Search results

Accountability requirements established by state and national mandates have positioned accreditation bodies as overseers of institutional compliance and quality control of teacher preparation programs. These bodies then dictate the procedures and criteria for how preparation programs will prove their competence in the preparation of teachers who are deemed highly qualified. This process of mandated accreditation, by its very nature, is imposed as a top-down structure even when it is couched in bottom-up processes. Nearly all of the institutions indicated that they had some type of bottom-up procedures for meeting the top-down requirements of accreditation. Strategic involvement of faculty from the beginning of the process made “it personal, create[d] faculty ‘buy in’, produce[d] commitment, and thus more investment” (Ackerman and Hoover, St. Cloud State University). As Pierce and Simmerman (Utah Valley University) pointed out that both requiring and allowing faculty participation in the decision making process and development of common goals, this bottom-up tactic helped to establish joint ownership of their faculty in the process. Hutchison, Buss, Ellsworth, and Persichitte (University of Wyoming) also indicated that successful accreditation processes require faculty support and input on both the process and the decisions that are made. Indeed, they acknowledged that their decision to include all college faculty involved with teacher preparation was stressful, but central in yielding positive dividends in the process. Utilizing a bottom-up task within a top-down structure positions stakeholders as worker bees to accomplish a project that may or may not be seen to them as having personal or professional benefit – thus tensions are fostered.

Brigham Young University has been consistently accredited by National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) since 1954. Our accreditation reports of past years focused on input information – general goals, complicated organization diagrams, and clinical performance assessments. When NCATE moved from inputs to outcomes with evidence grounded in measurable data, we worked collaboratively among teacher education faculty, faculty from the arts and sciences colleges, and public school partners to overhaul our assessment system and design new instruments. Our current accreditation reports include course and clinical assessments aligned with specific program outcomes, statistical charts detailing the levels at which these outcomes are being met, and documentation of programmatic decisions based on the findings of our assessments. Moving from input descriptions to output evidence was a painful process. However, we have come to appreciate the usefulness and value of our experiences, the tools that emerged, and the new decision-making processes we now engage in. This chapter is a recounting of our frustrations and the lessons we learned as we moved toward a culture of data-based decision-making.

Many instructors have implemented decision-based learning (DBL) into their courses. This chapter is a careful qualitative analysis of the narratives in this book done by the editors. The author found common themes among all the narratives. The first theme was that many instructors discovered that they were missing conditional knowledge in their instruction. Second, the author found common issues around the complexity of designing an expert decision model (EDM). Included in this theme are stories about selecting problems and organizing the EDM, building the EDM around specific course learning outcomes, providing just-enough, just-in-time instruction, and introducing the decision model and software to students. Instructors also discovered that assessing the learning of students needed to go beyond traditional goals and began to include new goals related to conditional knowledge. Finally, the author describes the comments made by both faculty and students about the experience of using DBL. Several authors described the value of using DBL in the process of taking students from novice thinkers to expert thinkers. Many students expressed that they enjoyed the process that DBL presented to them and that they had a new level of confidence to be able to approach problems in the content area. Summaries and quotes from the chapters in this book are referenced by the authors’ names and the content areas they were teaching.

Brigham Young University has been consistently accredited by NCATE since 1954. Our accreditation reports of past years focused on input information – general goals, complicated organization diagrams, and clinical performance assessments. When NCATE moved from inputs to outcomes with evidence grounded in measurable data, we worked collaboratively among teacher education faculty, faculty from the arts and sciences colleges, and public school partners to overhaul our assessment system and design new instruments. Our current accreditation reports include course and clinical assessments aligned with specific program outcomes, statistical charts detailing the levels at which these outcomes are being met, and documentation of programmatic decisions based on the findings of our assessments. Moving from input descriptions to output evidence was a painful process. However, we have come to appreciate the usefulness and value of our experiences, the tools that emerged, and the new decision-making processes we now engage in. This chapter is a recounting of our frustrations and the lessons we learned as we moved toward a culture of data-based decision-making.

Michael H. Abel is the manager for Domain Quality and Development at Western Governors University (WGU) in the United States and assists faculty in developing detailed descriptions of the domains of knowledge, skill, and ability that serve as the basis for academic program and assessment development. As a co-developer of the WGU Teachers College assessment programs, Michael designed specialized databases for standards alignment and domain development and created and administered training for test item writers and editors. He also served as senior assessment developer and editor when the WGU Teachers College assessment program went university wide. Michael received an MA in International Relations from the University of Southern California and a BA in German from Brigham Young University. He is co-author of a test item development guide, The Art of Item Development.