CAEP Standard 4: Program Impact
海角视频 will demonstrate the effectiveness of our completers鈥� instruction on P-12 student learning and development, and completer and employer satisfaction with the relevance and effectiveness of preparation.
海角视频 (CAEP R4.1) Completer Effectiveness
Purpose:
To discover how our completers are performing in the classroom with particular attention to: a) how effectively they contribute to P-12 student-learning and growth; and b) how they are able to apply the knowledge, skills, and dispositions outlined in our programs. This is for our education program鈥檚 ongoing efforts to ensure quality and continuous improvement.
Rationale for the data elements:
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not provide Educator Preparation Providers (EPP) with a mechanism to track value-added measures or student-growth percentiles. Instead, we employed a case study approach that produced data demonstrating that our completers effectively contributed to P-12 student-learning and growth. The data collected is more qualitative, with rich descriptions, rather than averaged quantitative data. At the end of data cycle 3, more quantitative results will be shared across all cycles.
Case Study and Evaluation Data Protocol (Method):
The following outlines our case study summary design, data, analysis and conclusions. Case study summaries have been written and shared internally and with accreditors. This will not be used for scholarly publications or presentations. The methods include a variety of data collection: (1) surveys; (2) in-depth, open-ended interviews: and (3) documents. The initial phase of the case study summaries design data collection was agreed upon by the EPP Steering Committee and share with the School of Education faculty.
- Survey (Program Completer Effectiveness and Impact on P-12 Survey): The teachers were asked to answer 24 open-ended questions prior to being interviewed over Zoom or in-person.
- Interviews: After inspecting the data and conducting an analysis, general trends were established and incorporated into the interview protocol. The interviews were conducted over Zoom or in-person.
- Documents: The teachers were asked to share data that they collected from their student learning growth goals and observation conferences with their administrators. A variety of forms were shared in Data Cycle 1 & 2, such as, Danielson Framework observation reports, Classroom Diagnostic Tools (CDT), Pennsylvania System of School Assessment Parent letters, and results from Mathematics and English Annual State Testing to name a few.
Process for choosing teacher participants:
A) Random Approach: From the PDE list of students who applied for certification, we randomly chose several alumni for each program from P-4, mid/sec, and special ed. Some of the applicants listed where they anticipated working and we checked those school websites for contact information. We can also tried to get personal email addresses through an ARGOS report.
- Our former students who got certified in Spring 22-Fall 23 were contacted in Fall 25, which constitutes Data Cycle 1.
- Our former students who were granted certification in 23-24 were contacted in Spring 26, constituting Data Cycle 2. These results will be shared with the EPP Steering Committee in Summer 26.
- Our former students who got certified in 24-25 were contacted in Spring 26 and will be observed during the Fall 26 which will constitute Data Cycle 3. This next level of analysis is in the beginning stages and will be structured more over the Summer 26 to be implemented in the Fall 26, supporting collaboration with stakeholders, program coordinators, Educational Leadership Team, and EPP Steering Committee members.
- This process should continue (unless a PASSHE wide approach to collecting completer impact data begins). Fall 2026 program level meetings will include discussions on how to improve a more systematic data collection process so we can make decisions based on relevant, verifiable, representative, cumulative and actionable data. Being a newly merged university, this flexibility and emergent process is essential.
B) Available Approach: If we do not get at least five responses, we will ask supervisors/ instructors for names of alumni with whom they still have contact to reach our goal of at least five participants for each group of completers.
C) Emergent and Diverse Approach: We will continue to add to the sample as the analysis continues and develops. If we do not get a diverse sample across grade levels or campus representation, we will ask specific program coordinators for names of alumni who they are still in contact with to reach our goal of at five participants.
A summary of participants and the aggregated data for Data Cycle 1 is included in this table.
There were 9 former students who obtained certification in Spring 22-Fall 23 and were initially contacted in Fall 25 and continued into Spring 26 which constituted Data Cycle 1. From the survey and interviews, 56% of the participants stated that their student-teacher relationships were what they were the most proud of. The student-centered theme was prominent in every participant鈥檚 analysis. 31% of the participants discussed having a goal to improve their classroom management skills based on individual needs of their students.
The Data Cycle 1 Analysis which conveys the survey and interview data that was narrowed to focus on emergent themes. Those themes were shared with faculty most closely connected to the participants beginning in the Fall 25 and continuing throughout the process. The 9 former students have agreed to continue being part of the analysis for as long as they are needed.
The documents collected in this cycle have also been shared. The organization of the various forms is being completed for clarity. The Teacher Observation Data Examples is one type of document that was analyzed in this cycle.
Our former students who obtained certification in 23-24 were contacted in Spring 26 and constitute Data Cycle 2. These results will be shared with the EPP Steering Committee in Summer 26. The cycle will continue into June, corresponding with school district calendars and state exam testing results.
Conclusions:
The 9 participants in the case study have demonstrated effective instruction on P-12 student learning and development and an ability to apply the knowledge, skills, and dispositions outlined in our programs. The professionalism of each participant to continue working with us in this case study was astounding. Five out of the 9 have shared value added documents and the others will share more in the next few semesters.
During the Summer 26, the EPP Steering Committee will continue working on the quality of the case studies. Data Cycle 3 will include more participants across more programs, striving for a balance in campus representation. With each data cycle, the depth of data collected will be narrowed to focus on emergent themes. During the Summer 26 Data Cycle 2 analysis, (4) focus groups and (5) observations will be considered, structured, and designed to be shared with the School of Education in the Fall 26 for feedback and participation requests.