STANDARD 1 Content and Pedagogical Knowledge Tatiana Rivadeneyra, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
STANDARD 1 Content and Pedagogical Knowledge Tatiana Rivadeneyra, Ed.D. Accreditation Director Tatiana.Rivadeneyra@caepnet.org Banhi Bhattacharya, Ph.D. Accreditation Director Senior Director of Program Review Banhi.Bhattacharya@caepnet.org
Washington, District of Columbia September 2017
Content and Pedagogical Knowledge
Tatiana Rivadeneyra, Ed.D.
Accreditation Director Tatiana.Rivadeneyra@caepnet.org
Banhi Bhattacharya, Ph.D.
Accreditation Director Senior Director of Program Review Banhi.Bhattacharya@caepnet.org
T R
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Initial-licensure.
materials for guidance.
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
CONSULT:
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
General for all Standards
components are addressed
assessment sufficiency criteria
sequential and most recent available
area (when appropriate)
(if applicable)
discussion of trends/patterns, comparisons, and/or differences.
Special for Standard 1
licensure area
support of continuous improvement, part of overall review system
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
The provider ensures that candidates develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their discipline [components 1.1, 1.3] and, by completion, can use discipline-specific practices flexibly to advance the learning of all students toward attainment of college- and career-readiness standards [component 1.4].
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Candidates demonstrate an understanding of the 10 InTASC standards at the appropriate progression level(s) in the following categories: the learner and learning; content; instructional practice; and professional responsibility.
Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate developing an understanding over time in these four categories?
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
CANDIDATES DEMONSTRATE UNDERSTANDING OF 10 InTASC STANDARDS
across the four categories
settings are identified
and/or differences
in same courses or majors
performance of other providers
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Standard 1, component 1.1
Instruments
IHE attendees on provider end-of- major projects
+ Proprietary Assessments/Measures + State Assessments/Measures
Initial Standards
(suggested evidence) Resource: CAEP Evaluation Framework for EPP-Created Assessments
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Providers ensure that candidates use research and evidence to develop an understanding of the teaching profession and use both to measure their P-12 students’ progress and their own professional practice.
Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate using research and assessment (evidence) for student and professional learning?
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
CANDIDATES USE RESEARCH/EVIDENCE TOWARD TEACHING PROFESSION
data
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Providers ensure that candidates apply content and pedagogical knowledge as reflected in outcome assessments in response to standards of Specialized Professional Associations (SPA), the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), states, or other accrediting bodies (e.g., National Association of Schools of Music – NASM).
Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate the application of content knowledge and in response to other professional standards?
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
CANDIDATES APPLY CONTENT/PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE; IN RESPONSE TO SPAs
interpretations of specialty licensure area data
and improve instruction and candidate learning outcomes?
disaggregated data?
standards?
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
licensure or certification areas to serve in a P-12 setting
leading to a degree, a recommendation for a state license, or some other credential that entitles the holder to perform professional education services in schools (P-12)
to meet standards developed by SPAs
and recognition decision– used as partial evidence for CAEP Standard 1
BB
Program review decisions factor into CAEP Standard 1, component 1.3, which says:
“Providers ensure that candidates apply content and pedagogical knowledge as reflected in outcome assessments in response to standards
Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), states, or other accrediting bodies (e.g., National Association of Schools of Music – NASM).”
BB
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
endorsements of P-12 professionals fall under the scope
NASM, etc.):
accredited by CAEP)
EPP-wide assessments, annual report, and program review)
16
state (28 agreements signed to date)
agency report)
BB
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
STATE SPA REVIEW REVIEW WITH FEEDBACK STATE REVIEW ARKANSAS X X X DELAWARE X
X
KANSAS
NEW JERSEY X X
* Information on program review options by state is available on the CAEP website: http://caepnet.org/working-together/state-partners/state-partnership-agreements
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
demonstrate?
and other professional education responsibilities?
colleagues?
19
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
CONSIDER:
programs list on the EPP’s catalog?
applicable)?
addendum) presented on the self-study report match the selected review
Remember: 1 licensing program = 1 review option evidence type
20
Two Steps in CAEP Accreditation Process if Selecting SPA Review Option: Step #1: Initial review report submitted to SPA three years prior to site visit (Program level review) Example: Site Visit in Fall 2020 Initial SPA review in Fall 2017 Step #2: Self-study report submitted to CAEP nine months prior to site visit (Provider level review) Example: Site Visit in Nov. 2020 Self-Study report in Mar. 2020
BB
Example: site visit in Fall 2020 initial SPA review in Fall 2017
Did the EPP receive an extension to account for older Recognition Reports?
selects the SPA option?
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
25
Spring Cycle Due Date: March 15 Fall Cycle Due Date: September 15 Spring Cycle Decisions: August 1 Fall Cycle Decisions: February 1
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
spring cycle and September 10 for fall cycle)
enable shell request submission
(AIMS): http://aims.caepnet.org/AIMS_login.asp)
http://caepnet.org/accreditation/caep-accreditation/spa-program-review-policies- and-procedur
26
Program Review:
and improve instruction and candidate learning outcomes?
the disaggregated data?
how do they provide evidence for meeting the CAEP and state expectations and standards?
evidence indicates potential area for improvement (AFI)
21
knowledge for each licensure area program
EPP to demonstrate candidates’ content knowledge in the licensure area
22
Address the following questions for each assessment:
http://caepnet.org/accreditation/caep-accreditation/program-review-options/caep-program- review-with-feedback
23
Source: Technical Guide for CAEP Program Review with Feedback 24
Source: Technical Guide for CAEP Program Review with Feedback 25
As a norm, align the assessments for Initial-Level Programs with the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards on content and pedagogy Standard 4 (Content Knowledge), Standard 5 (Application of Content), Standard 6 (Assessment), Standard 7 (Planning for Instruction), and Standard 8 (Instructional Strategies)
Feedback option (state agreement), EPP will align evidence to those standards
26
decisions
expectations
27
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
branch campuses
Guide
34
Program Review with Feedback Option:
specialty licensure area evidence used to inform decision making and improve instruction and candidate learning outcomes?
individual licensure areas used data as the basis for change?
for meeting the state-selected (or InTASC) standards?
29
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Providers ensure that candidates demonstrate skills and commitment that afford all P-12 students access to rigorous college- and career-ready standards (e.g., Next Generation Science Standards, National Career Readiness Certificate, Common Core State Standards).
Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate skills and commitment to access for all students?
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, Standard 1, component 1.4
CANDIDATES DEMONSTRATE TO COLLEGE-AND-CAREER-READY STANDARDS
candidate’s ability to
communication skills
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
and career-readiness
candidates’ skills for
goals/objective
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Providers ensure that candidates model and apply technology standards as they design, implement and assess learning experiences to engage students and improve learning; and enrich professional practice.
Consider: What evidence do I have that would demonstrate modeling and application of technology skills to enhance learning for students and self?
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Evidence Sufficiency Criteria, Standard 1, component 1.5
CANDIDATES MODEL AND APPLY TECHNOLOGY
electronic sources
Design
Facilitate
Technology
Evaluate • Post-Instruction Evaluation and Review
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT MAY BE CITED WHEN:
disaggregated data
indicators, specific to InTASC categories
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
STIPULATIONS MAY BE CITED WHEN:
upper half of state median/average field by field
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Embedded in Every Aspect of Educator Preparation
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
be explicitly addressed through evidence are identified by the following icons in the CAEP Evidence Tables.
and
Fall 2017 | Washington, D.C.
Diversity
Standard 1
commitment that provide all P-12 students access to rigorous college and career ready standards.
Technology
Standard 1
candidates model and apply technology standards as they design, implement, and assess learning experiences to engage students and improving learning and enrich professional practice.”