California State University - School of Education - CSU ...



The California State University

Systemwide EXIT Evaluation of Professional Teacher Preparation

An Initiative of the CSU Deans of Education

Preliminary Work-Product of Item-Specific Findings for

The Dean of Education

California State University, Channel Islands

2008

Prepared by:

Center for Teacher Quality

Office of the Chancellor

Directed by:

Deans of Education Committee on Systemwide Evaluation

The California State University

The California State University

Systemwide Exit Evaluation of Professional Teacher Preparation (2008)

An Initiative of the CSU Deans of Education

Preliminary Work-Product of Item-Specific Findings for

The Dean of Education

California State University, Channel Islands

2008

Systemwide Exit Evaluation of Professional Teacher Preparation

(2007-08)

CSU Deans Committee on Academic Evaluation Officers

Systemwide Evaluation Office of the CSU Chancellor

___________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________

♦ Dr. Bonnie Konopak, Committee Chair ♦ Dr. Gary Reichard

College of Education Executive Vice-Chancellor

California Polytechnic State University Office of the Chancellor, Academic Affairs

San Luis Obispo The California State University System

♦ Dr. Paul Beare, Dean ♦ Dr. Keith Boyum

Kremen School of Education & Human Dev. Associate Vice-Chancellor

California State University Office of the Chancellor, Academic Affairs

Fresno The California State University System

♦ Dr. Mary Gendernalik-Cooper, Dean ♦ Dr. Beverly Young

School of Education Assistant Vice-Chancellor

Sonoma State University Office of the Chancellor, Academic Affairs

Sonoma The California State University System

♦ Dr. Joan Karp, Dean ♦ Dr. David Wright, Director

School of Education CSU Center for Teacher Quality

California State University The California State University System

Channel Islands

♦ Dr. Nohoon Kwak, Statistician

♦ Dr. Steve Turley, Associate Dean CSU Center for Teacher Quality

College of Education The California State University System

California State University

Long Beach ♦ Rachelle Smith, Evaluation Data Manager

Wes Bonifay, Graduate Student Assistant

Jennifer Anhar, Graduate Student Assistant

CSU Center for Teacher Quality

© CSU Center for Teacher Quality

The California State University

6000 J Street, Modoc Hall

Sacramento, California

The California State University

Systemwide Exit Evaluation of Professional Teacher Preparation (2008)

Preliminary Item-Specific Findings for the Dean of Education

California State University, Channel Islands

Overview of the Dean’s Preliminary Work-Product

Part A About the CSU Systemwide Exit Evaluation of Teacher Preparation Page 1

● Background and Methodology of the CSU Systemwide Exit Evaluation: 2007-08 2

● Important Characteristics of Statistical Data in this Preliminary Work-Product 3

Part B Descriptive Information about the Evaluation Participants and Their Schools 4

Part C Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Effectiveness: General Teaching Practices 13

Part D Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Effectiveness: Specific Teaching Practices 25

Part E Evaluation of the Value and Helpfulness of Pedagogy, Subjects, Program Support, and Fieldwork Activities 35

Part F Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Quality: Qualities Sought in Professional Accreditation Standards 45

Part G Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Quality: Overall Assessment 51

Part A

About the CSU Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation

A-1 Background and Methodology of the CSU Systemwide Evaluation: 2007-08 Page 1

A-2 Important Characteristics of Statistical Data in This Preliminary Work-Product 3

Section A-1

Background and Methodology of the CSU Systemwide Exit Evaluation

2007-08

CSU Systemwide Exit Evaluation--Background

In 2001 the CSU Deans of Education initiated the first Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Education Programs in the University’s history. The purpose of the evaluation has been to provide information that the Deans, other CSU leaders, and faculties could use in making improvements in teacher education programs. From 2002 through 2008 the Deans continued the study to see whether the programs grew more or less effective over time. Rather than viewing evaluation as a one-time activity, the Deans plan to compile and use new and updated evaluation data in the future.

To date, participants in the evaluation have included large samples of individuals who graduated from CSU teacher education programs and who have been teaching for one year. In four evaluations, the Chancellor’s Office drew stratified random samples of these graduates and asked them to answer questions about the quality and effectiveness of their CSU preparation. Most recently, the participants included all teaching graduates whom the CO could locate. Each year the CSU also invited the school-site principals of these teachers to evaluate the teachers’ preparation.

To date, the evaluation findings reflect the experiences of over 40,000 CSU graduates of teacher preparation programs since 1999-2000.

Expansion of the Evaluation

Currently, the CSU annually recommends more than 11,000 teaching graduates of its teacher education programs for state teaching credentials. Most campuses have conducted an exit evaluation of their programs, but because the evaluation instruments were developed independently at each campus, the content and form of the questions have varied from one instrument to another. This makes it difficult to interpret the experiences of new program graduates in a meaningful, systemwide context.

In the winter of 2003, the Deans of Education requested implementation of a campus exit evaluation. The Deans agreed that the initial exit evaluation would be conducted in 2004 as a pilot, and that participation by individual CSU campuses for one year would be voluntary. The Deans agreed that all campuses would participate in the exit evaluation starting in the spring, 2005.

Items included in the Exit Evaluation

In the fall of 2003, requests were made for copies of exit evaluations used by each CSU campus. Eleven were received and then analyzed to determine the degree of consistency with each other and with the systemwide instrument that was being administered to recent program completers. While consistency was high, a small number of items appeared on campus instruments that did not appear in any form on the systemwide instrument. Some of these focused on detailed aspects of the teacher education program that one would not expect graduates one or more years later to recall vividly. Many of these items were included in the systemwide exit evaluation.

Still other items were unique to a single campus. To accommodate these items, program officials from each campus were given the ability to add and maintain a separate set of campus items on a password protected website. After responding to the core set of items presented to all respondents, a separate set of questions appear (if any existed) based on a completer’s campus affiliation.

A small number of items on the current systemwide evaluation focus on the experiences CSU graduates have had as beginning teachers. These, of course, are not included in the exit evaluation.

Respondents to the exit evaluation are required to enter their names and social security numbers. This allows program officials at each campus to see, online, which students have completed the survey. Respondents are assured that their responses to the evaluation will be forwarded only to the CSU Chancellor’s Office and that their name and SSN are used only to verify completion of the evaluation to program officials on their campus.

Benefits of an Exit Evaluation

1. Increased participation. The exit evaluation allows data collection from virtually all program completers. After program completers leave the CSU, it becomes increasingly difficult to locate them.

2. Longitudinal. The exit evaluation allows comparison of early perceptions with data collected one or more years after employment commences.

3. Comparability. A standardized instrument allows campus officials to compare evaluations of their program completers with those from the system as a whole.

4. Cost and time savings. The Chancellor’s Office and individual campuses receive aggregated data electronically preformatted with statistical computations complete. This will eliminate need for staff to collect, collate and transfer data from paper forms to computer.

5. Flexibility. The exit evaluation allows campus officials to include campus-specific items that do not appear in systemwide set.

A-2: Important Characteristics of

Statistical Data in the Preliminary Work-Product

(1) Throughout this preliminary work-product, statistical data describe the professional preparation of the cohort of CSU teacher candidates who completed (or were about to complete) their credential preparation during the 2007-08 academic year.

(2) The data in this year’s report includes responses obtained from September 26, 2007 to July 30, 2008.

(3) Statistics in this work-product (including Part B) are unadjusted summaries of the actual responses of participating students.

(4) In cases where there was little or no response to a participation question (i.e., when N < 10), statistical summaries, which are likely to be unreliable representations of larger student populations, are not provided in this work-product.

(5) Systemwide statistics are included throughout this work-product to serve as benchmarks for interpreting campus-specific findings.

(6) The great majority of the evaluation questions were common questions addressed to program completers of Multiple Subject Credential Programs, program completers of Single Subject Credential Programs, and program completers of Education Specialist Credential Programs. Part C of the work-product is a comprehensive summary of responses to these common questions. For each group of program completers, the evaluation also included a smaller number of credential-specific questions, which are summarized in Part D.

Part B

Descriptive Information About CSU Program Completers:

Contents of Part B

Table 1 Participation in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation (2007-08) Page 5

Table 2 Race and Ethnicity of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 5

Table 3 Gender of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 6

Table 4 Age of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 6

Table 5 Time to Complete Program (in months) of Participants in CSU 6

Teacher Education Exit Evaluation (2007-08)

Table 6 Type of Credential Earned of Participants in CSU Teacher Education 7

Exit Evaluation

Table 7 How Subject Matter Requirement Was Met of Participants in CSU Teacher 7

Education Exit Evaluation

Table 8 Salary Status During Credential Program of Participants in CSU Teacher 8

Education Exit Evaluation

Table 9 When Salary First Earned of Participants in CSU Teacher 8

Education Exit Evaluation

Table 10 Subject Matter Preparation Prior to Credential Program of Participants 9

in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

Table 11 Employment Experience Prior to Credential Program of Participants 9

in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

Table 12 Current Employment Status and Plans for Coming Year of Participants 10

in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

Table 13 Types of Student Teaching Assignments of Participants 10

in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

Table 14 Employment Preferences of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation 11

Table 15 Percentage of K-12 Students who were English Learners during 12

Student Teaching of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

Table 1

Participation in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

Spring 2007-08

| |This CSU Campus |The CSU System |

| |N |N |

| |Program Completers who participated in the exit evaluation in 2007-08. |75 |7667 |

Table 2

Race and Ethnicity of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

2007-08

| |This CSU Campus |The CSU System |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Chinese |1 |1.5% |250 |3.4% |

|Japanese |0 |.0% |98 |1.3% |

|Korean |1 |1.5% |129 |1.7% |

|Vietnamese |0 |.0% |103 |1.4% |

|Asian Indian |0 |.0% |62 |.8% |

|Laotian |0 |.0% |10 |.1% |

|Cambodian |0 |.0% |30 |.4% |

|Other Asian |0 |.0% |79 |1.1% |

|Hawaiian |0 |.0% |28 |.4% |

|Guamanian |0 |.0% |9 |.1% |

|Samoan |0 |.0% |6 |.1% |

|Other Pacific Islander |0 |.0% |13 |.2% |

|Filipino |2 |2.9% |183 |2.5% |

|Hispanic or Latino |19 |27.9% |1877 |25.5% |

|African American, not of Hispanic Origin |0 |.0% |216 |2.9% |

|White, not of Hispanic Origin |49 |72.1% |4629 |62.8% |

Special Note for Table 2

1) Participants were allowed to select multiple race/ethnicity options.

Table 3

Gender of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

2007-08

| |This CSU Campus |The CSU System |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Male |12 |16.7% |1668 |22.2% |

Table 4

Age of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

2007-08

| |This CSU Campus |The CSU System |

| |N |% |N |% |

|22 - 24 |24 |37.5% |2584 |37.6% |

|25 - 30 |22 |34.4% |2429 |35.3% |

|31 - 40 |13 |20.3% |1242 |18.1% |

|41 - 50 |-- |-- |264 |3.8% |

|> 50 |4 |6.3% |355 |5.2% |

Table 5

Time to Complete Program (in months)

Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

2007-08

| |This CSU Campus |The CSU System |

| |N |% |N |% |

|12 - 18 |26 |36.1% |2274 |31.4% |

|19 - 24 |12 |16.7% |1264 |17.4% |

|25 - 36 |4 |5.6% |526 |7.3% |

|> 36 |-- |-- |--- |--- |

Table 6

Type of Credential Earned

Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

2007-08

| |This CSU Campus |The CSU System |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Education Specialist |2 |2.7% |793 |10.4% |

|Single Subject |19 |25.3% |2491 |32.7% |

Table 7

How Subject Matter Requirement was Met

Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

2007-08

| |This CSU Campus |The CSU System |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Subject matter program at same CSU campus |30 |40.0% |2803 |36.6% |

|Subject matter program at different CSU |1 |1.3% |211 |2.8% |

|Subject matter program at a non-CSU campus |1 |1.3% |122 |1.6% |

|Credit for Coursework Completed Elsewhere |1 |1.3% |115 |1.5% |

Table 8

Salary Status During Credential Program

Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

2007-08

| |This CSU Campus |The CSU System |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Earned Salary through Internship |9 |12.0% |1651 |21.5% |

|Did Not Earn a Salary (worked with coop. teacher) |62 |82.7% |5564 |72.6% |

Table 9

When Salary First Earned

Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

Who were Emergency Permit Holders

2007-08

| |This CSU Campus |The CSU System |

| |N |% |N |% |

|After enrollment in ed. courses, but before student teaching |1 |1.3% |114 |1.5% |

|After starting, but before completing student teaching |1 |1.3% |73 |1.0% |

Table 10

Subject Matter Preparation Prior to Credential Program

Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

2007-08

| |This CSU Campus |The CSU System |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Most of second year courses at a two-year community college |22 |15.2% |1867 |15.1% |

|Attended more than one four-year institution for bachelor's degree |9 |6.2% |752 |6.1% |

|Attended more than one CSU campus for bachelor's degree |6 |4.1% |304 |2.5% |

|Earned bachelor's degree at same CSU campus as credential |33 |22.8% |4115 |33.3% |

|Earned bachelor's degree at different CSU campus from credential |29 |20.0% |1913 |15.5% |

|Earned bachelor's degree outside of CSU system |16 |11.0% |1314 |10.6% |

Note: The percentages in Table 10 exceed 100% because respondents were allowed to select more than one option.

Table 11

Employment Experience Prior to Credential Program

Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

2007-08

| |This CSU Campus |The CSU System |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Worked w/ emergency permit in K-12 public school |3 |3.4% |319 |3.6% |

|Worked as intern in K-12 public school |0 |.0% |197 |2.2% |

|Worked as teacher-assistant or sub. in K-12 school |18 |20.7% |1619 |18.4% |

|Worked as fully certified teacher in K-12 public school |0 |.0% |98 |1.1% |

|Outside of education worked in professional position related to college education |25 |28.7% |1950 |22.2% |

|Outside of education worked in professional position not related to college education |34 |39.1% |3111 |35.4% |

|No employment experience |5 |5.7% |1202 |13.7% |

Table 12

Current Employment Status and Plans for Coming Year

Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

2007-08

| |This CSU Campus |The CSU System |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Currently employed at a school. Expect to teach elsewhere. |4 |5.3% |545 |7.1% |

|Currently employed at a school. Will not seek employment. |-- |-- |57 |.7% |

|Not employed. Will seek employment. |58 |77.3% |4744 |61.9% |

|Not employed. Will not seek employment next year. |-- |-- |166 |2.2% |

Table 13

Types of Student Teaching Assignments

Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

2007-08

| |This CSU Campus |The CSU System |

| |N |% |N |% |

|Core classroom teacher. I taught 2 or 3 classes of students. I teach 2 core subjects in each class. |9 |10.8% |1129 |14.1% |

|Dept. based teacher. I taught 3 to 7 classes of students. I taught one subject in each class. |13 |15.7% |1362 |17.1% |

|Special Ed. teacher. The majority of my students are identified as Special Education students |1 |1.2% |609 |7.6% |

|Other teaching position |6 |7.2% |498 |6.2% |

Table 14

Employment Preferences

Of Participants in CSU Teacher Education Exit Evaluation

2007-08

| |This CSU Campus: |CSU System: |

| |All Programs Combined |All Programs Combined |

| |Does Not Apply |Not at All |

| |N |% |N |% |

|1% - 20% |22 |30.1% |2356 |31.3% |

|21% - 40% |16 |21.9% |1580 |21.0% |

|41% - 60% |14 |19.2% |1145 |15.2% |

|61% - 80% |9 |12.3% |817 |10.9% |

|81% - 99% |7 |9.6% |700 |9.3% |

|100% |-- |-- |102 |1.4% |

Part C

Evaluation Construct: Teacher Education Program Effectiveness

Evaluation Sources: Program Completers

Evaluation Focus: General Concepts and Practices of Teaching

Teacher Education Program Effectiveness as an Evaluation Construct

What does it mean to say the CSU Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation measures program effectiveness? What concept of "program effectiveness" underlies the evaluation questions and the respondents' answers to those questions?

Program effectiveness is conceptualized in relation to the professional practices and understandings that are integral to a K-12 teacher's work. CSU assumes that all teaching positions and assignments include a core body of pedagogical practices and concepts. Another assumption is that the profession's core practices and principles are complex, subtle and challenging for first-year teachers to implement in their day-to-day work. When teachers confront these challenges during the initial years of certificated teaching, the effectiveness of their preparation is the extent to which their prior coursework and fieldwork enable them to incorporate the profession's core practices and concepts into their work at levels of proficiency and understanding that are appropriate and realistic for first-year certificated teachers. Parts C and D of this evaluation work-product focus on the extent to which the program completers of specific programs and particular universities are ready to assume the responsibilities of first-year certificated teachers at initial levels of understanding and skill.

Based on this definition of program effectiveness, the evaluation asks how well each teaching graduate was prepared and ready to fulfill a teacher's core responsibilities at entry levels of proficiency. CSU does not assume that this concept of effectiveness is the only important outcome of teacher preparation programs. Among a program's important outcomes, however, this construct of effectiveness is considered to be significant and appropriate as one basis for assessing programs of professional preparation for teacher certification.

Program Completers as Sources of Effectiveness Data

The proficiencies of beginning teachers are affected by school conditions as well as their prior preparation. When novice teachers transition into the role of "instructor of record," many will find it difficult to translate their collegiate preparation into effective practice and professional understanding. Newly-certificated teachers need to confer and collaborate with supportive mentors who are carefully selected and well trained for the mentor's important role. CSU supported the inception and expansion of California's Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) Program as a thoroughly field-tested and evaluated induction program for first-year and second-year teachers who have earned initial credentials. California annually appropriates funds for all first- and second-year certificated teachers (K-12) to participate in BTSA, the great majority of whom do so. Consequently, there are no longer systemic, structural reasons to suppose that the effectiveness of teacher preparation cannot be assessed feasibly and validly by compiling evidence of the readiness and proficiencies of first-year teachers.

In the design of the exit evaluation, CSU has taken steps to ensure that program completers judge the effectiveness of teacher preparation on the basis of expectations that are realistic and reasonable. Before CSU's teaching program completers answer any evaluation questions, they read the following statement by the CSU:

Your CSU campus designed your initial teaching credential program to prepare you to start working as a new teacher in a school where your preparation would continue. In your credential program, the CSU wanted you to learn basic teaching skills and educational ideas at an initial level. Your campus expects that you will have a mentor in your school to assist you in learning how to use your teaching skills in your class with your students. CSU expected that you will also have chances to develop your teaching skills and ideas with a mentor’s help. Important aspects of a teacher’s job are listed below. At the CSU, how well prepared were you to begin each aspect of a teacher’s job while you extend your initial skills with a mentor’s help? Please finish each statement below by selecting an option that best represents the level of your preparation. (Select “x” on the right side of the page if you have not been responsible for a particular item since you finished your CSU preparation.)

At some CSU campuses, large numbers of credential candidates hold emergency teaching permits or internship credentials. These individuals serve as full-time teachers concurrently with their enrollment in CSU credential programs. The evaluation does not assess the effectiveness of their preparation at the end of their first year of teaching because they have not completed CSU preparation at that time. The exit evaluation examines CSU's effectiveness at the completion of CSU credential programs. Regardless of which "route" teachers have pursued for state certification, the exit evaluation compiles data after (or just as) they finish CSU programs of professional teacher preparation. This evaluation design ensures that all programs are assessed at the same point in time following the completion of CSU preparation. In this preliminary work-product, the term "program completers" refers to those CSU students who respond to program effectiveness questions as they finish CSU credential programs.

Preparation for General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Focus of Part C

Each program completer’s responsibilities will include some duties that are unique to a school district, some that are unique to a school, and others that are unique to the teacher's specific class(es). Common responsibilities are widely associated with teaching positions regardless of the districts, schools and classrooms where teachers are employed. Some of these common responsibilities are associated with distinct types of teaching positions in elementary schools, secondary schools and special education programs, which are the subject of Part D beginning on page 25. In Part C, the focus is on the effectiveness of CSU preparation in relation to pedagogical concepts and skills that are generally applicable to all teaching positions.

Questions about Program Effectiveness Addressed in Part C

(1) How well were the program completers of this CSU campus prepared for 23 important responsibilities of teachers, according to the program completer’s own judgments after they completed the campus’ programs in 2007-08? How do their assessments of their own readiness compare with evaluations by program completers from all CSU campuses in 2006-2008? Within Part C, Tables 16-A and 16-B focus on these campus-wide questions.

(2) After examining evaluations by all program completers from this campus, how similar or dissimilar are program completers’ assessments when we focus specifically on the effectiveness of Multiple Subject Credential Programs, of Single Subject Credential Programs and of Education Specialist Level I Credential Programs? Among these distinct credential programs, are the similarities and dissimilarities at this CSU campus also true for the CSU system overall?

Contents of Part C

Table 16-A General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of All Types of CSU Teaching Page 17

Credential Programs According to Program Completers (General Concepts and Practices 1-10)

Table 16-B General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of All Types of CSU Teaching Page 18

Credential Programs According to Program Completers (General Concepts and Practices 11-23)

Table 17-A General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Page 19

Credential Programs According to Program Completers (General Concepts and Practices 1-10)

Table 17-B General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Page 20

Credential Programs According to Program Completers (General Concepts and Practices 11-23)

Table 18-A General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Page 21

Credential Programs According to Program Completers (General Concepts and Practices 1-10)

Table 17-B General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Page 22

Credential Programs According to Program Completers (General Concepts and Practices 11-23)

Table 19-A General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Level I Page 23

Credential Programs According to Program Completers (General Concepts and Practices 1-10)

Table 19-B General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Level I Page 24

Credential Programs According to Program Completers (General Concepts and Practices 11-23)

Important Characteristics of Data in Part C

Important characteristics of statistical data throughout this preliminary work-product are described on page 3. Additionally, the statistics in Part C have the following important properties.

(1) For program completers, the response options for the questions in Part C (Tables 16-19) are shown below with the coded value of each response. Evaluation participants were encouraged to mark “x” (“Don’t Know”) if they did not have a sufficient basis for selecting a response from zero to three.

Response Options in Tables 16-19 Response Options in Tables 16-19

Well Prepared = 3 Somewhat Prepared = 1

Adequately Prepared = 2 Not At All Prepared = 0

I Don’t Know = x

(2) In each data table, Columns (2) and (7) show the percentages of respondents who gave either of the two favorable responses (“3” or “2”) to each evaluation question. Columns (3) and (8) show the percentages who gave either of the two unfavorable responses (“1” or “0”) to each question. Percentages are rounded to nearest integers so they may not add exactly to 100 percent.

(3) Means and standard deviations in Columns (4), (5), (9) and (10) are based on the numeric scale shown above. Mean values range from a minimum of zero to a maximum of 3.00, and are substantially but not entirely correlated with percentage values in Columns (2), (3), (7) and (8).

(4) Program completers who indicated they “Don’t Know” about an aspect of their preparation (“x”) are not included in any column of statistical data because their responses did not describe the effectiveness of the program completer’s preparation.

Table 16-A

General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of All Types of CSU Teaching Credential Programs During 2007-08, as Evaluated in 2007-08 by Graduates Exiting these Programs

|Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting All Credential|This CSU Campus: |CSU System: |

|Programs in the CSU |All Credential Programs |All Credential Programs |

|As a new teacher, I am … |(1) |(2) |

|As a new teacher, I am … |(1) |(2) |

|As a new teacher, I am … |(1) |(2) |

|As a new teacher, I am … |(1) |(2) |

|As a new teacher, I am … |(1) |(2) |

|As a new teacher, I am … |(1) |(2) |

|As a new teacher, I am … |(1) |(2) |

|As a new teacher, I am … |(1) |(2) |

|At the CSU, how well prepared are you to begin… |(1) |(2) |

|At the CSU, how well prepared are you to begin… |(1) |(2) |

|At the CSU, how well prepared are you to begin… |(1) |(2) |

|At the CSU, how well prepared are you to begin… |(1) |(2) |

|At the CSU, how well prepared are you to begin… |(1) |(2) |

|At the CSU, how well prepared are you to begin… |(1) |(2) |

|At the CSU, how well prepared are you to begin… |(1) |(2) |

|Based on your experience as a K-12 pre-service teacher, how valuable or helpful was |N |Very or Somewhat |

|instruction and support in your Teaching Credential Program? | | |

|Based on your experience as a K-12 pre-service teacher, how valuable or helpful was |(1) |(2) |

|instruction, support, and fieldwork in your Teaching Credential Program? | | |

|Based on your experience as a K-12 pre-service teacher, how valuable or helpful was |(1) |(2) |

|instruction, support, and fieldwork in your Teaching Credential Program? | | |

|Based on your experience as a K-12 pre-service teacher, how |(1) |(2) |

|valuable or helpful was instruction, support, and fieldwork in | | |

|your Teaching Credential Program? | | |

|Based on your experience as a K-12 pre-service teacher, how valuable or helpful was |(1) |(2) |

|instruction, support, and fieldwork in your Teaching Credential Program? | | |

| | | |

|Based on your experience as a K-12 pre-service teacher, how valuable or helpful was |(1) |(2) |

|instruction and fieldwork in your Teaching Credential Program? | | |

|Based on your experience as a K-12 pre-service teacher, how valuable or |(1) |(2) |

|helpful was instruction and fieldwork in your Teaching Credential Program? | | |

|While you were in the Teaching Credential Program, how true was each of the |(1) |(2) |

|following statements? | | |

|While you were in the Teaching Credential Program, how true was each of the |(1) |(2) |

|following statements? | | |

|While you were in the Teaching Credential Program, how true was each of the |(1) |(2) |

|following statements? | | |

|While you were in the Teaching Credential Program, how true was each of the |(1) |(2) |

|following statements? | | |

|What is your overall evaluation of your Teaching Credential Program? Select the |N |% |N |% |

|one statement that most closely matches your current overall perspective on your | | | | |

|program. | | | | |

| |I learned a lot in my CSU credential program. |43 |61.4% |4579 |62.5% |

| |I learned quite a bit that was important. |24 |34.3% |2269 |31.0% |

| |The CSU program included relatively little substance. |3 |4.3% |392 |5.4% |

| |The CSU professional prep. program offered nothing of value. |-- |-- |81 |1.1% |

Table 32

Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Quality:

Overall Assessment in 2007-08 by 2007-08 Exiting Graduates of Multiple Subject Programs

|Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting Multiple Subject Credential |This CSU Campus: |CSU System: |

|Programs in the CSU |Multiple Subject Programs |All Programs |

|What is your overall evaluation of your Teaching Credential Program? Select the |N |% |N |% |

|one statement that most closely matches your current overall perspective on your | | | | |

|program. | | | | |

| |I learned a lot in my CSU credential program. |32 |61.5% |3015 |68.7% |

| |I learned quite a bit that was important. |17 |32.7% |1193 |27.2% |

| |The CSU program included relatively little substance. |3 |5.8% |153 |3.5% |

| |The CSU professional prep. program offered nothing of value. |-- |-- |29 |.7% |

Table 33

Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Quality:

Overall Assessment in 2007-08 by 2007-08 Exiting Graduates of Single Subject Programs

|Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting Single Subject Credential |This CSU Campus: |CSU System: |

|Programs in the CSU |Single Subject Programs |All Programs |

|What is your overall evaluation of your Teaching Credential Program? Select the |N |% |N |% |

|one statement that most closely matches your current overall perspective on your | | | | |

|program. | | | | |

| |I learned a lot in my CSU credential program. |12 |66.7% |1198 |50.1% |

| |I learned quite a bit that was important. |6 |33.3% |934 |39.1% |

| |The CSU program included relatively little substance. |-- |-- |209 |8.7% |

| |The CSU professional prep. Program offered nothing of value. |-- |-- |48 |2.0% |

Table 34

Evaluation of Teacher Education Program Quality:

Overall Assessment in 2007-08 by 2007-08 Exiting Graduates of Education Specialist Programs

|Evaluation Questions Answered by Graduates Exiting All Credential Programs in the|This CSU Campus: |CSU System: |

|CSU |Education Specialist Programs |All Programs |

|What is your overall evaluation of your Teaching Credential Program? Select the |N |% |N |% |

|one statement that most closely matches your current overall perspective on your | | | | |

|program. | | | | |

| |I learned a lot in my CSU credential program. |-- |-- |505 |67.6% |

| |I learned quite a bit that was important. |-- |-- |198 |26.5% |

| |The CSU program included relatively little substance. |-- |-- |38 |5.1% |

| |The CSU professional prep. program offered nothing of value. |-- |-- |6 |.8% |

-----------------------

Not a Public Document.

Please See Release Schedule on the Next Page.

Not an Official Report of the California State University.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download