External Review of UAS

Stakeholder Involvement:

The Unit appears to have a strong effort to include individuals from key stakeholder groups to provide input into the development and management ofthe Unit Assessment System (VAS) While the narrative for the UAS lists the groups of stakeholders who are to be involved. the names of stakeholders and their affiliations are not provided. Since no record of meeting dates and attendance is provided. it is not possible to determine the extent of stakeholder involvement, the frequency of meetings, or their actual contribution to the process. Who were the prograJT\ participants and program graduates involved as stakeholders? What were the selection criteria for these individuals? How many stakeholders were actually involved at each meeting? What were the mechanisms for review of program materials and feedback and critique from the reviews? While it appears that the Unit has a specific role for the stakeholders to play in the process, a more detailed description in the final draft regarding their specific involvement wouJd be helpful.

The UAS indjcates that the conceptual framework undergirds the delivery and assessment of the three teacher candidate programs. The UAS also indicates that the conceptual framework was developed with thoughtful consideration of Arkansas State standards and national standards such as NCATE and INTASC. The conceptual framework is provided in the appendices of the UAS, but not in the narrative. While the conceptual framework is mentioned in the narrative, it is not discussed or described in any detail. When the final draft js prepared and limitations on narrative length are expanded, a more detailed treatment of the conceptual framework would be helpfuL How and where the Unit's conceptual ftamework incorporates the Arkansas standards for licensure would be of particular concern or interest. A peer review process and a Unit curriculum committee is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the integrity and design of the program. A more definitive description of how this is to be accomplished would be helpful.

standardized assessments (e. g. AAGET, CAPP, PRAXIS I, II, and III) are 'utilized in addition to grade point average and exit portfolios and other evaluation measures.

System Evaluation

While the narrative. does not specifically state how the student assessment system is to be utilized to refine and revise the conceptual framework, it is clear that the process within the Unit is in place. Multiple data sources have been installed to gather information, which can be utilized to make any necessary adjustments to program goals, content, and delivery strategjes, an of which is an integral part of the conceptual framework.

The Unit has continuous evaluation measures, which are implemented, as well as annual reviews such as a peer review process in which teacher education candidates evaluate faculty and their effectiveness. They also evaluate their own mastery of course objectives. The feedback on these measures, sets of questions related to program quality and effectiveness to be addressed, and other evaluation procedures provide useful i.nformation. These measures of program effectiveness can be utilized to detennine need for program adjustments and/or modifications.

Management of the assessment system will likely be enhanced by when and if a full time position is filled to direcr the system management. A database is also being developed for the collection, recording, storage, and retrieval of data.

A system to annual1y review and revise the assessment system is being developed. This system would detennine any need for system revision.

Summary

The Unit at Arkansas Tech appears to ha.ve given considerable thought and preparation in the design and development of a Unit Assessment System. The means to evaluate and refine the system as needed has been well conceptua.lized and developed with strong potential for success.