Content Area Program Review Worksheet

Content Area Program Review Worksheet

Institution Name: IPFW

Program Reviewed:Fine Arts—Visual Arts

DIRECTIONS: Below you will find evaluative statements to guide your judgments regarding the adequacy of the content area program you are reviewing. Please read each statement carefully to make your determinations.

1. To what degree are the state content standards adequately addressed within this program?

XXGreat degreeAll standards are addressed multiple times in

multiple courses.

XModerate degreeAll standards are addressed, but may not be

covered in more than one course.

Minimal degreeSome standards are addressed within

courses.

Not evidentNo standards are addressed within courses.

2. Which, if any, content standards are not sufficiently addressed in the program?

Comments/Rationale:

(Moderate degree): First of all, the matrix is made to only show where standards are assessed not addressed. So, I have to assume that only the areas where assessments are listed are courses that cover that standard. However, from my own experiences, I can safely assume some courses meet some standards even though there may not be a specific assessment listed. Several courses are documented as addressing/assessing all 7 content standards. Even after reading the course descriptions, it is difficult to imagine that certain courses can hit so many education/classroom specific indicators when they are structured to be a production/criticism based class. I can see how an Art methods class could cover several of the indicators because of the scope of the class content. Thanks to those methods courses, most standards are met. Despite the fact that the matrix shows all standards are being addressed/assessed, I question the correlation between the noted assessments and the indicators (some seem like weak connections). For example, Standard 3, indicator 5.B.5 (knowing how to plan instruction that integrates history, criticism, aesthetics, and production in lessons, units and courses) is NOT assessed in a methods course, but is assessed in a Figure Drawing course...?

(Great degree): The matrix format has simplified the "understanding" of criteria. At this point, I see few weaknesses. All content standards appear in the report.

1. To what degree are the state content standards adequately assessed within this

program?

XGreat degreeAll standards are assessed multiple times in

multiple courses.

XXModerate degreeAll standards are assessed, but may not be

covered inmore than one course.

Minimal degreeSome standards are assessed within courses.

Not evidentNo standards are assessed within courses.

4. Which, if any, content standards are not assessed in the program?

(Moderate degree): Again, based off of the Content Alignment chart, assessments in some courses are tied to content standards that seem far from the goal/objective of the class. Therefore, I'm not sure that all of the assessments have been documented appropriately. Also, several assessments(the "other" category)are not explained as the matrix says they will be.

(Moderate degree): RE: Standard #3, (5) and (B 5)-How do you know that the candidates know and understand the concepts, etc within that content standard. Written feedback and reflections can be included in these areas. Various courses are offered. Your checks and balances on assessment indicate you are addressing weaknesses from the past.

5. To what degree does the program prepare candidates in pedagogical content?

Great degreeCourse work prepares candidates very well

in theseareas.

XXXModerate degreeCourse work prepares candidates moderately

well inthese areas.

Minimal degreeCourse work insufficiently prepares

candidates in these areas.

Not evidentCourse work does not prepare candidates in

these areas.

1. To what degree does the program prepare candidates in professional and

pedagogical knowledge and skills?

XGreat degreeCourse work prepares candidates very well

in theseareas.

XXModerate degreeCourse work prepares candidates moderately

well inthese areas.

Minimal degreeCourse work insufficiently prepares

candidates in these areas.

Not evidentCourse work does not prepare candidates in

these areas.

1. How effectively does the coursework provide a candidate the content needed to

impact P-12 student learning as it relates to the Indiana Academic Standards?

XHighly effectiveCourse work prepares candidates very well

to impact P-12 student learning as related to

the Indiana Academic Standards.

XXModerately effectiveCourse work prepares candidates moderately

well toimpact P-12 student learning as

related to the Indiana Academic Standards.

Somewhat effectiveCourse work prepares candidates

insufficiently to impact P-12 student learning as related to the Indiana Academic Standards.

Not effectiveCourse work does not prepare candidates to

impact P-12 student learning as related to the Indiana Academic Standards.

Rationale:

(Moderately effective): course m330 & m430 required but m333 is not. Seems that, if teaching K-12, an elementary art class would help.

(Moderately effective): I feel that the Art History courses easily prepare an educator to meet K-12 standards 1 and 2 in their classroom. I also think that the varied studio coursework prepares educators to be comfortable and knowledgeable in regards to MOST (since only so many studio courses are required) of the production standards (7-10). Again, I assume, from the assessment matrix and course descriptions, that the students are well-versed in the Criticism and Aesthetic areas of art, thus preparing them to be able to implement those K-12 standards (3-6) into their curriculum. However, I did not find strong evidence that students are prepared to cover standards 11-14, which cover the areas of career, community, and integrated studies. I've found that this is a MAJOR part of the art education world, and much preparation is needed in order for new teachers to recognize, understand and TEACH these aspects of Visual Arts.

(Highly effective): Matrix provided helps me to see what standards are covered that parallel the IN standards for

Visual Arts. RE: Instructional Strategies had only one X...you may want to take a second look at where else this fits in.

1. Do the program assessment data summaries indicate that the program completers

are wellqualified to teach the content to P-12 students?

Very well qualifiedData indicate that at least 90% of the

candidates meet all of the assessment

expectations of the program.

XXXWell qualifiedData indicate that at least 80% of the

candidates meetall of the assessment

expectations of the program.

Somewhat qualifiedData indicate that at least 70% of candidates

meet all of the assessment expectations of

the program.

Not well qualified Data indicate that 69% or fewer candidates

meet all ofthe assessment expectations of

the program.

Rationale:

(Well qualified): Based on assessment data provided.

(Well qualified): The Assessment Data Document shows that students are strong in the area of content knowledge, but reflects insecurity in the pedagogical content knowledge for teachers and student learning for teachers, specifically M330 Unit Plan and Student Teaching Lesson and Lesson Plan Reflection. Their reflections seem to be accurate in that the Unit Plan rubric (and in my opinion, the Artworks Analysis rubric) is vague and could be leading to student misunderstanding of expectations. The performance-based assessment of student teaching and the Portfolio Final Evaluation Sheet are much more clear. All in all, their reflections share that the students are leaving qualified and that the rubrics they are using to evaluate them may be inadequate. I appreciate that the institution shared a variety of assessments on their assessment data chart. The assessments showed data in content knowledge, performance, planning and reflection, all of which are important aspects to be considered.

(Well qualified): The number of candidates are limited to 2-6 and the data shows that the students are performing above average. Rubrics are vague as noted in the report and the rubrics do not distinguish levels of performance--under section C of assessment data section.

9. Does the program offer a variety of field experiences for candidates?

XXYESXNO

Rationale:

(NO): Seems that student would be in both the elementary and high school classrooms more often than indicated.

(YES): I am not sure if their Program Field Experiences chart means the students have 63 or 93 hours of classroom exposure before student teaching (M201 boxes are unclear), but either way, this is sufficient. Student teaching for 16 weeks is also adequate. The specific focuses for each level of classroom observation are useful and allow students to zone in on one aspect of the classroom without getting overwhelmed early in their program. It also allows them to start from the ground up in forming their own philosophy.

(YES): Matrix indicates hours in the field.

10. Are program faculty adequately trained in the content field?

XXYESXNO

(YES): All faculty have terminal degrees except for one.

(YES): All faculty, except one, have Master's Level Education in the area they are teaching. Instructors of two of the courses are not documented (H111 and P121). It is also odd that the faculty member with an Art History specialization is teaching Painting and Figure Drawing rather than Art History (which is taught by a faculty member with Painting specialization). I know, though, that despite this, the faculty are equipped to teach varied courses.

(NO): RE: Adequately trained, I was unable to determine this with the documents provided. The faculty appeared to be new to the p-12 experience. Only one has had experience (7.5 years). All others have had none. All have masters of FA or Ph.D's. only one had a BA, teaching one photography course.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Now that you have reviewed the data presented by the educator preparation program for this content area, do you have additional comments to share with the program faculty?

It seems a student could avoid the computer class, p273 and take the photography class p243. Even if the photography is digital, the computer art might be an important class to help teach more effectively. I often wonder if the K-12 degree is appropriate for today's teacher unless they spend enough time observing each level and student teaching enough hours in both elementary and high school. The required hours on the degree check list sheet are slightly different than the one on the website.

The coursework for the program is vast and multiple experiences are present, showing that there is a clear foundation and expectation set out by this program. If there is anyway to expose students to the production areas that they do not choose coursework in, this would be wise. One way is to do this in methods courses and allow students to study, plan for and share lessons and resources that could later be used. It is appreciated that you require I think there are a few K-12 students standards (specifically career, community and integrated studies) that could use extra exposure in your coursework (this may already be in place, just not documented well). In reviewing the program, I felt unsure about some of the connections made between content standards and assessments. I wish there was a way to know more to understand why some that seem so disconnected, were linked. I also found the INTASC/Content Knowledge overlap chart to be very misleading; however, this did not affect any comments in the review. There are some obvious overlaps that are not shown on that chart. Lastly, be sure to give enough information on rubrics as to avoid misleading data from your program. If you are seeing the performance and ability, then there must be something wrong with the assessment tool. You already know this, as you mentioned it in your reflection.

The summary of unit reflection initial programs was helpful. The articulation agreements with IU and the IU Ed. Council are involved in the process of articulation according to the report. Giving chairs a "voice" in the development of governance documents will give ownership to the programs that train teachers. Changes can be made as faculty and chairs interact and improve the "best" practices.