Criterion 1 Progress Report, Artifacts/Evidence

Documents / Artifacts Related to Criterion 1


  1. As of January 7th 2016 the data from Fall 2015 courses have not been distributed by the office of Institutional Research.
  2. At this time I do not have survey data, however, in fall term 2015 I implemented the use of “sense-making” groups in ED 3350. At the conclusion of each class period students were instructed to utilize the last few minutes of class work collaboratively on updating the Unit Outline and Learning Map for the current unit of study. On the unit outline students record assignments and topics for the day and then align those to the course guiding questions and the Board of Teaching Standards of Effective Practice indicators in the course. This provides students with a list of what was learned, how, and why. On the other side of the document is the Learning Map. This is a concept map of the topics of that unit. On this students add key terms and concepts and then draw connections between those. This provides a means of exploring the meaning of what was learned in the unit. Additionally, this time was used for students to review graded work, discuss in their sense-making group, and make corrections or additions to that work. At the conclusion of the unit students complete a summative project and final essay answer to the unit thematic question. The completed Unit Outline and Learning Map serves as an outline for this final essay which is completed in class as an exam. There was corollary connection between the students who utilized the sense-making time to fully update the learning map and outlines and those who completed the higher quality final essays. This is not necessarily evidence of causation, as it is certainly possible that those diligent enough to complete the sense-making exercise are also those who are naturally going to score higher on the final essay. Anecdotally, students do report that the use of the Outline and Learning Map is a practice that they plan to implement when they are a teacher as they see the merit in both as organizational tools.
  3. During fall term students were required to keep a portfolio of work. This was checked at the conclusion of each unit for completeness of materials, completion of the sense-making activities of completing the Outline, Learning Map, and making corrections and/or additions to graded work. Changes being implemented for spring term are the following:
    • Course fee money is being used to prepare 3-ring binder portfolios for each student. The binder is divided into five sections: Course Information; Unit I; Unit II; Unit III; ED-TPA
    • Each binder is customized to provide each student the appropriate ED-TPA handbook for their licensure candidacy.
    • The binder also will contain the course syllabus and for each unit, the corresponding Unit Outline and Learning Map.
      • This is being done to allow the students the scaffolding to place more emphasis on the sense-making activities being required and as a means of modeling how to provide students (as a teacher) organizational tools to do the critical thinking being asked of them during the sense-making process. At the end of spring term I will compare scores on the survey question “Critical reflection and problem-solving were encouraged” as one means to assess the effectiveness of this change.
  4. The most rewarding achievement that I have participated in related to Criterion 1 is an initiative that was not represented on my original PDP at the beginning of the year. I worked very closely with Dave Benson, Linda Colburn, and Porter Coggins to completely redesign the Elementary Block methods courses (Science, Language Arts, Social Studies, Math) into a completely interdisciplinary approach. This initiative came out of conversations last spring between the four of us when brainstorming what we could do to better prepare our elementary education candidates to teach in a more interdisciplinary way. We decided the best method was to model it. We proceeded to spend over 50 hours of meeting time during the summer. Also, during the implementation of the first term, we committed to being present during each others assigned class times as much as our schedules would allow so that we could team teach as much as possible. This meant that effectively we all taught methods from 8:00 am – 12:00 pm Monday through Thursday. The course concluded with an “education fair” in which each student presented their “story” as a teacher, and then a “passage presentation” in which the four professors met individually with each student so that they could provide an oral expression of their answer to the course thematic question: “As a teacher, how ought I to live.” This experience was a tremendous amount of work, but the most rewarding teaching experience I have had during my time at BSU. We have committed to continue developing the program and modifying and adjusting based on student feedback and our own experiences. During the fall term, survey data was collected, and the first review of that data shows extremely high levels of overall satisfaction from the students. Areas of improvement identified by the students coincided with changes the teaching team had already discussed for the spring term.

Criterion 2 Goals