, “if [this teacher] is indicative of all the teachers that Union puts out, send us more!”

Third-Year Teacher Survey (sent to supervisors/employers)

The EPP uses the Nebraska Clinical Practice Evaluation elements for surveying supervisors of third-year completers, as well. For the 2021-22 cohort (reported in April 2023). Third-year teacher scores had a range of 3.13 to 3.67 with a mean of 3.50--up from 3.08 a year ago. All 14 elements were above benchmark (100%) with the highest gain in Impact on Student Learning (2.50 to 3.55). The EPP notes that 100% of scores rose for this cohort (over a year ago). The number of survey responses nearly doubled, providing more robust data

Responses overall were strong with employers rating first-year teachers at 100%. Qualitative comments included praise for having excellent content knowledge, maturation, and  “the awareness and practice of a seasoned teacher. “ No supervisors provided negative comments.

Union College First- and Third-Year Teacher Survey — Spring 2023
Supervisor Survey

Stakeholder involvement

The EPP partners with a variety of stakeholders from the local area and beyond. Closest at hand is the Teacher Preparation Committee (TPC) and most remote would be the high schools across the nation that board and host student teachers as the need and opportunity arises.

The Teacher Preparation Committee (TPC) meets monthly to provide perspectives regarding all aspects of the Union College Education Department. Started over twenty years ago, this group includes college professors (in relevant content areas), P-12 classroom teachers, school administrators from Union College and local P-12 settings, representatives from the local public school, and teacher candidates. The group regularly votes on regulatory activities such as admitting teacher candidates into the program officially, approving student teacher placements, and endorsing department changes and policy exceptions (curricular and otherwise). A recent collaboration regarding candidate progression through the program yielded a vote from TPC to allow for tutoring and tutoring participation monitoring in order to permit approved candidates to proceed with classes, even though the Praxis Core test had not been passed.

Another major stakeholder is the Mid-America Union Conference (MAUC) of Seventh-day Adventists. This entity supports and oversees denominational schools (P-12) from a nine-state region, with headquarters located in our city. Leadership at the MAUC attends official education department functions such as the Annual Constituency Meeting, the Education Department Banquet, and the Teacher Dedication ceremony. They host events to recruit and educate teacher candidates in the job-seeking process. Various members present in EDUC courses on topics of expertise. A final element of support by this group includes professional development. The MAUC regularly provides financial support for events aimed at current faculty but also teacher candidates, first-year teachers, and beyond. A recent collaboration with this group regarded the need to recruit more candidates from the MAUC’s nine-state region. A MAUC-funded scholarship was allotted again in August 2022 to each high school (n=7). The MAUC also recently voted to fund attendance at a national educators conference for all faculty and teacher candidates of junior and senior status.

There are three local schools and/or districts that perform stakeholder functions. Most immediate is the two-teacher, K-8, multigrade lab school on campus. Here, elementary education majors (junior and senior year) are trained in denominational textbooks/expectations and multigrade structuring. Lab-school faculty teach for the EPP during the fall semester each year. A recent collaborative project includes learning to do initial assessments in reading and handwriting skills, multigrade practicum experiences, and substitute teaching opportunities.

Across the street is an affiliated high school. This P-12 school with single-grade classrooms is where both elementary and secondary education majors do practicum teaching and some student teaching. Cooperating teachers collaborate with university supervisors regarding specific needs for each placement, and faculty members hold TPC membership. Collaborative activities include technology training (EPP candidates instructing cooperating teachers through a webinar), and music class collaboration, which benefits EPP music education majors in the leadership experience they can acquire.

Finally, Lincoln Public Schools (LPS) administrators sponsor placement meetings, where faculty from all local colleges gather to choose placements. College representatives and LPS leadership offer insights as to quality placement choices. In addition, LPS administration provides training for substitute teaching and student teaching expectations within their system, plus includes the EPP in recruiting for diverse candidates. The EPP has too many candidates in each cohort to utilize only denominational schools, so the EPP appreciates the LPS faculty for their willingness to host practicum and student teachers. The EPP faculty appreciates the ongoing faculty collaboration. In the recent past, LPS teachers have provided feedback on lesson plan expectations (too many and not useful formats). The EPP has made modifications to expectations to ease the frustrations.

Besides local placements, several candidates have chosen to student teach out-of-state and beyond the Mid-America Union Conference (MAUC).  While there, candidates are given food and board, work opportunities, supervision experience, and multiple prep and teaching opportunities. Cooperating teachers provide feedback and the local administration oversees the experience overall. As with any placement, regular feedback is solicited, so these more remote locations play a role in wider perspectives for EPP consideration.

Completers themselves are stakeholders in the sense that they provide the EPP opportunities to glean Teacher Work Sample data, survey data, and case study feedback. EPP faculty visit first and third-year completers as time permits, and for the rest, host Zoom meetings for collaboration. Recent feedback from completer interviews suggested that candidates be placed in more diverse settings, especially for elementary placements. They also hoped for even more contact from the EPP faculty during the first year.

A final stakeholder includes the high school students from the Mid-America Union Conference (MAUC). During a major recruiting campaign hosted by the college, education faculty met with every high schooler in the MAUC during the past year. Part of the presentation included a survey regarding career plans. For those students expressing interest in becoming a teacher, communications are ongoing as the EPP seeks to recruit. Feedback from each senior is also guiding us in teaching strategies to model and promote for all teacher candidates. The resulting infographic on the 4 C’s of 21st Century Learning was shared with teacher candidates as well as the high schoolers and their faculty.

Measure 3 - Candidate Competency at Completion

The EPP measures candidate competency with five main assessments.  Those assessments include Praxis II scores, the Nebraska Clinical Practice Evaluation, lesson plan scores, teacher work sample scores, and cooperating teacher feedback regarding candidate strengths and successes through the end of the student teaching semester.

Praxis II

The EPP is reporting on Praxis II scores for three years (2020-2023,  n=27), including elementary education majors (n=10) and secondary education majors (n=17). The elementary majors had 100% passing scores on the first attempt. For the secondary majors, 13 of 15 passed on the first attempt (87%), and one of those passed before graduation. Regarding the current cohort (n=7, graduated May 2023), only one has not passed their test before graduation, with 6 of 7 passing on the first attempt.

NCPE

A second resource for data collection is the Nebraska Clinical Practice Evaluation (NCPE). The EPP is reporting on the 2022-23 cohort (n=7). On the final evaluation, the cooperating teachers gave the cohort a 3.83 average score with a range of 3.5 to 4.0, while the university supervisors awarded a 3.77 average score with a range of 3.3 to 4.0 (benchmark = 3.0). These average scores are highly comparable, though in various elements, there are noticeable differences. 

For cooperating teachers, lower scores were found in the following areas: engages students in critical thinking and assesses for learning(both 3.50, which is above benchmark). For university supervisors, lower scores were found in the following areas: develops literacy and communication skills through content, critical thinking, and assesses for learning to impact student learning (all 3.33, which is above benchmark). High points for cooperating teachers include 8 of 18 elements (44%) at the 4.0 mark. Strong elements included the following: promotes a positive classroom environment, uses accurate content and academic vocabulary, plans for instruction, uses engagement to enhance learning, accepts critique, conveys professional demeanor, and two standards regarding ethics.

Lesson Plans and Teacher Work Samples

During the senior year, teacher candidates submit lesson plans and Teacher Work Samples. Through both of these key assessments, the EPP gleans data as to candidate competency. This review features the 2022-2023 cohort.

For lesson plan scores overall, the average was 3.27 with a range of 3.03 to 3.58 (3.0 benchmark). High scores were noted in various areas: writing quality standards (3.58), technology/materials (3.45), identifying values in the lesson (3.36), opener motivator (3.30), and practice (3.28). No scores were below benchmark.  

For the Teacher Work Sample, candidates are scored on project quality even as the EPP marks student achievement in each sample submitted (n=7). Scores for project quality showed a 3.54 (of 4.0) average (benchmark=3.0). The overall average gain for the cohort was 34.87% growth, with an 89.69% pass rate for all students (n=112).

Cooperating Teacher Reflective Survey

A final assessment for determining teacher candidate competency is reflective feedback that came from cooperating teachers at the end of the student teaching semester. Cooperating teachers gave an average score (for all elements combined) of 4.62 of 5.0, with a range of 4.40 (understanding the wholistic nature of children) to 4.80 (student teacher developed rapport with students). 

Cooperating teachers gave high marks on critical thinking, planning, presenting, and assessment skills, meeting the diverse needs of students, plus professionalism (all 4.60). 

All endorsements offered by Union College were approved by CAEP during the most recent accreditation visit (2019).