LA EVALUACIÓN FORMATIVA: UNA PASO PARA LA MEJORA DE LA EDUCACIÓN Y LA ESCUELA

The Integrated Unit Plan assesses the teacher candidate’s ability to collaborate with peers and classroom teachers in the field to plan (and implement) a unit of study that facilitates the delivery of appropriate instruction while meeting the needs of all learners in an assigned K-6 classroom. Each teacher candidate fulfills an active, collaborative role in the completion of the unit by developing both group and individual pieces of work that must be molded into a cohesive, integrated unit of study. Candidates are required to plan two integrated units, one for early childhood (during CEL 317, Principles and Techniques of Teaching in Early Childhood), and one for the middle grades (during CEL 318, Principles and Techniques of Teaching in the Middle Grades). [These courses are taken by the same group of candidates during the block semester prior to student teaching.] Though specific components (Learning Goals; Lesson Plan; and Assessment Plan) deal directly with the candidate’s ability to plan classroom-based

instruction, the assessment measures all of the following abilities:

• determine contextual factors that will impact teaching and learning. [ACEI 1, 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, .4] • set significant, challenging, varied, and developmentally appropriate learning goals and

demonstrate how the learning goals are aligned with national and state standards. [ACEI 1, 2.1 – 2.8, 3.1 – 3.5, 4, 5.1, 5.4]

• develop integrated and differentiated lesson plans in language arts, math, social studies,

fine arts, health, and physical education that exhibit knowledge of the content and structures of the respective disciplines. [ACEI 1, 2.1 – 2.8, 3.1 – 3.5, 4, 5.1, 5.4]

• develop an assessment plan that uses multiple assessment modes and approaches which are

aligned with learning goals to assess student learning before, during, and after instruction. [ACEI 1, 4, 5.1, 5.2]

• appropriately address parental and community involvement. [ACEI 1, 3.1, 5.3, 5.4] • reflect upon and evaluate the effects of their teaching in terms of its impact on

student learning. [ACEI 5.2]

2. Alignment with ACEI Standards

As indicated by the alignment notations for each outcome of the planning experience cited above, the Integrated Unit Plan strongly supports the intent of Standard 1 for planning based on the developmental needs of children in both the lower and upper grades of the

elementary school. Candidates are required to plan two integrated units, one for early childhood (during CEL 317, Principles and Techniques of Teaching in Early Childhood), and one for the middle grades (during CEL 318, Principles and Techniques of Teaching in the Middle Grades). For the early childhood unit, candidates must plan with consideration of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Standards. When planning the unit for the

middle grades, candidates use the standards of the National Middle School Association (NMSA). Standards 2.1 – 2.8 are represented strongly throughout the process. Course instructors work closely with methods teachers in the various content areas to reinforce the concepts, theories and structures of the different disciplines. Methods instructors in the arts and sciences share their

elementary education faculty in an effort to tighten the content curriculum being offered and reinforced throughout the program. Content lessons within the unit are assessed with respect to the standards that govern the associated discipline. Standards 3.1 – 3.5 are inherent to the very nature and design of the planning process of this collaboratively developed integrated unit, as are Standards 5.1 through 5.4. An assessment plan based on multiple data sources drives the

development of the unit, thereby linking it to Standard 4.

3. Brief Analysis of Data Findings

The Integrated Unit Plan has three particularly important components related to the candidate’s ability to plan classroom-based instruction: 1) Learning Goals: Objectives, Concepts, and Skills; 2) Lesson Plan; and 3) Assessment Plan. Within the component, Learning Goals, 100% of the candidates scored at the acceptable level with respect to their ability to articulate clear and appropriate objectives, concepts and skills, while 82.14% of the candidates acceptably aligned learning goals with standards. For six of the seven indicators within the Lesson Plan component, a minimum of 96.45% of the candidates scored at the acceptable level, with 100% of the candidates scoring at the acceptable level with respect to their ability to assess appropriately within the plan. The lowest rating for this component related to the ability to differentiate instruction, with 82.14% of candidates scoring at the acceptable level on this indicator. On the Assessment Plan component, 82.14% of the candidates scored at the acceptable level on the indicator that assessed their ability to use multiple modes and approaches for assessment with technical soundness. There was weaker performance on indicators related to the ability to align learning goals and instruction and make adaptations based on the individual needs of students, with 67.86% of the candidates scoring at the acceptable level.

It is important to note that for the unit component, Integrated Unit Lesson Plan, which required candidates to work both independently and collaboratively to plan integrated content lessons across all disciplines, 100% of the candidates scored at the acceptable level. Across components related to the discernment and use of contextual factors, the ability to make

home/school/community connections, and the ability to reflect and self-evaluate, a minimum of 81.48% of candidates scored at the acceptable level, with the percentage ranging upward to 100% for many of the indicators. The exception was the indicator for reflecting upon implications for professional development, with only 48.15% of candidates scoring at the acceptable level.

4. Interpretation of Data Relevant to Meeting of Standards

When viewed holistically, data analysis for the Integrated Unit Plan is strong evidence that the majority of candidates meet the spirit of the standards aligned with this assessment. Their strengths lie in their ability to plan integrated instruction [ACEI 2.1- 2.8, 3.1, 3.3] and incorporate developmentally appropriate strategies [ACEI 1, 3.2] within those plans, involving families [ACEI 5.3]. Findings further suggest that candidates are proficient at incorporating appropriate

instructional assessment strategies [ACEI 4] within those lessons. Their strong performance on the planning of collaborative content lessons [ACEI 2.1-2.8, 5.4] reveals their ability to provide sound instructional planning related to the various content areas. Fewer candidates scored at the acceptable level in the areas of individualizing and differentiating instruction [ACEI 3.2], the alignment of learning goals and instruction with standards of performance [ACEI 3.1], and projecting future plans for professional development [ACEI 5.1, 5.2]. These ratings are not surprising because they represent areas where higher order thinking must be employed, even abstractions.

Program planners determined that more emphasis must be placed on differentiated lesson planning across all methods courses, including the various disciplines. Stronger connections to the planning of the broader curriculum need to be made in all methods courses as well.

Attachment 3.A

Description of Assignment/Integrated Unit Plan Components

CEL 317