quality assurance system. One area of difficulty at this time is the numbers within each of our programs. We do hope in the future that our program numbers are robust enough that we will have enough students to adequately assess how our programs are doing. We enhance the way in which we allow students to prepare for the Praxis exam. Throughout the course of the year we had a total of eight practice test for the Praxis One (CASE). In addition we offered multiple training and practice test for the principles of learning and teaching in the practice to. In addition in order to enhance the way the teacher candidates demonstrate effective pedagogy in the elementary school we have workshops for how to develop a unit plan. Previously we used our all majors meetings as an opportunity to disseminate information. However, as we look at the disposition and values of the characters of our students we begin to use our all majors meeting as a time to offer professional development for the majority of the time we were together. One way in which we explicitly investigated selection criteria used for standard three was the enhancement of the way we use the assessment of professional disposition, values, and behaviors questionnaire. We took course time in EDU 202 to walk through students through each criteria on the rubric and gave them explicit Examples on what it meant to be exemplary in each of the areas. Afterwards, we allowed students to access themselves and then gave peer-to-peer feedback as well as faculty to peer feedback. Our desire is that students have a better understanding of what, “ineffective”, “developing”, “accomplished”, and “exemplary” are as it relates to their dispositions.

The School of Education Human Development and Consumer Sciences are in an ongoing relationship on how to enhance our systems of assessment and performance. We continue to work with the office of institutional research to create the type of systems we need in order to track and disaggregate the data for improvement of our program. Once the systems are in place we will be able to monitor for improvement for the EPP, our candidates, and our P 12 students.

The EPP has relied heavily on the state’s data collection system in previous years. Although we still use the data system for many reports, we have learned that we cannot rely on the state to meet our needs for CAEP. We utilize Blackboard for course data and recently purchased Campus Labs and plan to utilize this for program and institutional data collection and analyses. The issue we currently have is with advanced program impact data. The EPP puts forth an effort to collect the data (via emailing data instruments, Cohesively working with the Institutional Research Department of KSU and phone conferences with graduates and School District Administrators), but the aforementioned data collection efforts have not yielded a good amount of program impact data (lack of alumni and school district responses) to give the EPP a snapshot into improving all programs. We are currently reaching out to the Kentucky Center for Education and Workforce Statistics (KCEWS) to help us achieve collection and reporting of data for CAEP Standard 4 for both initial and advanced programs.

In addition to a few gaps with data collection, we continue to work on effective strategies for surveying graduates consistently, and keeping in contact with our graduates to continue the working relationship with them and the employer School District. We have a TEC and SEHD Committee, along with the assistance of the Directors of Data and Assessment and Field Experience, and IR, that will be addressing these issues over the next few months to close the identified gaps. Once this cycle is established, we will have data on our graduates that we will analyze and use the results for changes leading to continuous improvement within the EPP.

Undergraduate Benchmarks: