College of Education and Learning Design

Student Performance Data

The edTPA is a performance-based, subject specific assessment and feedback system used by teacher preparation programs nationwide to measure the knowledge and skills that new teachers need when they enter the classroom. Teacher candidates prepare a portfolio during their student teaching experience that demonstrates their ability to plan and deliver instruction, and analyze whether their students are learning.

The edTPA is broken into three tasks (Planning, Instruction and Assessment), each made up of 5 different dimensions. Candidates are scored on these 15 dimensions of teaching, by highly trained educators from other institutions. Minnesota teacher preparation programs are required to administer and report on edTPA results, but currently it is not a licensure requirement. Minnesota has set the recommended threshold at a minimum score of 13 on Task 1; 13 on Task 2; 12 on Task 3 for all programs except World Languages. At St. Cloud State, candidates whose overall score is below 38 must remediate any weaknesses with their faculty advisor.

Year

Number Submitting

Task 1: Planning

Task 2: Instruction

Task 3: Assessment

% meeting MN threshold

% meeting MN threshold

% meeting MN threshold

2019-2020 (to date)

140

80.7%

84.3%

84.3%

2018-2019

258

72.5%

72.5%

63.8%

2017-2018

223

57.4%

68.2%

50.5%

 

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

Performance Based Assessments in Student Teaching

Candidates at St. Cloud State University are evaluated during their student teaching experience by both the cooperating classroom teacher and their university faculty supervisor. They are assessed on the 10 overarching standards, as well as professional dispositions. Our candidates excel in professional dispositions, reflection and professional development and partnerships. The following data represent cumulative candidate evaluations from 2014-2019.

 

  1. Up to three scores were recorded for candidate-by-“reporter type” (cooperating teacher [CT] vs. university supervisor [US]]). As a preliminary step, we averaged the 1-4 ratings over standards and cases of multiple ratings by type, for example, a cooperating teacher may have rated candidate A up to three times. Note that these figures can be disaggregated by all of the recorded categories. (1=Does Not Meet Standards; 2=Adequate beginning teacher; 3=Competent beginning teacher; 4=Experienced teacher)
  2. The “passed criterion” column deserves a word of explanation. We recoded a rating of 1 as “did not meet criteria,” as that is how it is indicated on the summative instrument: “At this level of performance the teacher candidate does not demonstrate an understanding of the specific standard and its underlying indicators.” Levels 2, 3, and 4 were coded as “passed standard,” as indicated on the Summative Rating Sheet.

 

  1. For Table 1, we summarized data between types of respondents (CTs vs. USs), but combined ratings across multiple respondents. We summed the bivariate “passed criterion” variable across any multiple ratings by candidate. We indicated a criterion failure when any one rater of a type rated the candidate as “1” (fails to meet criteria).

 

Table 1. Mean ratings (across multiple ratings of a type) by candidate, ratings by Cooperating Teachers only.        

Standard

N

Mean

SD

Passed Criterion

(2, 3, or 4 on all ratings)

Passed Criterion

(3, or 4 on all ratings)

Stand1/ Subject Matter

1322

3.2

.6

99.7

89.6

Stand2/ Student Learning

1321

3.1

.6

99.7

88.1

Stand3/ Diverse Learners

1318

3.1

.6

99.8

84.7

Stand4/ Instructional Strategies

1321

3.1

.6

99.6

83.7

Stand5/ Learning Environment

1322

3.2

.7

99.5

86.6

Stand6/ Communication

1322

3.2

.6

99.7

89.7

Stand7/ Planning instruction

1326

3.2

.7

99.4

85.7

Stand8/ Assessment

1316

3.0

.6

99.6

79.9

Stand9/ Reflection & Professional Dev

1322

3.4

.6

99.8

92.4

Stand10/ Partnerships

1313

3.3

.6

99.8

90.3

Dispo/ Professional dispositions

1325

3.4

.7

99.6

90.8

 

Table 2. Mean ratings (across multiple ratings of a type) by candidate, ratings by University Supervisors only.       

Standard

N

Mean

SD

Passed Criterion

(2, 3, or 4 on all ratings)

Passed Criterion

(3, or 4 on all ratings)

Stand1/ Subject Matter

1154

3.2

.6

99.7

91.3

Stand2/ Student Learning

1151

3.1

.6

99.8

89.2

Stand3/ Diverse Learners

1155

3.0

.6

99.7

82.5

Stand4/ Instructional Strategies

1153

3.1

.6

99.8

88.9

Stand5/ Learning Environment

1154

3.2

.6

99.7

89.5

Stand6/ Communication

1155

3.2

.6

99.7

91.8

Stand7/ Planning instruction

1149

3.1

.6

99.7

87.9

Stand8/ Assessment

1144

2.9

.6

99.4

80.2

Stand9/ Reflection & Professional Dev

1153

3.3

.6

99.8

92.1

Stand10/ Partnerships

1153

3.3

.6

99.7

93.1

Dispo/ Professional dispositions

1156

3.5

.6

99.5

93.6

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

Feedback from program completers

St. Cloud State University is a member of the Network for Excellence in Teaching (NExT), a partnership of 14 institutions of higher education striving to enhance university-based teacher preparation programs in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The NExT institutions have collaborated to develop and administer a set of four common surveys to measure program effectiveness. Teacher candidates completing initial licensure programs at each of these institutions complete three surveys: upon entry into teacher preparation; at exit; and one year after graduation. The Exit Survey collects information on student teachers’ perceptions of and satisfaction with their teacher education programs and student teaching experiences. The following table includes findings from the Exit Surveys administered to program completers over three consecutive academic years. Results are based on those completers responding “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied”.

 

Exit survey Responses: Program completer satisfaction with the following aspects of their teacher preparation program

Exit Survey Responses

How satisfied were you with the following aspects of your teacher preparation program?

Percent Responding “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied”

Content Advising

Education Advising

Quality of Field Experiences

Quality of Student Teaching Site

Number responding

% Satisfied

Number responding

% Satisfied

Number responding

% Satisfied

Number responding

% Satisfied

2018-2019

221

79.2%

221

73.3%

220

82.7%

221

86.4%

2017-2018

93

78.5%

93

73.1%

93

90.3%

92

98.5%

2016-2017

125

76.8%

125

67.2%

125

83.2%

124

70.2%

 

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

Employment Rates

Institutional data indicates that for College of Education and Learning Design candidates earning bachelor’s degrees in 2017-18, 98.7% were employed in an education-related field within one year of graduation. In the same year, 100% of post-baccalaureate graduates were employed in a related field within one year of graduation.

https://www.stcloudstate.edu/careercenter/grad-outcomes.aspx


Connect with SCSU