Summary of Performance Data
Performance data on teacher candidates and graduates of the Department of Elementary Education is gathered from a variety of sources based on the Strands Framework of the SODIA program. Data are collected for the program in general, for specific levels of the program, and on individual teacher candidates.
Table 1. Measurements used to evaluate teacher candidate performance and program success in the Department of Elementary Education
| Measurement | Teacher Candidates | Program |
| Course Evaluations | X | |
| Exit Evaluation | X | |
| Faculty Monitoring | X | |
| Fieldwork Portfolios/Levels 1-2 | X | |
| Grades in Courses | X | |
| Practica Evaluations/Levels 2-3 | X | |
| School District-Department Advisory Boards | X | |
| Strands Portfolios/Levels 3-4 | X | |
| Student Teaching Evaluations | X |
Course Evaluations
Each course in the Department of Elementary Education
is evaluated using the University’s course evaluation form, which uses a Likert-type scale for teacher
candidates to assess course and instuctor effectiveness broadly, as well as assessing specific traits within
those two broad categories. Data from this evaluation are aggregated at the department, instructor, course,
and class section level. Written comments from the teacher candidates are shared with the instructor. The one
exception to this is the student teaching course evaluation, for which the department has received permission
to use its own forms as the University’s form is not applicable to an extended practicum. Student teaching
feedback is obtained through the Exit Evaluation described below.
Exit Evaluation
At the conclusion of student teaching, all student teachers
participate in a group exit interview in which they provide oral comments about their experience in Elementary
Education at Utah State University, written comments about each aspect of the program, and ratings of their
confidence in various content areas vis-á-vis the strands. Results from this exit interview are aggregated and
reported to the faculty each semester, including separate reports for transfer teacher candidates and extension
teacher candidates if their responses have a statistically significant difference.
Faculty Monitoring
Faculty monitor teacher candidates in the department at
three levels. First, they are involved as evaluators for group interviews that are part of the program
admission process. Second, they serve as chairs and members of the admissions committees and advisory
boards to the separate SODIA levels that make admissions decisions, train adjunct faculty, and develop
curricular improvements. Third, specific faculty members have responsibility for the development,
implementation, and evaluation of the Strands Framework of the SODIA model.
Fieldwork Portfolios/Levels 1 and 2
Each level of the SODIA model requires a practicum experience of teacher candidates. The first two levels documented the field work in a portfolio as follows:
Level 1–Fieldwork is 5 hours of video viewing, 5 hours of service in a setting focused on children, and 5 hours of classroom observation, plus an interview with the teacher observed. The portfolio requires responses to the Video Viewing Guide, which is based on the strands; a log of the services performed at a contracted site; and a log detailing observations, reactions, and reflections from the classroom. A report of the teacher interview must also be included. Finally, teacher candidates must synthesize and reflect on information learned from each aspect of the fieldwork.
Level 2–Fieldwork is 120 of classroom observation and work as a teacher’s aide. The portfolio includes a description of observations and experiences, with reflection.
Grades in Courses
Grades in courses are based primarily on performance indicators at the various levels as follows:
Level 1–Assessment is based on a combination of examinations concerning the strands, readings from textbooks and other professional literature that focus on self and the teaching profession, the development of an advisement plan for completing the major, introduction to technology in education exemplified through materials available at the Young Educational Technology Center, and components of fieldwork described elsewhere. Each individual instructor may add other assignments according to personal teaching style, professional judgments, or teacher candidate interests.
Level 2–Assessment is based on standards of professionalism, reflective reading of texts and other professional literature, collaborative work through group presentations and/or intraclass communications, self-evaluations of participation in class, and components of fieldwork described elsewhere. Each individual instructor may add other assignments according to personal teaching styles, professional judgments, or teacher candidate needs/interests.
Level 3–Assessment is based on a combination of examinations of social studies education knowledge and skills; oral and written reflections on readings in mathematics, science, social studies, and literacy education; cooperative group work in science and literacy education; learning material (e.g., lesson plans, learning centers) in mathematics, science, social studies, and literacy education; resource files in science and literacy education; case studies for remediation in mathematics education and for Qualitative Reading Inventory and Running Record in literacy education; technology integration in social studies education; and unit development in social studies education.
Practica Evaluations/Levels 2 and 3
Teacher candidates participate in a practicum experience at each level of the SODIA program. The teacher candidate is not evaluated at the completion of Level 1, as this focuses primarily on observation. Evaluation at Levels 2 and 3 is reported here:
Level 2–Success in the practicum is determined through self-evaluation and the evaluations by the mentor teacher and the university supervisor. The evaluation is primarily narrative, focusing on standards of professionalism related somewhat to the strands. At the end of level 2, the university supervisor makes a specific recommendation regarding the teacher candidate’s continuance in the major.
Level 3–Success in the more than 1800 hours of practicum is determined through the observations by the mentor teacher and the university supervisor. The practicum is considered pass/fail and is not graded separately from the methods courses, but is considered a basic requirement to pass Level 3 successfully. Failure to pass the practicum results in failure of the methods courses. Teacher candidates are required to complete teaching tasks assigned by the cooperating teachers (who are instructed not to have the teacher candidate overly involved in clerical work) and to implement successfully lessons written during the each methods course.
School District-Department Advisory Boards
Advisory boards are formed in cooperation with the Cache and Logan School Districts. Members of the faculty of Elementary Education are assigned to each board. Each elementary and middle school in the respective school districts assigns to the board an administrator (usually the principal) and a teacher who has worked with practicum teacher candidates from the university. The boards meet once each semester. Elementary Education faculty apprise school district personnel of changes in the SODIA program and solicit advice and counsel on the programs structure and implementation and other shared concerns. Most importantly, each level of the SODIA program is discussed to learn general schoolwide impressions about how teacher candidates from the university are doing in their practicum experiences. Minutes from these board meetings are distributed to all Elementary Education faculty and to each school.
Strands Portfolios/Levels 3-4
The development of a strands portfolio is required of each teacher candidate in the Elementary Education program. While the portfolio is based on the strands, the purpose of the portfolio shifts slightly from level to level.
Level 3--As a basic requirement for Level 3, each teacher candidate must prepare a portfolio that provides evidence of the teacher candidate’s knowledge, skills, and dispostions related to each of the program’s strands. Teacher candidates must develop personal belief statements for each strand. The portfolio consists of at least one artifact in each strand and justification for the inclusion of that artifact. The justification must be consistent with the stated personal beliefs. Portfolios are evaluated by university faculty. The primary purpose of the portfolio is to demonstrate that the teacher candidate is beginning to integrate the separate strands into a holistic philosophy of teaching upon which successful practice can be based.
Level 4–Artifacts from student teaching can now be added to the portfolio to document successful implementation of an integrated strands-based philosophy. The primary purpose of the portfolio now shifts to providing evidence that the teacher candidate is worthy of hire. In addition, student teaching supervisors may nominate one student teacher for every ten supervised for the honor of Outstanding Student Teacher of the Year. After a screening by a committee, the portfolios of the student teachers nominated are then evaluated by the entire faculty, who vote for the Outstanding Student Teacher. The evaluation is to be based on the qualities of excellent teaching as evidenced in the portfolio rather than on the skill with which the portfolio was formatted.
Student Teaching Evaluations
The evaluation of student teachers is based on an extensive list of teaching competencies from the strands. Teacher candidates are rated by the university supervisor and the cooperating teacher on a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being the most exemplary rating. Guidelines are provided to university supervisors and cooperating teachers on the meaning of each numerical rating so that overly generous ratings of 4 can be avoided. A narrative evaluation and recommendation of ½ page is also provided by the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor. An evaluation is provided at the end of each 7-week block of student teaching. Teacher candidates complete two such blocks. Evaluations are based on development and implementation of curriculum assigned by the cooperating teacher, observations by the university supervisor and cooperating teacher, post-observation conferences, a reflective journal, and seminar participation. Both the university supervisor and the cooperating teacher are required to observe the student teacher formally at least three times each block. In addition, a Triad Conference is held with each student teacher each block.
Participation in External Evaluation Activities
The Department Preparing Effective Teachers:
A Study of Novice Teacher Preparation in Utah
Effective teaching is by far the greatest factor in student learning.Utah’s ability to produce high-performing teachers depends largely on the quality of pre-service teacher education and initial support provided to novice teachers. But how do we go about developing high performing teachers? What factors predict high performance and what factors inhibit it?
A collaborative research project between Utah’s teacher preparation institutions and the State Office of Education with the support of the Commissioner of Higher Education, has been developed to assess the impact of teacher preparation – both in colleges of education and in the first years of teaching – and to identify and share the most important factors in teacher preparation that produce effective teachers.An examination of the relationship between student learning and teacher behavior, including an assessment of student performance in core academic areas, as measured by state proficiency exams, will provide essential information to help our state prepare successful teachers who are able to greatly narrow the achievement gap and bring virtually all students to a level of proficiency in meeting state standards.
- Objectives for Novice Teacher Preparation Study
- Identify factors in teacher preparation, including support in the first two years of teaching, that impact teacher performance.
- Determine differences in classroom practices between high-performing and low-performing teachers based on actual student learning.
- Share characteristics of high performing teachers, based on student learning data, with teacher preparation institutions and schools in Utah to guide improvements in preparation, new teacher support and ongoing development of novice teachers.
- Participants in Research Study
- Utah State Office of Education – Hal Sanderson* and Randy Raphael*
- Utah State Commissioner of Higher Education
- University of Utah – Diana Pounder* and Alisha Bates*
- Brigham Young University – Richard Sudweeks* and Bob Bullough*
- Utah State University – Deborah Byrnes*
- Weber State University – Louise Moulding*
- The Oquirrh Institute – John W. Bennion*, research team coordinator
- Thirteen Additional Teacher Preparation Institutions in the State of Utah
This groundbreaking research initiative to study Novice Teacher Preparation in Utah stems from a research project, sponsored by the Oquirrh Institute, which analyzed best practices for teacher preparation and retention throughout the nation. The scope of this project cuts across both higher and public education and represents a unique research undertaking between the Utah State Office of Education, the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education and all the teacher preparation institutions in the state.Developing and retaining high performing teachers will, more than any other factor, produce proficient graduates of Utah schools. Moreover, linking student learning and teacher behavior will eventually provide an objective way of measuring teacher performance over time which has policy implications for evaluating teachers based at least in part on student learning.
*members of the research team
Upcoming Deadlines
October 1
Apply to the Teacher Education ProgramOctober 1
Apply for Student Teaching