CAEP Accountability Measures

CAEP Accountability Measures

2022

Completer Effectiveness and Impact on P-12 Learning and Development

For the 2020-2021 cycle, the EPP used data from the Completers Visit to the Classroom Assessment Instrument, a Focus Group for a Completers Interview on Teaching Effectiveness and P-12 Students Impact, the Teachers’ Sense of Self Efficacy Short Scale results, Completers Satisfaction Survey, and a new instrument: Principal’s Teachers’ Evaluation Rubric. This last instrument was developed to standardized principal’s evaluations regarding completers’ effectiveness and impact on P-12 learning and development. The previous year, the EPP asked for completers principals’ evaluations, and all used different criteria.

The EPP has no access to state or private systems student growth data. The information is available through general school statistics that do not demonstrate completers’ contributions to P-12 learning and development. The EPP is using program information from multiple measures to demonstrate that completers are having a positive impact on P-12 students.

Completer Visit to the Classroom Assessment Instrument

The EPP coordinator visited eight completers (29.6%) at their workplace and observed them for a teaching period. Table 1.0 shows completers demographics, areas of specialization, and workplace category (private/public).

Table 1.0 Completers’ Demographics, Areas of Specialization, and School System
Completer Race Gender Area of Specialization System of Education
C1 Hispanic/Latino Female

 

Elementary K-3 Private School
C2 Hispanic/Latino

 

Male Secondary Mathematics Public School
C3 Hispanic/Latino

 

Female Special Education K-12 Public School
C4 Hispanic/Latino

 

Male Secondary English Public School
C5 Hispanic/Latino

 

Female Preschool Level Private School
C6 Hispanic/Latino

 

Female Elementary K-3 Private School
C7 Hispanic/Latino

 

Female Elementary 4-6 Private School
C8 Hispanic/Latino

 

Female Preschool Level Public (Head Start Program)
 

The Completer Visit to the Classroom Assessment instrument consists of 21 items aligned to the InTASC Standards for Effective Teaching. The instrument scale is divided in four stages: Distinguished (4); Proficient (3); Emerging (2); and Underdeveloped (1). In addition, the instrument has three in-between stages: Partial success at rating Distinguished (3.5); Partial success at rating Proficient (2.5); and partial success at rating Emerging (1.5). Table 1.1 shows participants scores on their performance teaching their P-12 students.

Table 1.1 Completers’ Visit to the Classroom Assessment Disaggregated Scores
N=12 InTASC Std 1 InTASC Std 2 InTASC Std 3 InTASC Std 4 InTASC Std 5
C1 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3 4 4 4 3.5
C2 3.5 3.5 3 3.5 4 3.5 3 4 4 4 3.5
C3 3 3.5 3 3 3.5 3 3 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
C4 3 3.5 3 3 3.5 3 3 3.5 3.5 3.5 3
C5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.5 3.5 3.5 3
C6 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 3 3 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3
C7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 3 3 3 3 3 2.5
C8 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 3
Mean Scores 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.9 3.3 3 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.5 3

 

N=12 InTASc Std 6 InTASC Std 7 InTASC Std 8 InTASC Std 9 InTASC Std 10 Mean
C1 3.5 4 4 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3 3.6
C2 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 4 3 3.5 3.5 3.5 3 3.5
C3 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3 3 3 3 3.3
C4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3 3 3 3 3.2
C5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3 3 3 3 3 3.1
C6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3 3 3 2.5 2.5 3.0
C7 3 3 3 3 3 2.5 3 3 3 2.5 2.8
C8 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2.5
Mean Scores 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.5 2.9 3 3 2.9 2.7 3.1

Mean scores are representative of what these completers experienced as they moved from emergency virtual, to hybrid, and to in-person teaching. 75% of completers perfromed in the proficient or higher category and 25% scored at partial success at rating proficient. The higher mean scores were obtained on InTASC standards 4, 6, 7, and part of 8. These InTASC standards are related to the use of teaching strategies, communication skills, planning, and assessment techniques. This group of completers did their practicum virtually and had to use a new repertoire of strategies and techniques to maintain P-12 students engaged. As schools moved to in person teaching, completers took all the virtual experiences to the classroom and enriched group dynamics. Lowest scores were obtained on InTASC standards 1, 2, and 10. The EPP did a similar analysis for the strengths of these scores. These completers started as novice teachers in a virtual environment. Much attention was given to student engagement and attention rather than the study of central concepts or building relationships with other members of the school community. In addition, completers C6, C7, and C8 are from elementary and preschool education. In these levels, some completers strived to have children engaged through virtuality which affected subject matter teaching. There are no definite trends between 2018, 2019, and 2020 years. The instrument was used for the first time for the 2019-2020 cycle of evidence. The items of concern were related to InTASC 3, 9, and 10. Changes in educational modalities have altered the expected patterns of results. Nevertheless, there seems to be a common denominator: InTASC standard 10 The teacher fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents, and agencies in the larger community to support students’ learning and well-being. The EPP is working on modifications to the courses EDUC 3015 Clinical Experiences I and EDUC 4013 Clinical Experiences II to allow candidates opportunities to collaborate and support students, parents, and outreach community partners to strengthen school relationships and to enrich the learning environment.

Completers Focus Groups on Teaching Effectiveness and P-12 Students Impact

The EPP invited all 2020-2021 completers through emails to a Focus Group Interview on March 4th, 2021, at 7:00 pm using ZOOM Platform Meeting ID 988 146 8462, access code 840122. Five out of twenty-seven completers (18.51%) participated in the focus group interview. The structured interview consisted of eleven open-ended questions. The Focus Group was conducted by a trained counselor who is not part of the EPP staff. The EPP coded and categorized the qualitative data that derived in various themes that were used to analyze these data. Table 1.3 shows the central themes derived from each question of the interview.

Table 1.3 Completers Focus Group Interviews Emergent Themes by Question
Interview Questions Themes
What courses, in your teacher preparation program, were most beneficial? Specialization courses

Field and Clinical Experiences

Teaching Strategies and Assessment courses

What courses were less beneficial to your preparation? Some courses could be units in another course

Field Experiences are pencil and paper exercises

Tell me about your successful experience as a teacher? Getting students to be engaged in virtual environments

Getting to know students’ strengths and planning accordingly

Tell me about your frustrations as a teacher? The system is pressuring outcomes that are not real.

Feeling that teaching, learning, and wellbeing are not aligned.

Parents could be your allies or your enemies.

How does your teacher preparation equip you with classroom management skills? Classroom management skills develop with practice.

That course was too early in the teacher preparation program.

Pre-service and in-service courses gave me the opportunity to develop those skills.

How long have you been teaching at this school? I did my in-service at the school, and they offered me the job.

I just started last August 2021.

August 2021.

How do you work with children that are not advancing at the same rate as the group? Look for other ways to assess their needs.

Use the learn-re-learned approach.

My school is too rigid, differentiated instruction is not possible.

How do you measure learning with your students? Use authentic assessments.

I use formal and informal assessments.

I use non-traditional assessments (drawings, oral reports, cooperative learning)

How do you use the assessment cycle for planning? I do not have the time or tools.

I do not have the time to make corrections on time and use the information for re-planning.

I wish I could use it more.

What other strategies do you use to monitor students’ progress? Make open-ended questions to corroborate understanding.

Use digital apps to check on comprehension.

“Explain to your peer’s approach”

Do you want to share something else about your teacher preparation at Interamerican University? Grateful for what I was taught.

Felt prepared and ready to assume my role as a practitioner.

Felt that my professors really cared about me.

 

Completers answers gave the EPP a broader perspective of the school scenarios, working conditions, and what is needed to be taught to prepare confident and knowledgeable teachers. The EPP understands that novice teachers struggled with certain administrative and teaching aspects like using the assessment cycle to re-teach, being confident with classroom management skills, differentiated instruction knowledge and strategies, and having few direct teaching experiences throughout their preparation. In this matter, the EPP has developed new key assessments for candidates to strengthen the program and their teaching skills (See Standard 5 Quality Assurance System). In addition, the Teacher Preparation Program is under revision by all the Interamerican campuses that offer the program and that provides the opportunity to discuss the need for system changes. This is the first year that the EPP uses the Focus Group Interview. For the cycle 2019-2020, the EPP interviewed completers on Teaching Effectiveness and P-12 Students’ Impact by phone. Data reflected that completer were using the assessment cycle to revise planning and to use a variety of teaching strategies to approach each learner needs. These findings are completely different from the 2020-2021 focus groups. There are no trends between the two cycles of data.

Teachers’ Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale

The Teachers’ Sense of Self-Efficacy Short Scale assesses teachers’ capability concerning instructional strategies, student engagement, and classroom management. The instrument uses 9 points rating scales: None (1) and (2), Very Little (3) and (4), Some degree (5) and (6), Quite a Bit (7) and (8), and A Great Deal (9). The EPP used it last year to support the Completers Case Study. For the 2020-2021 cycle, the scale was administered to twelve out of twenty-seven completers (44.44%). The scale distributes questions according to Efficacy in Student Engagement items 2, 4, 7, and 11; Efficacy in Instructional Strategies items 5, 9, 10, and 12; and Efficacy in Classroom Management items 1, 3, 6, and 8. Tables 1.4, 1.5. and 1.6 show the distribution of items and disaggregated scores. Table 1.7 shows The Teachers’ Sense of Self-Efficacy Short Scale aggregated mean scores and standard deviations.

Table 1.4 Efficacy in Student Engagement
Completer Specialization Race Item 2 Item 4 Item 7 Item 11
C1 K-3 Hispanic/Latino 6 7 7 6
C2 Preschool Ed. Hispanic/Latino 6 7 7 5
C3 K-3 Hispanic/Latino 6 8 8 6
C4 Special Education Hispanic/Latino 7 8 8 7
C5 History Hispanic/Latino 8 7 7 7
C6 History Hispanic/Latino 6 7 8 8
C7 Math Hispanic/Latino 7 8 8 7
C8 4-6 Hispanic/Latino 8 7 8 8
C9 Preschool Ed. Hispanic/Latino 7 7 8 6
C10 ESL elementary Hispanic/Latino 7 8 7 7
C11 ESL Secondary Hispanic/Latino 8 7 8 8
C12 K-3 Hispanic/Latino 8 7 9 8
Mean Scores   7.00 7.33 7.75 6.91

 

Table 1.5 Self-Efficacy in Instructional Strategies
Completer Specialization Race Item 5 Item 9 Item 10 Item 12
C1 K-3 Hispanic/Latino 7 7 8 6
C2 Preschool Ed. Hispanic/Latino 7 8 8 5
C3 K-3 Hispanic/Latino 7 8 8 6
C4 Special Education Hispanic/Latino 8 8 8 7
C5 History Hispanic/Latino 8 8 7 7
C6 History Hispanic/Latino 7 7 7 8
C7 Math Hispanic/Latino 8 8 7 7
C8 4-6 Hispanic/Latino 8 8 9 8
C9 Preschool Ed. Hispanic/Latino 7 8 9 6
C10 ESL elementary Hispanic/Latino 7 7 7 7
C11 ESL Secondary Hispanic/Latino 8 8 9 8
C12 K-3 Hispanic/Latino 8 8 8 8
Mean Scores   7.50 7.75 7.91 6.91

 

Table 1.6 Self-Efficacy in Classroom Management
Completer Specialization Race Item 1 Item 3 Item 6 Item 8
C1 K-3 Hispanic/Latino 7 5 5 7
C2 Preschool Ed. Hispanic/Latino 6 6 6 7
C3 K-3 Hispanic/Latino 7 7 6 7
C4 Special Education Hispanic/Latino 7 7 7 7
C5 History Hispanic/Latino 8 7 7 7
C6 History Hispanic/Latino 5 6 8 7
C7 Math Hispanic/Latino 8 7 7 7
C8 4-6 Hispanic/Latino 9 7 8 8
C9 Preschool Ed. Hispanic/Latino 8 6 7 8
C10 ESL elementary Hispanic/Latino 7 7 7 7
C11 ESL Secondary Hispanic/Latino 8 7 8 8
C12 K-3 Hispanic/Latino 9 7 8 8
Mean Scores   7.41 6.58 7.00 7.33

 

Table 1.7 Teachers’ Sense of Self-Efficacy Short Scale Aggregated Mean Scores and Standard Deviations
n=12 Mean Scores Standard Deviation (SD)
Teachers’ Sense of Self-Efficacy Short Scale 7.28

 

0.177
Student Engagement Items 2, 4, 7, and 11  7.24 0.329
Instructional Strategies items 5, 9, 10, and 12 7.51 0.379
Classroom Management items 1, 3, 6, and 8 7.08 0.327

 

Data from the Teachers’ Sense of Self-Efficacy Short Scale results demonstrated that completers perceived the use of diverse and appropriate instructional strategies as an area of strength and that classroom management skills as a weaker point to their teaching. These results are consistent with the Completer Classroom Visit Assessment and the Focus Groups Interview findings. For the 2019-2020 cycle, the EPP administered the instrument to three completers that were part of the case-study. Last-year findings (mean scores 7.53, 7.53, 6.90) were higher for student engagement items and for instructional strategies, but lower for classroom management items. Nevertheless, there are not significant changes between cycles of data. The trends are that completers perceived that they have the confidence and self-control needed to produce gains in P-12 students learning.

Completers’ Satisfaction Survey

The Completer Satisfaction Survey was administered to the twelve (44.44%) out of 27 completers that answered the Teachers’ Sense of Self-Efficacy Short Scale. The demographics and specializations are the same as portrayed in Tables 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6. The completer satisfaction instrument is a 17 questions instrument with a 4 criteria Likert-scale; Well-prepared (1); Sufficiently Prepared (2); Not Sufficiently Prepared (3); Not Prepared at All (4). The survey is intended to inquiry how satisfied were completers with the EPP preparation. Completers’ satisfaction and sense of self-efficacy are often related and imply commitment to perform diligently. Table 1.8 shows Completers’ Satisfaction Survey disaggregated scores

Table 1.8 Completers’ Satisfaction Survey Disaggregated Scores
N=12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
C1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2
C2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2
C3 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
C4 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
C5 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1
C6 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1
C7 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2
C8 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1
C9 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
C10 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2
C11 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2
C12 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2
Mean 2.00 1.58 2.08 1.91 2.30 1.66 2.25 2.16 1.75

 

N=12 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Mean
C1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1.94
C2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2.35
C3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2.00
C4 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 1.70
C5 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1.52
C6 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1.41
C7 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2.35
C8 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 1.58
C9 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2.00
C10 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2.47
C11 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2.47
C12 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2.47
Mean 1.58 1.66 2.50 1.66 2.00 2.00 2.25 2.66  

 

Overall (58%) of completers felt well-prepared or sufficiently prepared as teachers, and 42% felt between not sufficiently prepared and not prepared. These completers did most of their preparation under the stress and uncertainty that were caused by hurricane Maria, the earthquakes that affected the island, and the Covid-19 pandemic. The natural disasters affected both, faculty, and candidates. In addition, the transition to virtual instruction was a major source of stress to a faculty that was used to in-person education. All these factors contributed to a state of discomfort and frustration. Nevertheless, EPP administrators started retraining faculty in distance education and courses have been modified to satisfy candidates needs and demands. For the 2019-2020 cycle, completers scores were higher except for the Special Education specialization. This cycle, lower scores were reflected for ESL completers. There are no trends for completers satisfaction as these findings responded to a new “emergency” reality.

Principal’s Teachers’ Evaluation Rubric

The Principal’s Teachers’ Evaluation Rubric is a new instrument that the EPP piloted with the 2020-2021 completers. The instrument was developed to measure teachers’ competencies from a direct supervisor, other than the employer. In addition, the EPP wanted to use this information as an indirect measure of P-12 students’ growth. State statistics on public schools are limited to general information concerning core subjects and are not distributed by teacher. The same is true for the private educational system. This educational system uses a private company, and the information cannot be shared to particulars. The rubric is divided into the eight competencies that are expected for effective teachers: Communication and Interpersonal Skills; Organization and Planning; Classroom Management; Facilitation and number of; Assessment and Coaching; Collaboration and Teamwork; Caring and Inclusiveness; and Flexibility and Adaptability. It uses a three-point scale High Competency (3), Distinguished Proficient (2), and Emergent (1). This instrument was validated by ten judges. Validation results was 0.0884 , medium validity, using Validity Index of Aiken. The instrument was completed at the EPP visit for Completers’ Classroom Observation Assessment by their direct supervisors. Table 1.9 shows direct supervisors scores for completers using the pilot instrument.

Table 1.9 Principal’s Teachers’ Evaluation Rubric
Completer Communication and Interpersonal Skills

 

 

 

Organization and Planning Classroom Management Facilitation and Engagement Assessment and Coaching
C1 K-3 2

 

1 1 2 1
C2 Math 1

 

2 1 1 2
C3 Special Education 2 2 2 2 2
C4 Secondary English 2 1 1 1 2
C5 Preschool Level 2 1 2 2 1
C6 K-3 2

 

1 1 2 1
C7 4-6 2

 

2 1 2 1
C8 Preschool Level 2 1 2 2 1
Mean 1.87

 

1.37 1.37 1.75 1.37

 

Completer Collaboration and Teamwork Caring and Inclusiveness Flexibility and Adaptability Mean
C1 K-3 2 2 2 1.65
C2 Math 2 2 2 1.65
C3 Special Education 2 2 2 2.00
C4 Secondary English 2 2 2 1.65
C5 Preschool Level 2 2 2 1.75
C6 K-3 2 2 2 1.65
C7 4-6 2 2 2 1.75
C8 Preschool Level 2 2 2 1.75
Mean 2.00 2.00 2.00  

Completers lower scores were related to Organization and Planning, Classroom Management, and Assessment and Coaching. Completers strengths were demonstrated at Collaboration and Teamwork, Caring and Inclusiveness, and Flexibility and Adaptability. These findings are consistent with the ones from other instruments. The 2020-2021 cycle completers represented an educational transition that was marked by an emphasis on socio-emotional development and care rather than on academic rigor. Since this instrument was piloted for the first time during the 2020-2021 cycle and for a small group of novice teachers, there are no data for comparisons.

In conclusion, for Measure 1 the EPP used multiple instruments to demonstrate that 2020-2021 program completers effectively contributed to P-12 student growth learning and applied the professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions required for a highly competent teacher.

Satisfaction of Employer and Stakeholder Involvement

For the 2020-2021 cycle, the EPP used the Employers’ Satisfaction with Completer Survey to assess completers’ mastery of teaching and professional competencies as perceived by the employer and the Principals Teachers’ Evaluation Rubric to assess completers teaching competencies from a direct supervisor. In addition, the EPP included stakeholders’ co-construction efforts for the Principal’s Teachers’ Evaluation Rubric, which is in a pilot phase. The EPP administered both instruments on site visits. Eight employers (29.6%) and principals (29.6%) or teacher direct supervisors completed the instruments. The Employers’ Satisfaction with Completer Survey was used last year for the first time. The new, co-constructed instrument, Principal’s Teachers’ Evaluation Rubric, was developed to uniform schoolteachers’ evaluations on teaching competencies aligned to best practices, InTASC Standards, CAEP, and Puerto Rico Department of Education Professional Standards.

The Employers’ Satisfaction with Completer Survey uses a five-point Likert Scale and has 10 items. The Likert scale goes from Strongly Agree (5); Somewhat Agree (4); Somewhat Disagree (3); Strongly Disagree (2); No Response (1). Mean scores were higher than last year with an average mean of 4.7 out of 5. The lower scores (mean=4.2) were on questions #2 and #4 related to providing learning opportunities to support children’s intellectual, social, and personal development, and in using a variety of instructional strategies to encourage critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills. There are no trends between the years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. For the 2019-2020 cycle, the EPP used the Employers’ Satisfaction with Completers Survey for the first time and findings were related to completers use of virtual platforms since it was the first year of systemic virtual education in Puerto Rico. Nevertheless, employers’ evaluation scores have been consistent between (5) Strongly Agree, and (4) Somewhat Agree for the last two cycles.

These cohort of completers did their in-service experience virtually and returned to hybrid and in-person instruction for the 2020-2021 cycle. Some completers were still adapting to a group of children that had been secluded at home for almost two years. In fact, schools were trying to figure out what were the best strategies to positively impact P-12 students. Despite all the adaptations, employers were satisfied with completers achievements. Table 2.0 shows completers demographics, area of specialization, and school system of education where they are teaching. Table 2.1 shows Employers’ Satisfaction with Completers disaggregated scores.

Table 2.0 Completers Demographic Information, Specialization, and System of Education
Completer Race Gender Area of Specialization System of Education
C1 Hispanic/Latino Female

 

Elementary K-3 Private School
C2 Hispanic/Latino

 

Male Secondary Mathematics Public School
C3 Hispanic/Latino

 

Female Special Education K-12 Public School
C4 Hispanic/Latino

 

Male Secondary English Public School
C5 Hispanic/Latino

 

Female Preschool Level Private School
C6 Hispanic/Latino

 

Female Elementary K-3 Private School
C7 Hispanic/Latino

 

Female Elementary 4-6 Private School
C8 Hispanic/Latino

 

Female Preschool Level Public (Head Start Program)
Table 2.1 Employers’ Satisfaction with Completers Disaggregated Scores
Completer

n=8

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Mean
C1 K-3 5 5

 

4 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 4.7

 

C2 Math

 

4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4.2
C3 Special Education 5

 

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4.9
C4 Secondary English 5

 

5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 4.2
C5 Preschool 5

 

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0
C6 K-3 4

 

5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.7
C7 4-6 5

 

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0
C8 Preschool 5

 

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0
Mean

 

4.75 5.00 4.75 5.00 4.87 4.62 5.00 4.75 4.50 5.00  

Other than employers’ satisfaction, the EPP wanted specific information on completers competencies from their principal or direct supervisor to complement the employers’ feedback on performance, and for its continuous improvement plan. The EPP acknowledged that this new instrument has meaningful information that could serve to strengthen candidates’ preparation. The EPP invited a group of three principals, from the pool of collaborative in-service schools to co-construct an instrument for the purpose of measuring teachers’ competencies (See Appendix 2.1). After three meetings and hours of searching through instructional web pages, the EPP and stakeholders agreed on using the teachers’ competencies framework (European Commission, 2013) to develop a three-point scale rubric: High Competency (3); Distinguished Performance (2); Emergent Competencies (1). The instrument assesses eight areas of teacher competency: Communication and Interpersonal Skills; Organization and Planning; Classroom Management; Facilitation and Engagement; Assessment and Coaching; Collaboration and Teamwork; Caring and Inclusiveness; and Flexibility and Adaptability (See Appendix 2.2: Principal’s Teachers’ Evaluation Rubric and content validation indexes). Table 2.2 shows school principals and/or director’s evaluations for the eight completers.

Table 2.1 Completers Disaggregated Scores on the Principal’s Teachers’ Evaluation Rubric
Completer

n=8

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Mean
C1 K-3 5 5

 

4 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 4.7

 

C2 Math

 

4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4.2
C3 Special Education 5

 

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4.9
C4 Secondary English 5

 

5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 4.2
C5 Preschool 5

 

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0
C6 K-3 4

 

5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.7
C7 4-6 5

 

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0
C8 Preschool 5

 

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0
Mean

 

4.75 5.00 4.75 5.00 4.87 4.62 5.00 4.75 4.50 5.00  

Other than employers’ satisfaction, the EPP wanted specific information on completers competencies from their principal or direct supervisor to complement the employers’ feedback on performance, and for its continuous improvement plan. The EPP acknowledged that this new instrument has meaningful information that could serve to strengthen candidates’ preparation. The EPP invited a group of three principals, from the pool of collaborative in-service schools to co-construct an instrument for the purpose of measuring teachers’ competencies (See Appendix 2.1). After three meetings and hours of searching through instructional web pages, the EPP and stakeholders agreed on using the teachers’ competencies framework (European Commission, 2013) to develop a three-point scale rubric: High Competency (3); Distinguished Performance (2); Emergent Competencies (1). The instrument assesses eight areas of teacher competency: Communication and Interpersonal Skills; Organization and Planning; Classroom Management; Facilitation and Engagement; Assessment and Coaching; Collaboration and Teamwork; Caring and Inclusiveness; and Flexibility and Adaptability (See Appendix 2.2: Principal’s Teachers’ Evaluation Rubric and content validation indexes). Table 2.2 shows school principals and/or director’s evaluations for the eight completers.

Table 2.1 Completers Disaggregated Scores on the Principal’s Teachers’ Evaluation Rubric
Completer

n=8

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Mean
C1 K-3 2 2

 

1 1 1 2 2 2 1.65
C2 Math

 

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
C3 Special Education 2

 

2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1.65
C4 Secondary English 2

 

2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1.87
C5 Preschool 2

 

2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1.65
C6 K-3 2

 

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
C7 4-6 2

 

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
C8 Preschool 2

 

2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1.75
Mean

 

2 2 1.62 1.37 1.5 2       2 2  

Findings suggests that items 3 Classroom Management, 4 Facilitation and Engagement, and Assessment and Coaching were closer to the emergent score. In general, completers were rated as Distinguished Performance which is good for novice teachers. Nevertheless, this information confirmed what other instruments findings suggested regarding classroom management and using assessments. The EPP will meet during the summer to discuss findings and to develop concrete activities to enhance these skills in candidates. In addition, the EPP will meet with co-constructors to refine the instrument and to add criteria to the Emergent column which was not defined. The instrument will be piloted with the new structure for the next cycle of completers.

Candidate Competency at Program Completion

To demonstrate Measure 3, the EPP used information from the student-teaching evaluation instruments, the self-assessment disposition instrument, and the State Licensure passing rates. EPP candidates complete 180 hours practicum in a school as part of their last semester and program requisites. In this practicum, the candidates are evaluated by the university supervisor (US) and the cooperative teacher (CT) using various instruments: US Student Teaching Evaluation, CT Student Teaching Evaluation, Portfolio, Teaching Unit, and Action Research Proposal. In addition, most candidates take the Teachers State Licensure Exams in their last semester. The Teacher Disposition Survey is a self-assessment instrument. Table 3.1 shows 2020-2021 candidates’ specialization, and quantity by academic term.

Table 3.0 Candidates’ Specialization and Quantity by Academic Term
Candidates Specialization August-December 2020 January-May 2021
PRESCHOOL 1 3
K-3 2 6
ELEM 4-6 1 -
ESL ELEM 3 2
ESL SEC 3 1
SPECIAL EDUCATION - 2
SEC. HISTORY - 1
SEC. MATH 1 -
SEC. BIOLOGY 1 -
Total 12 15
Alternate Route - -

The Teacher Candidate Disposition Self-Assessment Survey has six areas that measure candidates’ positive commitment, reflective skills, and empathy dimensions. The self-assessment disposition instrument reflects the positive beliefs that candidates have about P-12 students learning potential, and the commitment to continuous growth through personal reflections. Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 show candidates’ dispositions aggregated scores for the academic terms of the 2020-2021 year. The disaggregated data is available in the appendices (See Appendix 3). On both academic terms, candidates self-assessed with high scores on all items in the August-December 2020 academic term. Nevertheless, candidates self-assessed lower in the dimension related to “positive commitment” with mean score of 88.39 in the January-May 2021 academic term. Although these scores are above average and average, the EPP, as part of the continuous improvement processes, is going to add an array of reflection exercises and disposition discussions to core courses to promote the confidence that candidates need to fulfill P-12 students needs. This is the first time that the EPP collects a disposition self-assessment measure and there are no previous data to establish trends. In addition, previous years CAEP Measure 3 data was about completers, not candidates.

Table 3.1 Teacher Candidate Dispositions Self-Assessment Survey Aggregated Scores 2020

August – December 2020

Teacher Candidate Disposition Survey

Competencies

MAJOR POSITIVE COMMITMENT

Average scores

REFLEXIVE LEARNER EMPHATY Total Averages
Preschool          N=1 28/28 22/24 16/16 66/68
K-3                     N=3 25/28 17/20 16/16 58/64
28/28 24/24 16/16 68/68
-- -- --  
Elem 4-6            N=1        
ESL Elem           N=3 28/28 24/24 16/16 68/68
28/28 20/24 16/16 64/68
28/28 20/24 16/16 64/68
ESL Sec             N=3 27/28 24/24 16/16 67/68
-- -- --  
-- -- --  
Sec Bio              N=1 -- -- --  
Sec Math           N=1 -- -- --  
Mean scores based on percentages 97.9% 91.8% 100% 96.3%
Table 3.3 Teacher Candidate Dispositions Self-Assessment Survey Aggregated Scores 2021

January-May 2021

Teacher Candidate Disposition Survey

Competencies

MAJOR POSITIVE COMMITMENT

 

REFLEXIVE LEARNER EMPHATY Total Averages
Preschool          N=3 28/28 24/24 16/16 68/68= 100%
-- -- -- --
28/28 21/24 16/16 65/68= 96%
K-3                     N=6 28/28 23/24 16/16 67/68= 99%
23/24

One N/A

20/20

One N/A

16/16 59/60= 98%
28/28 23/24 16/16 67/68= 99%
25/28 22/24 15/16 62/68= 91%
-- -- -- --
27/28 21/24 16/16 64/68= 94%
ESL Elem           N=2 28/28 24/24 16/16 68/68= 100%
28/28 24/24 16/16 68/68= 100%
ESL Sec             N=1 20/24

One N/A

17/20

One N/A

14/16 51/ 60= 85%
Spec Ed             N=2 28/28 24/24 16/16 68/68= 100%
-- -- -- --
Sec History       N=1 27/28 20/24 16/16 63/68= 93%
Mean scores based on percentages 88.39 93.8 98.4 96.25%

The EPP used the student-teaching evaluation by the university supervisor (US) and the cooperative teacher (CT) to ensure that candidates possess academic competencies including content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technology integration to impact positively P-12 students learning and development. EPP uses the same Practicum Assessment Instrument for US and CT. Candidates are assessed in three occasions during the practicum and a fourth time using the Summative Evaluation. This gives the candidate enough feedback to work on areas for improvement before the summative evaluation. The instrument assesses candidates’ content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and content skills (planning, teaching, and assessment), teaching resources/use of technology, interaction with students, disposition, and commitment to the profession and to their students, attention to diversity, and research and reflexive thinking competencies. The scale used is (4) Exemplary, (3) Distinguished, (2) Early Development, (1) Emergent. US and CT disaggregated candidates’ evaluation scores are provided in Appendix 3. Table 3.0 shows US and CT aggregated candidates’ summative evaluation mean scores for the August-December 2020 academic term. Table 3.1 shows US and CT aggregated candidates’ summative evaluation mean scores for the January-May 2021 academic term.

Table 3. US and CT Aggregated Summative Evaluation Scores for August-December 2020
N=12 Candidates University Supervisor Cooperative Teacher
Preschool 4 4
K-3 4 4
K-3 3.95 4
K-3 3.95 4
4-6 4 4
Secondary Math 3.16 3.91
Secondary Biology 3.62 3.62
Elementary ESL 3.95 4
Elementary ESL 3.5 3.5
Elementary ESL 4 4
Secondary ESL 3.5 3.5
Secondary ESL 4 4
Secondary ESL 4 4
Table 3.1 US and CT Aggregated Summative Evaluation Scores for January-May 2021
N=15 Candidates University Supervisor Cooperative Teacher
Preschool 3.87 4
Preschool 3.87 3.91
Preschool 3.83 3.29
K-3 4 4
K-3 4 4
K-3 4 4
K-3 3.87 3.83
K-3 4 3.16
K-3 4 3.89
Special Education 3.95 4
Special Education 3.91 3.61
Secondary History 3.83 3.70
Elementary ESL 3.95 3.91
Elementary ESL 3.89 4
Secondary ESL 3.91 3.75

Findings demonstrated that EPP candidates from both academic terms performed at the Exemplary or Distinguished level and that mean scores between US and CT were very similar. Similarity of scores proved that the instrument is reliable and that scores have been trained to administered it. Therefore, EPP candidates possess the academic competency at completion that is expected to effectively teach and impact P-12 learners in their field of specialization.

In addition to the Student Practicum Summative Evaluation, the EPP used the Student Teacher Portfolio, a Teaching Unit, and the Action Research Proposal rubric grades to triangulate candidates’ competencies in content and pedagogical knowledge, assessment, research, and integration of technology skills to demonstrate their academic competency to teach with positive impact on diverse P-12 student learning and development. Table 3.2 shows 2020-2021 candidates’ final grades on student-teaching portfolio, teaching unit, and academic research proposal rubrics.

Table 3.1 Candidates’ Triangulation of Competencies for August-December 2020
  PORTFOLIO Teaching UNIT Action Research PROPOSAL
Preschool 100 96 95
K-3 100 100 100
K-3 100 100 100
K-3 100 92 100
Elem 4-6 100 100 100
ESL Elem 93.7 80.3 86.3
ESL Elem 68.7 60.7 79.5
ESL Elem 90.6 89.2 65.9
ESL Sec 93.7 76.7 90.9
ESL Sec 84.3 78.5 90.9
ESL Sec 93.7 91 77.2
Sec. Biology 72 71 50
Sec Math 81 80 82
Table 3.2 Candidates’ Triangulation of Competencies for January-May 2021
N=15 PORTFOLIO Teaching UNIT Action Research PROPOSAL
Preschool

N= 3

100 N/A* 80
94 N/A* 95
94 N/A* 94
K-3

N= 6

100 89 86
100 84 86
100 79 89
100 100 86
100 98 89
100 100 80
Special Ed N= 2 100 96 93
100 96** 91
ESL Elem

N= 2

94 80 93
89 70 84
ESL Sec

N= 1

 

97

86 98
Sec Hist

N=1

86 80 90

EPP candidates for the January-May 2021 cycle exhibited higher scores in the three rubrics that assessed candidates’ competencies and preparation to teach effectively. This in noticeable in ESL and Secondary Education programs. Secondary programs only take education core courses and specialization is met in the concern faculties. The elementary education programs embedded planning, assessment, and research in most of its courses. Differences between secondary and elementary scores could be explained by the fact that specialization courses are not taught by educator preparators. The EPP is planning on meeting with specialization faculty to integrate more planning, assessment, and research activities within its courses. Nonetheless, triangulated data demonstrated that EPP candidates are well-prepared to teach and to positively impact P-12 students learning and have positive dispositions toward the profession.

In addition, EPP candidates can take the State Certification Exam before or after graduation because the exam is offered once a year (March) by the College Board Administration Office. For the 2020-2021 cycle, candidates passing rate was 86% and the statewide score was 96%. For the 2019-2020 cycle, the exam was cancelled due to the pandemic. The EPP was cautious to prepare a virtual review for 2021-2022 candidates after analyzing past years results. The passing rate was satisfactory, and candidates were certified by the State accordingly. Teacher Certification is what the EPP aspires for all its candidates and a well-rounded preparation which has been demonstrated through multiple measures.

Ability of Completers to be Hired in Education Positions for which They have Prepared

EPP completers are often hired as candidates during their internship or before. Puerto Rico had been experimenting a shortage of teachers and employers are always seeking highly-qualify candidates to recruit. In addition, school districts from the United States are constantly visiting the campus for recruitment fairs. The 2020-2021 completers were the first group to return to in-person education after the pandemic seclusion. Table 4.1 shows August-December 2020 completers working status disaggregated by academic level and academic system (public/private). Table 4.2 shows January-May 2021 completers working status disaggregated by academic level and academic system (public/private).

Table 4.1 August-December 2020 Completers Working Status
N=12 Candidates Academic Level Academic System of Education
Preschool Private
K-3 Public
K-3 Private
K-3 unknown
Elem 4-6 Private
ESL Elem Private
ESL Elem USA School System
ESL Elem Public
ESL Sec Public
ESL Sec Private
ESL Sec Private
Sec. Biology Public
Sec Math Public
Table 4.2 January-May 2021 Completers Working Status
N=15 Candidates Academic Level Academic System of Education
Preschool

N= 3

Private
Private
Private
K-3

N= 6

Not working
Private.
US School System
Private
Private
Public
Special Ed N= 2 Not working
Not working
ESL Elem

N= 2

Private
Public
ESL Sec

N= 1

Public
Sec Hist

N=1

Public

For August-December 2020 cycle, six (50%) completers were working at their teaching specialization level in private schools, five (41.66%) were at public schools, one (.08%) was working in the Continental US School system, and the EPP could not establish communication with one. For the January-May 2021cycle, seven (46.6%) were working at their specialization level in private school, four (26.66%) were working in public schools, one (.066%) was working in the Continental US School system, and three (20%) were not working at all. These findings demonstrated that EPP completers have all the competencies required to be hired in education positions for which they have been prepared.

2021

Impact on P-12 Learning and Development

For the 2019-2020 cycle, the EPP developed new instruments, Completer Visit to the Classroom Assessment Instrument and Completers’ Interview on Teaching Effectiveness and P-12 Students Impact, to assess completers’ impact on P-12 students learning and development. In addition, the EPP did and action research to explore completer’s self-efficacy perception regarding teaching effectiveness and P-12 students’ impact.  All these measures evidenced that EPP completers have a positive impact on P-12 students learning and development.

The Completer visit to the Classroom Assessment Instrument is a rubric based on the InTASC Standards for effective teachers. It was developed to observe completers performance teaching P-12 students in a school scenario. The instrument is distributed in four stages of proficiencies and three in-between stages. The stages are: Distinguished (4); Proficient (3); Emerging (2); and Underdevelop (1). The in between stages describe that completers are close to achieving the prior stage but is still in progress. The rubric has a validity index of .89 and a Cronbach’s alpha index of .974 (See Exhibit 1.0 EPP Created Instruments). The Completers’ Interview on Teaching Effectiveness and P-12 Students Impact is an eleven open-ended questions interview. It was developed to assess completers’ perceptions on teaching effectiveness and P-12 students’ impact. The interview was validated for content by an expert panel (See Exhibit 1.0 EPP Created Instruments). The EPP did not have access to the State value-added measures on P-12 students’ growth and developed the action research to evidence completers teaching effectiveness and P-12 impact using multiple measures (qualitative and quantitative).

Completer Visit to the Classroom Assessment Instrument

Six (37%) of the 16 EPP completers for 2019-2020 were observed teaching a group of P-12 students in virtual classroom scenarios. The EPP used the Completer Visit Classroom Assessment Instrument to record completer’s compliance with InTASC categories: The Learner and Learning, Content Knowledge, Instructional Practices, and Professional Responsibilities.  Although proficient in all items scored, completers scores of (3.08, 3.16, 3.25 out of 4.0) were related to InTASC standards #3, The teacher understands how students differ in their approach to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners; standard #9, The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of his/her choices and actions on others and who seeks out opportunities to grow professionally; and standard #5, The teachers uses understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive interaction, active engagement in learning and self-motivation. All completers are teaching in virtual platforms and are adapting teaching and learning resources to satisfy student needs. In addition, completers are inexperienced in the field of distance education and that could have been a critical factor creating engaging learning environments. Nevertheless, results show that EPP completers are performing at a level of proficiency of 3.08 and above in all the InTASC categories and standards (See Table 1.0 2019-2020 Completers Visit to the Classroom Assessment Instrument Scores Disaggregated Data by InTASC Standard and Specialization.

 

Table 1.0 2019-2020 Completer Visit to the Classroom Assessment Instrument Scores Disaggregated Data by InTASC Standard and Specialization
Completer Major Scored by InTASC Standard and Item Number
  InTASC St 1 InTASC St 2 InTASC St 3 InTASC St 4 InTASC St 5
N=6 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11
ESL Elementary 4 4 4 4 4 3.5 4 4 4 4 4
Preschool 4 4 4 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5
K-3 4 4 4 4 3.5 3.5 3 3 3.5 4 3.5
Special Education 3 3 3.5 3 3 3 2.5 3 3 2.5 3
4-6th 4 4 3.5 3 3.5 3 3 3 3 2.5 3
Preschool 3 3 4 3 3 3.5 2.5 3 3.5 3 2.5
Mean 3.66 3.66 3.83 3.50 3.50 3.33 3.08 3.33 3.41 3.25 3.25

 

Completer Major Scored by InTASC Standard and Item Number
  InTASC St 6 InTASC St 7 InTASC St 8 InTASC St 9 InTASc St 10
N=6 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21
ESL Elementary 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Preschool 3.5 4 4 4 4 3.5 4 4 4 4
K-3 4 4 4 3.5 4 4 3 3.5 3.5. 3.5
Special Education 3 4 3 2.5 3 3 3 3 3 2.5
4-6th 3 4 3 2.5 3 3 2.5 3 2 2.5
Preschool 4 4 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 3
Mean 3.58 4.00 3.58 3.33 3.58 3.33 3.16 3.33 3.33 3.25

 

Completers’ Interview on Teaching Effectiveness and P-12 Students Impact

The EPP interviewed seven (44%) 2019-2020 completers using Completers’ Interview on Teaching Effectiveness and P-12 Students Impact. Data reflected that completers are using the assessment cycle to revise planning and to use a variety of teaching strategies to approach each learner needs. The interviews were coded and categorized for analysis. The themes that emerged from the categories were: Practical Courses, Real-Life Scenarios, Parent’s Disengagement, Individualized Education, Curriculum Adaptations, and Authentic Assessment. The findings show that completers are aware that P-12 student needs are diverse and that they have the responsibility and commitment to address them. In addition, they are using the assessment cycle to revise planning, reteach information, and to use a variety of learning strategies to ensure P-12 students learning success. All the interviewees reported P-12 students growth academically and demonstrating better dispositions to learn.

Table 1.1 Completers’ Interview on Teaching Effectiveness and P-12 Impact Themes

Themes

Practical Courses

Real-Life Educational Scenarios

Parent’s Disengagement

Individualized Education

Curriculum adaptations

Authentic Assessment

 

Action Research

The EPP’s 2019-2020 action research explored three (20%) completer’s self-efficacy perception regarding teaching effectiveness and P-12 students’ impact. The research questions were:

  • What EPP preparatory experiences help develop teacher efficacy?
  • How do completers perceive their self-efficacy?
  • How do completers perceive their teaching effectiveness?

The EPP used various instrument to triangulate data: Completers Interviews on Teaching Effectiveness and P-12 Impact, Teachers’ Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale (a proprietary assessment), Principal’s Evaluations, Completer Visit to the Classroom Assessment Instrument, and Completers’ Artifacts (students’ assessments) (See Exhibit 1.1 Action Research). Completers provided evidence of classroom artifacts that have been used to evidence student’s growth. In general, all P-12 students were positively impacted by EPP completers by improving their academic performance. Completer 001 student’s performed at the expectancy level for Teaching Strategies Creative Curriculum. Completer 002 students’ had academic learning growths of 80% in English Oral Communication Skills, and Completer 003 students demonstrated gains in performance from 16% in the pretest to 42% in the posttest in the Kindergarten Performance Test. The EPP completers demonstrated a high sense of teacher efficacy that have served as a motivator to look for innovate ways of teaching and to help P-12 students attain the desired levels of performance. One of the recommendations of the study was to add P-12 student evaluations as another measure of impact for future studies and for EPP continuous improvement. In addition, the Puerto Rico Department of Education is working on resuming standardized testing for next year. This past two years (2018-2020) the tests have been cancelled due to the earthquakes and the COVID-19 pandemic. The standardized test will provide the EPP with a State value-added measure.

Indicators of Teaching Effectiveness

For 2019-2020, the EPP developed various instruments with the purpose of measuring completers teaching effectiveness. As stated in Measure 1, the Completer Visit to the Classroom Assessment Instrument is a rubric based in the InTASC Standards for effective teachers. The rubric was developed to observe completers performance as teachers with a group of P-12 students. The instrument is distributed in four stages of proficiencies and three in-between stages. The stages are: Distinguished (4); Proficient (3); Emerging (2); and Underdeveloped (1). The in-between levels are: Partial success at rating “4” (3.5); Partial Success at rating “3” (2.5); Partial Success at rating “2” (1.5).  The rubric has a validity index of .89 and a reliability index (Cronbach’s alpha) of .974 (See Exhibit 1.0 EPP Created Assessments). Six completers out of sixteen (37%) were observed in virtual classrooms while teaching a group of students. The same faculty member visited all completers minimizing differences on criteria and assuring reliability. Although proficient, completers scores of 3.08, 3.16, 3.25 out of 4.0 were related to InTASC standards #3, The teacher understands how students differ in their approach to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners; standard #9, The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of his/her choices and actions on others and who seeks out opportunities to grow professionally; and standard #5, The teachers uses understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive interaction, active engagement in learning and self-motivation. As with other measures, the EPP have noted consistency in completer’s areas that are related with the transitioning from face-to-face teaching to virtual scenarios. Completers are teaching in digital platforms that are relatively new to everyone. They had no mentorship in this transitioning stage because it was an abrupt but necessary adoption for the school system due to the pandemic. Other than that, completers did perform at the distinguished and proficient stages. Three completers performed at partial success of a proficient rating (2.5) in some items and one performed, in one item, at the emerging stage (2) (See Table 1.0 Completers’ Visit to the Classroom Assessment Mean Scores Disaggregated by InTASC Standards and Specialization). Those completers that performed in some items below 3.0 belong to the Special Education, 4th-6th, and Preschool Education programs. Special Education and Preschool programs rely on hands-on instructional strategies that empower student’s construction of learning. The EPP analysis is that changes in teaching scenarios could account for these programs differences in scores comparing to other EPP programs. The EPP will present the information in the June Stakeholders data retreat for further analysis and to find other ways to integrate innovative ways to address learning for functionally diverse and preschool students.

In addition, the EPP conducted an action research to explore completer’s self-efficacy perception regarding teaching effectiveness and P-12 student impact (See Exhibit 1.1 Action Research). The EPP collected data from three completers (20%) using various instruments: Completers’ Interview on Teaching Effectiveness and P-12 Impact, Teachers’ Sense of Self-Efficacy Scale, Completers’ Visit to the Classroom, Principals Evaluations and Completers’ Artifacts. The research questions were:

  • What EPP preparatory experiences help developed teacher self-efficacy?
  • How do completers perceive their self-efficacy?
  • How do completers perceive their teaching effectiveness?

The findings for research question 1 (RQ1) suggested that completers were satisfied with the preparation experiences received at the EPP. The findings suggested that having four practical experiences during preparation: Field Experiences I, Field Experiences II, Clinical Experiences I, and Clinical Experiences II were critical in their development of teacher self-efficacy. The EPP provide candidates with performance experiences in their core and specialization courses. In these courses they acquire content and pedagogical knowledge, teaching skills, and dispositions that give them self- confident in their capabilities. In addition, EPP school stakeholders provide opportunities for candidates to observe highly effective teachers as they interact with P-12 students. These observations are valuable examples that become part of the completers teaching repertoire. The findings are in accordance with what Maddux and Gosselin (2013) mentioned about self-efficacy development and performance and vicarious experiences.

The findings of RQ2 suggested that completers perceived themselves as having high self-efficacy.  Completers demonstrated that they have that confidence and self-control necessary to produce gains in students learning. In addition, individuals high in self-efficacy are known to be self-drive and to motivate others to engage in productive behaviors. Self-efficacy represents an individual’s belief in his/her ability to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific and productive outcomes (Bandura, 1977, 1997).  Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk (1998) argued that competence, self-efficacy, and commitment are intertwined. Competence and commitment are also characteristics of effective teachers. Moreover, Lukácová et al. (2018) found that the higher the level of teachers’ self-efficacy, the better the teacher is in their tendency to adopt an active attitude to the teaching process. Teacher efficacy is also related to the positive use of teaching strategies and to be more students oriented.

The findings of RQ3 suggested that completers perceived themselves as effective teachers. Completer’s concept of effective teaching goes beyond grades as they seek for the social and emotional wellness of their students and their development of a sense of competence. In addition, effective teachers contribute to positive academic, attitudinal, and social outcomes for students. Completers also included parents and other professionals to individually planned and intervene for students success. These perceptions are in accordance with Goe et al. (2008) findings that effective teachers have high expectations for all students and help students learn. Goe et al. (2008) pointed that effective teachers collaborate with other teachers, parents, and professionals to ensure students success.

EPP completers demonstrated, through multiple sources of evidence, that they are effective teachers.

 

Table 1.0 Completers Visit to the Classroom assessment Instrument Disaggregated Mean Scores by InTASC Standard and Specialization.
Completer Major Scored by InTASC Standard and Item Number
  InTASC St 1 InTASC St 2 InTASC St 3 InTASC St 4 InTASC St 5
N=6 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11
ESL Elementary 4 4 4 4 4 3.5 4 4 4 4 4
Preschool 4 4 4 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 3.5
K-3 4 4 4 4 3.5 3.5 3 3 3.5 4 3.5
Special Education 3 3 3.5 3 3 3 2.5 3 3 2.5 3
4-6th 4 4 3.5 3 3.5 3 3 3 3 2.5 3
Preschool 3 3 4 3 3 3.5 2.5 3 3.5 3 2.5
Mean 3.66 3.66 3.83 3.50 3.50 3.33 3.08 3.33 3.41 3.25 3.25

 

Completer Major Scored by InTASC Standard and Item Number
  InTASC St 6 InTASC St 7 InTASC St 8 InTASC St 9 InTASc St 10
N=6 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21
ESL Elementary 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Preschool 3.5 4 4 4 4 3.5 4 4 4 4
K-3 4 4 4 3.5 4 4 3 3.5 3.5. 3.5
Special Education 3 4 3 2.5 3 3 3 3 3 2.5
4-6th 3 4 3 2.5 3 3 2.5 3 2 2.5
Preschool 4 4 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 3
Mean 3.58 4.00 3.58 3.33 3.58 3.33 3.16 3.33 3.33 3.25

 

Satisfaction of Employers and Employment Milestones

For 2019-2020, the EPP used a new instrument Employers’ Satisfaction with Completer Survey to assess completer’s mastery of teaching and professional competencies as perceived by employers. The instrument has a content validity of .90 and a Cronbach’s alpha index of .802 (See Exhibit 1.0 EPP Created Assessments). The EPP sent the Employers’ Satisfaction with Completer Survey and had a 69% (9 out of 13 employers) return. Some employers used the Google Forms instrument, while others filled out a copy of the instrument and returned it by email. Three completers, out of sixteen, are not currently employed in teaching positions.

Five of those nine employers (55%) recruited candidates who did their Student Teaching at their schools. Employers’ answers fell between Strongly Agree and Somewhat Agree which demonstrated that employers perceived that completers are well prepared to perform as effective teachers. Completers scores (3.44 and 3.55 out of 4) corresponded to items #5 and #8. Item #5 is about creating learning environments, and item #8 is about the uses of formative and summative assessments. The EPP analysis reflected that completers received their education in traditional classrooms but had to transition to virtual classroom for their first experiences as teachers. These completers have been teaching virtually without prior experience in virtual teaching platforms. Changes in teaching modalities could account for the 3.4 scores particularly in students’ motivation, the creation of learning environments, and assessing learning. Nonetheless, all scores were excellent and demonstrated completer’s strengths and competencies as required by InTASC standards for teaching effectiveness. In addition, 33% (3) of employers gave perfect scores to completers. The EPP have started modifications in all courses to resolve areas for improvement related with the transition to virtual education scenarios. At this moment, two full-time faculties are being trained in the development of digital resources and educational materials appropriate for functionally diverse students. In addition, the university has been diligent to provide professional development related to virtual learning environments, rubric development, assessment strategies, Blackboard Collaborate, and reasonable accommodations, among others. It has been demonstrated that the EPP is using employer’s information to work toward continuous improvement. In addition, some employers are part of the EPP Steering Committee and will participate in the 2021 June data retreat for further analysis and discussion of these findings.

As far as employment milestones, five of the thirteen (38%) completers of 2019-2020 that are currently working as teachers, were employed in the same school that they did the student teaching. This datum reflected employer’s satisfaction with EPP completers’ performance. Retaining student teachers after graduation demonstrates that EPP completers are meeting employers’ expectations on teaching effectiveness and professional standards. Table 3.0 shows employers’ satisfaction with completer survey mean scores disaggregated by item number and employer response. Table 3.1 shows employers satisfaction with completer aggregated data.

In general, EPP completers are exceeding employers satisfaction with their performance as it is evidenced by the data provided and by retaining student teachers once they graduate and become completers.

Table 3.0 2019-2020 Employers’ Satisfaction with Completer Survey Mean Scores Disaggregated by items and Employers Response
Employers Mean Scores by Item Number
N=9 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 Mean
1 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3.40
2 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3.20
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.00
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.90
5 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3.70
6 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3.70
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.00
8 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3.30
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.00
Mean 3.77 3.88 3.77 3.77 3.55 3.88 3.77 3.44 4.00 3.88  

 

Table 3.1 2019-2020 Employers’ Satisfaction with Completer Survey Mean Scores Aggregated Data (new instrument)
Employers N= 9 Mean Scores by Item Number
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10
Mean 3.77 3.88 3.77 3.77 3.55 3.88 3.77 3.44 4.00 3.88
Percent values 94% 97% 94% 94% 88.75% 97% 94% 86% 100% 97%
Satisfaction of Completers

In 2019-2020, the EPP administered a satisfaction survey to 16 (100%) completers through telephone calls. The purpose of the survey is to learn completers’ satisfaction level with their preparation and to use that information for the continuous improvement of the Educator Preparation Program.  The instrument has been developed as part of EPP quality assurance process Satisfaction of Completers’ Survey (See Exhibit 1.0 EPP Created Assessments), which explains why the EPP reported one cycle of data for it. The instrument was validated for content .90 and its reliability was established by Cronbach’s alpha index of .910. The Completers’ Satisfaction Survey consists of 17-questions grouped by: Content Knowledge, Instructional /Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills, Diversity, Integration of Technology, and Research Skills that are aligned to InTASC, CAEP, and Puerto Rico Department of Education Standards. These areas represent the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that effective teachers exhibit in their classroom.  The survey has a Likert Scale of four where 4 means Well Prepared (very confident and very capable of doing the tasks), 3 means Sufficiently Prepared (Confident and capable of doing the tasks), 2 means Not Sufficiently Prepared (capable of doing the tasks with some effort or support), and 1 means Not At All Prepared (insecure of my ability for doing the task). The 2019-2020 completers obtained more than 3, Sufficiently Prepared, in all areas except item #16 where the mean score was 2.75 and is related to research skills. In general, the Special Education program obtained scores (means between 2.17 and 3.29) which represented that they are less confident in their knowledge and skills to do the tasks required to teachers. The Special Education Specialization is a K-12 program and is going through a systemic revision. The EPP is recommending the development of courses emphasizing elementary education, teaching methodologies, and instructional strategies for this specialization. It seems that courses are broad because there is too much content (k-12) and completers do not perceive that they have the mastery required to feel confident in the school scenario. Completers ’perceptions on their confidence and abilities provided critical information for the improvements that are needed regarding their preparation, specifically on Special Education. Table 4.0 shows completers’ satisfaction survey mean scores disaggregated by specialization.

In general, EPP completers are satisfied with their preparation as teachers and feel confident and capable of doing the tasks expected of an effective teacher.

Table 4.0 2019-2020 Completers’ Satisfaction Survey (new instrument) Mean Scores Disaggregated by Specialization
Completer

 Major (N=16)

  Completers ’Satisfaction Survey Scores by  Items
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10
ESL Elementary 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 2
ESL Elementary 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
ESL Elementary 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
K-3 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4
K-3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3
K-3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Special Education 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4
Special Education 2 2 2 3 4 1 2 2 2 3
Special Education 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2
Preschool 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4
Preschool 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
4-6 2 2 2 4 4 3 3 3 4 4
History 4 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 4
Mathematics 4 4 4 3 3 2 4 3 4 4
ESL Secondary 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
ESL Secondary 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3
Mean 3.43 3.18 3.25 3.75 3.25 3.12 3.31 3.06 3.37 3.43

 

Completer

 Major (N=16)

Completers ’Satisfaction Survey Scores by  Items
#11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 Mean
ESL Elementary 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 3.11
ESL Elementary 4 4 4 4 3 2 3 3.11
ESL Elementary 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3.82
K-3 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 3.29
K-3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.05
K-3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3.76
Special Education 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 3.29
Special Education 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.17
Special Education 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.17
Preschool 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 3.29
Preschool 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3.76
4-6 4 4 4 4 2 3 2 3.17
History 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 2.58
Mathematics 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3.41
ESL Secondary 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.94
ESL Secondary 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3.47
Mean 3.12 3.37 3.31 3.43 3.12 2.75 3.00  
Graduation Rates

The EPP selected  2014 cohort to establish graduation rates at six years or less. The cohort for undergraduate education students was defined by:

  • First year students at education programs
  • Regular type of admission
  • Full time enrollment for their first term as undergraduate students (Fall).

After selecting the cohorts for each year of admission, students are followed during six years to determine how many could complete requisites and graduate. The quantity of graduates is divided by the base and multiply by a hundred. The accumulative graduation rate at six years reflect the percent of students that graduted in six or less years from the Teacher Preparation Programs.

The EPP, like other Educator Preparation Programs across Puerto Rico and the United States, has experimented a decrease in admissions, especially in Secondary Education programs. Nevertheless, the graduation rates of  EPP students have been consistant demonstrating the quality of the program.

Accumulative Graduation Rates at 6 years or less of studies – Undergraduate Education Programs
Cohort Base Graduate % Graduate
2014 17 2 12%
2013 33 3 9%
2012 60 8 13%
2011 59 17 29%

 

Accummulative Graduation Rate at 6 years or less of studies- Disagreggated by Specialization for Undergradute Education Programs
 

Academic program

 

 

Cohort Base 2014

 

Graduates From Education Programs

 

% Graduation

 

144- SEC EDUC TEACHING OF HISTORY

 

2

 

0

 

0%

147- SEC ED TEACH ENGLISH 2ND LANGUAGE 4 1 25%
206- ELEM ED TEACH ENGLISH SEC LANG  

1

 

0

 

0%

236D- EARLY CHD ELEM LVL K3 INTERNET  

1

 

0

 

0%

236- EARLY CHILDHOOD ELEM LVL K3  

3

 

0

 

0%

243- EARLY CHILDHOOD PRESCHOOL LVL  

3

 

1

 

33%

TOTAL  

17

 

2

 

12%

 

Ability of Completers to Meet Licensing

In 2019-2020, the EPP integrated pedagogical situations in core courses to prepare candidates to solve educational problems using evidence-based research and content and pedagogical knowledge. These revisions sought to strengthen candidates’ skills and to improve the Puerto Rico Teacher Certification Test scores (PCMAS). Nevertheless, the 2020 PCMAS administration, scheduled for March 17, was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic island-wide lockdown. The College Board Administration of Puerto Rico administered the test this past March2021 and results would not be available until June 2021. In the academic year 2018-2019, 15 completers took the PCMAS. Table 6.0 shows the single-assessment level pass-rate data for regular teacher preparation program for 2018-2019. Table 6.1 shows Aggregate Assessment Level Pass-Rate Data for EPP. There is no data for the 2010-202 Licensure Exams and the submission of it has been waived due to the pandemic.

 

Table 6.0 EPP Completers Single-Assessment Level Pass-Rate Data (PCMAS) for 2018-2019 Disaggregated by Tests
Type of assessment Assessment Code Number No. of Students taking Assessment No. of Students Passing Assessment Institution Pass Rate Statewide Pass Rate *Test Takers rate
PCMAS General  

PR10

 

 

10

 

 

9

 

9/10 = 90%

 

94%

 

67%

PCMAS General Elementary  

PR21

 

9

 

8

 

8/9 = 89%

 

93%

 

60%

PCMAS General Secondary  

PR25

 

1

 

1

 

1/1 = 100%

 

98%

 

7%

Specialization Spanish  

PR30

 

 

 

 

89%

Specialization English  

PR40

 

 

3

 

2

 

2/3 = 67%

 

95%

 

20%

Specialization Mathematics  

PR50

 

1

 

1

 

1/1 = 100%

 

88%

 

7%

Specialization Social Studies  

PR60

 

 

 

 

92%

Specialization Science

 

 

PR70

 

88%

*Test takers Rate: The ratio of aggregate number of students taking the assessment to the number of program completers for the institution and a specific academic year.

Table 6.1  2018-2019 Aggregate Assessment Level Pass-Rate Data for EPP.
Type of Assessment Assessment Code Number N. of Students Taking Assessment No. of Students Passing Assessment Institution Pass Rate Statewide Pass Rate
PCMAS General PR10 10 9 9/10 = 90% 94%
PCMAS General (Elementary/Secondary)  

PR21, PR25

 

10

 

9

 

9/10 = 90%

 

94%

Specialization PR30, PR40, PR50, PR60, PR70  

4

 

3

 

3/4 = 75%

 

93%

Summary Pass Rate**   10 9 9/10 = 90% 588/636 = 92%

**Summary Pass Rate: The proportion of program completers who passed all tests they took for their areas of specialization among those who took one or more tests in their specialization areas.

 

Ability of Completers to be hired in Education Positions

One of the EPP goals is that all its completers get hire in education positions. For the 2019-2020 cycles, 12 out of 16 (75%) completers have been hired as teachers. Of those four (33%) are working in the public system of education and eight (66%) are working in the private educational system.  Two (12.5%) 2019-2020 completers are self-hired as teachers for homeschool students.  Table 7.0 shows completers hired in education positions disaggregated by specialization and school system.

The EPP recognize that completers are being successfully hired in positions related to education and that the educator preparation program have been strengthened through the application of data driven decisions.

Table 7.0 2019-2020 Completers Hired in Education Positions Disaggregated by Specialization and School System
Completers Specializations Number of Completers

 

Private School System Public School System
Preschool 2 1 1
K-3 3 3  
4-6 1 1  
History 1   1
Math 1   1
ESL Elementary 1 1  
ESL Secondary 1 1  
Special Education 2 1 1
Total 12 8 4

 

 

Student Loan Default Rate

The EPP received in September 2020 the FY 2017 Cohort Default Rate form the United States Department of Education. The FY 2017 Cohort Default Rate was established at 3.7.  As established by the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended, the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (HERA), Pub. L. 109-71 and the Department of Education’s regulations, the Inter American University, Metro Campus, is not subject to any sanctions based on the FY 2017 CDR. Schools with a cohort default rate of less than 15.0 percent for each of the most recent fiscal years may disburse loans in a single disburse. Table 8.0 shows Aggregated EPP Cohort Default Rate for years 2014 through 2017. Table 8.1 shows Disaggregated EPP Cohort Default Rate Information.

The EPP has maintained an excellent record through the years as shown in the information provided by the United States Department of Education.

Table 8.0 Aggregated EPP Cohort Default Rate for years 2014 through 2017
Year Cohort Default Rate
2014 10.5 %
2015 7.9 %
2016 2.7 %
2017 3.7 %
Table 8.1 Disaggregated EPP Cohort Default Rate Information.
OPE ID School Type Control PRGMS   FY2017 FY2016 FY2015
 

 

 

003940

 American University of Puerto Rico- Metropolitan Campus

Highway 1KM 16.3 Corner Francisc

San Juan, PR 00919-1293

 

 

Master’s Degree or Doctor’s Degree

 

 

 

Private

 

 

 

Both

(FFEL/FDL)

 

Default Rate

 

3.7

 

 

2.7

 

7.9

No. in Default  

305

 

230

 

1888

No. in Repay  

8,223

 

8, 340

 

23,686

Enrollment Figures

 

 

Percentage Calculation

10,514

 

 

 

 

78.2

11,060

 

 

 

 

75.4

0

 

 

 

 

0

2020

Impact on P-12 Learning and Development

EPP’s Response:

Currently, the EPP is working on the construction of its own link within the Education Department’s website. Next May, in time for CAEP’s site-visit, the website will be ready, including a particular link for CAEP’s related information and data.

In recent years, the EPP had very limited accurate and valid data to assess the impact of its completers on Pk-12 students. For future annual reports, the EPP will be using the Puerto Rico Department of Education Measurement and Evaluation Standardized Tests (META) to evaluate the impact of its completers on P-12 students. META tests were developed to comply with Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015. The tests are administered, once a year in April, to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seven, eight, and eleven grades. The tests measure students’ competencies in Spanish, Mathematics, English, and Science. META results are also used by the Puerto Rico Department of Education to evaluate teachers' effectiveness. To evaluate the impact of its completers on P-12 students at private schools, the EPP will be using the Learn Aide standardized test. The Learn Aide test is administered to students at private schools in Puerto Rico. To find out the impact on PK-12 students, the EPP will compare the results of the completers’ pupils, in the META and Learn Aide exams, with those of the rest of the systems, public and private, respectively.

Besides the test’s results, the EPP is working on a multiple case study design to measure completer’s impact on PK-12 students.

 

Proposal for Future Assessment

Direct Measures of P-12 Learning Specific Assessment Validity and Reliability of Instruments
Puerto Rico Department of Education is going to provide student learning data.

 

Puerto Rico Private School System is going to provide student learning data

META (Standardized Test)

 

 

Learn Aide

(Standardized Tests)

http://de.pr.gov/meta-pr/index.html

 

 

 

https://learnaidpr.com/medicion.html

Completer Case Study EPP proposed a design for the multiple case study The design addresses components 4.1 and 4.2 including completers observations, students’ pre- and post-assessment, student work samples, and completers’ interviews.

 

Completer Teaching Effectiveness

EPP’s Response:

The EPP used three measures to evaluate candidates’ teaching effectiveness:

  1. High quality test of teachers’ knowledge and skills (PCMAS).
  2. Feedback from employers.
  3. Clinical experiences Formative and Summative Evaluations.

 

According to Puerto Rico Department of Education Public Policy for Teacher Certification (Circular Letter No. 13-2019-2020), the Teacher Certification Exam is competency-based. It evaluates the competencies that completers need to become an effective teacher as established by state and federal regulations. Table 1.1 shows EPP completers Teacher Certification Exam pass rates compared to statewide pass rate. EPP completers had been maintained in the upper rank for the past years.

The EPP used the Employers Satisfaction Survey as a measure of completers teaching effectiveness. Unfortunately, the employers’ sample was small, but it demonstrated that EPP completers performed above average in the competencies needed for effective teaching. Table 4.3 shows the means scores of the Employers Satisfaction Survey by item.

The EPP also used Cooperative Teacher and University Superior Formative and Summative Clinical Experiences Evaluation as a measure of completers teaching effectiveness. Table 1.3 shows paired T-test results for formative and summative scores for Fall 2018 candidates. The scores suggested that the clinical experiences contributed positively to candidates’ performance. Table 1.4 shows paired T-test results for formative and summative scores for winter 2019 candidates. The result suggested that candidates’ scores increased as they did their clinical experiences. These measures evidenced that EPP completers are well prepared to teach PK-12 students and that their teaching practices are effective.

The EPP acknowledge that completers performance assessments are more reliable measures for teacher effectiveness. As part of the EPP re conceptualized QAS, a performance assessment has been created to measure 2019-20 completers. The EPP will be using:

  • Completers Observation Visits to the classroom.
  • PK-12 students survey on completers teaching effectiveness.
  • Completers Survey for Teaching Effectiveness.
  • Completers Focus Groups.

 

Indicators of Teaching Effectiveness:

 

 EPP’s 2018-2019 Completers PCMAS Pass Rates

Type of Assessment No. of students passing assessment No. of students passing assessment Institution

Pass Rate

Statewide

Pass Rate

PCMAS 10 9 9/10=90% 94%
PCMAS General Elementary 9 8 8/9=89% 93%
PCMAS Secondary 1 1 1/1=100% 98%
Specialization English 3 2 2/3=67% 95%
Specialization Math 1 1 1/1=100% 88%

 

 

Paired T-Test Fall 2018 Clinical Experiences Formative and Summative Scores

Cooperative Teacher Evaluation Formative Summative
Mean 2.7017 2.8600
Standard Deviation 0.2247 0.1152
University Supervisor Formative Summative
Mean 2.6400 2.7750
Standard Deviation 0.2713 0.2835

 

T-Test Spring 2019 Clinical Experiences Formative and Summative

Cooperative Teacher Evaluation Formative Summative
Mean 2.1117 2.6400
Standard Deviation 0.5004 0.2689
University Supervisor Formative Summative
Mean 2.3533 2.5700
Standard Deviation 0.2730 0.1658

 

Employers Satisfaction with EPP’s Completers

Employer Evaluation of Completer IP-12 Mean Score
Mastery of content Knowledge 87.3%
Content and Pedagogical Knowledge 83.3%
Use of Technology 94.4%
Classroom Management Skills 88.5%
Dispositions and Engagement with the profession 95.8%
Diversity and Inclusion 100%
Research and reflexive thinking competencies 94.4%
Number of employers that are TEP completers 4
How do you evaluate completers’ professional performance? Excellent
How do you perceive completers preparation? Excellent
Will you be willing to employ other TEP completers? Yes
Will your school be willing to participate as a center for candidates’ clinical experiences? Yes
Recommendations Positive discipline workshops and English Integration
Employers Satisfaction with EPP's Completers

EPP’s Response:

The EPP administrated a survey to the employers of 2018-2019 completers. The employer response rate was 25%. This percentage is based on the eight completers (53%) that are currently working as teachers. Employers were surveyed using IP-12 instrument that have 25 items and a Likert Scale of: Most-Acceptable (3); Acceptable (2); and Unacceptable (1). In addition, the instrument provides 6 open-ended questions regarding employers’ perceptions of completers professional performance. Overall, all employers rated EPP completers as most acceptable and acceptable.

 

Employers Satisfaction with EPP’s Completers

Employer Evaluation of Completer IP-12 Mean Score
Mastery of content Knowledge 87.3%
Content and Pedagogical Knowledge 83.3%
Use of Technology 94.4%
Classroom Management Skills 88.5%
Dispositions and Engagement with the profession 95.8%
Diversity and Inclusion 100%
Research and reflexive thinking competencies 94.4%
Number of employers that are TEP completers 4
How do you evaluate completers’ professional performance? Excellent
How do you perceive completers preparation? Excellent
Will you be willing to employ other TEP completers? Yes
Will your school be willing to participate as a center for candidates’ clinical experiences? Yes
Recommendations Positive discipline workshops and English Integration

 

Completer Satisfaction

EPP’s Response:

The EPP administrated a Satisfaction Survey to 2018-2019 completers. The survey assessed the degree of satisfaction with their teaching preparation in different areas including the faculty. Completers rated their overall satisfaction with their preparation as “Quite Satisfied” and/or “Satisfied”. The areas assessed and percentages of “Quite satisfied” completers’ responses were:

 

Completers Satisfaction Survey

Criteria Percentage
Content Knowledge 90%
Methodology and Courses Organization 86%
Fundamental Teaching Skills 83%
Diversity an Inclusion 85%
Classroom Management 79%
Assessment 92%
Faculty 87%

 

Graduation Rates

EPP’s Response:

Graduation rates at the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico are calculated annually through the Institutional Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). For CAEP’s 2020 Annual Report, the graduation rates are based on an admission cohort selected six years earlier. The EPP's graduation rate for the 2018-2019 academic year, based on the 2013 admission cohort, is 48.4%. In 2013, the EPP admitted 33 new students of which 16 graduated in May 2019, for a 48.4% graduation rate, based on six years study program.  It is important to note that in 2013 the EPP offered 15 different concentrations. In the 2018-2019 academic year, the EPP revised its academic offering, reducing the number of concentrations by 5, from 15 to 10.

Completers Licensing

EPP’s Response:

PCMAS Teacher Report Card Data for Institutional pass rates and single assessment pass rates for initial programs are provided for academic year 2018-2019. EPP completers pass rates remained in the upper rank compared with statewide pass rates. The College Board Administration administered the Puerto Rico Teacher Certification Exam (PCMAS) once a year. PCMAS results include the 2018-2019 completers and students from other graduation cohorts. Out of 24 students that took the PCMAS, 21 (87%) approved it satisfactorily.

EPP’s  2018-2019 Completers PCMAS Pass Rates

Type of Assessment No. of students passing assessment No. of students passing assessment Institution

Pass Rate

Statewide

Pass Rate

PCMAS 10 9 9/10=90% 94%
PCMAS General Elementary 9 8 8/9=89% 93%
PCMAS Secondary 1 1 1/1=100% 98%
Specialization English 3 2 2/3=67% 95%
Specialization Math 1 1 1/1=100% 88%

 

 

Completers Hires in Education

EPP’s Response:

            Almost half of EPP completers, year 2018-2019, were successfully hired as teachers. Of the total 16 completers, 8 were hired in private and public-school systems. It is important to note that, in recent years, many of the students who graduate from Puerto Rico universities prefer to emigrate to the United States in search of better employment opportunities. It is difficult for the EPP to follow up on students who emigrate.

 

Loan Default Rates

EPP’s Response:

When the 2020 Annual Report was written, the last yearly Federal report on Students Default Rates was the 2016 one. According to the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (HERA), Pub. L. 109-71 and the Department of Education regulations, the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico is not subject to any sanctions based on the FY 2016 cohort Default Rate. Interamerican University of Puerto Rico 2016 Cohort Loan Default Rate was 2.7.