CSU Long Beach College of Education Accreditation
This section of the Institutional Report summarizes field experiences and clinical practices in unit programs. Although the unit integrates technology in its courses and uses field sites for course locations, it does not have formal off-campus or distance learning programs. This section addresses the unit as a whole, with specific examples provided from initial and advanced programs across the unit. For in-depth coverage of each program, reviewers are referred to program self-study documents, PAES binders, and supporting materials located in the Exhibits Room. Links to key documents referenced in the text are also provided.
Regardless of the intensity, type or level of collaboration, working with our district partners is vital to the preparation of new generations of educational professionals. Our district partners play an important role in creating field experience and clinical practice settings that put our candidates in authentic situations with master teachers and clinicians. Programs are in frequent communication with districts and schools through the program coordinators, fieldwork coordinators, university supervisors, and administrative staff in program offices. Program and institutional ties are strengthened by the number of CSULB graduates staffing local district human resources departments, curriculum and staff development positions, principalships, classrooms, and clinics. Many P-12 cooperating teachers and master teachers working with students in the initial teacher preparation programs are also graduates of our programs, which greatly strengthens ties between the program and district partners.
California State University Long Beach is nationally recognized for its strong P-16 collaboration, particularly the Long Beach Education Partnership (LBEP). The LBEP emerged in the early 1990s out of a series of racial, economic and educational crises facing the city of Long Beach: spillover from the riots in Los Angeles following the Rodney King beating, closure of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, and poor student performance in the city’s schools. The partnership brought together business and industry, the three major educational institutions (CSU Long Beach, Long Beach City College, and Long Beach Unified School District), and city government in a series of initiatives designed to tackle the causes underlying the crises. A number of education initiatives that depended on partnering among the major education institutions emerged from the LBEP, among them reform of teacher preparation in the unit that saw development of a new undergraduate major that “blended” liberal studies course work with professional preparation leading to both a BA degree and an elementary teaching credential. The Integrated Teacher Education Program (ITEP)is now the primary means by which candidates enter the elementary credential program, and is the largest undergraduate major on campus.
TheService Experiences for ReVitalizing Education Program (SERVE) is a long-term successful partnership initiative that also grew out of the LBEP. Housed in the College of Education, SERVE places undergraduates as early as the freshman year in school sites where they learn about the realities of urban classrooms and the needs of the diverse P-12 student population. SERVE interns work with students individually and in small groups to provide academic support to public school students who are at-risk in reading or mathematics, and to encourage personal growth. The SERVE program places approximately 1300 candidates in field placements annually. Through SERVE, undergraduates assess their career goals and also provide direct service to students and teachers in grades P-12 and their communities. With the support and cooperation of its district partners, SERVE conducts on-going evaluations of CSULB students and the program in general. For a full overview of the program, refer to the SERVE Student Handbook.
The unit level Advisory Committee provides a formal flow of information between the local community and the unit about school district needs and the ways in which the unit designs and adjusts programs to align with those needs. The Advisory Committee is composed of stakeholders from the community including school district superintendents, community college presidents, principals, city representatives and others. An example of a recent collaborative decision is the review of plans for and the development of the new educational administration doctoral program that began in spring 2007 and continues.
Each program also has an advisory group that meets at least annually, and in some cases more often, depending on the program. These advisory boards, committees, or councils provide opportunities for the exchange of ideas, information, concerns and feedback between programs and the field. A program might ask for the advisory group’s input on revising a student teaching or clinical practice evaluation form. It might ask for input on new content to include in a course that’s being revised. Or it might ask advisory group members to suggest ways to recruit students into the program.
One of the structured ways the initial teacher preparation programs collaborate with cooperating districts is through District Partner Meetings held on campus periodically. These meetings typically are attended by credential program coordinators, an associate dean, the directors of the Credential Center and Career Services, district assistant superintendents for Human Resources, and district personnel responsible for liaisoning with the credential programs for placing student teachers. Agendas focus on issues concerning early fieldwork, student teaching, credentialing, and recruitment.
Initial teacher preparation program coordinators, the associate dean for credential programs, and the director of the Credential Center also participate in collaborative groups organized by the Orange County Department of Education and the Cluster 4 Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment consortium (Los Angeles County). These two groups bring together IHEs, LEAs, and Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA)/Induction Programs to discuss common concerns and issues in the interface between credential programs and initial employment of program graduates. Both groups meet 2-4 times per year.
An exciting new collaboration between the unit and the Long Beach Unified School District is the Urban Teaching Academy [UTA] (Exhibit 44). The broad goal of the UTA is to develop and retain teachers for urban settings by melding initial teacher preparation and advanced preparation with practical experience in urban classrooms. Using features of teaching hospital/medical residency programs, the UTA aims to build effective urban teaching teams of teacher candidates who work alongside master teachers in specially selected “teaching academies” in low-income multiethnic schools. Preservice and practicing teachers integrate their daily classroom experiences with what they learn from teaching seminars held on-site at the academy after school hours. Faculty work with cohorts on site, in content and methods courses aligned to district standards and student learning needs.
Collaboration with the field occurs less formally, but more frequently, through daily interactions with schools and districts. Unit programs are linked to over 50 local school districts to ensure that candidates engage in meaningful field experiences and clinical practice in diverse professional settings. These districts represent representative of the diversity in southern California. Table 3.01 (Student Demographics in 5 Cooperating School Districts) displays demographic figures for the state and each cooperating school district. It also displays the number of student teachers from the three initial teacher preparation programs placed in these districts in 2005-2006. As Table 3.01 shows, the five districts with which we place the most student teachers have an English learner population average of 21.4%, a reduced or free lunch population of 41.5%, and an average 72.6% non-white population. Comparable figures for the state are 25.2% English learners, 50.8% reduced or free lunch, and 69.7% non-white population. For a complete listing of all partner school districts, including the number of student teachers placed in each district on a program basis, see Table 3.02 (Student Demographics in 53 Cooperating School Districts).
University and school district representatives engage in discussions and agree on the roles and responsibilities of the partners in student teacher and internship placements. After agreement is reached, all partner school districts sign a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] (Exhibit 45) with assurances that student teachers will be placed with qualified master teachers (MOUs are on file in the university Purchasing Office). The Field Programs Director monitors MOUs for the unit. All school districts hiring university interns sign Intern Agreements containing specific assurances that interns will be assigned a site support teacher (sometimes called a “coach” or mentor).
Master teachers who mentor student teachers are selected for their skill as classroom teachers, their ability to mentor an adult learner, and their willingness to spend the extra time required to work with preservice candidates. Cooperating teachers who work with program students in early field experiences frequently also serve as master teachers for student teachers. Master teachers should be tenured, have at least three years of teaching experience, and be credentialed in their teaching field. The unit compensates master teachers for their work with student teachers at the rate of $20 per unit (for example, a master teacher who works with one Multiple Subject student teachers in two successive 8 unit assignments would receive $20 x 16 units = $320).
Patterns of collaboration for placing student teachers and clinical practitioners vary with district preferences. For example, some districts (e.g., Long Beach Unified) prefer that programs work through a specific person in the district office. Other districts permit programs to work directly with school sites. Linkages with clinicians, district-employed supervising teachers and cooperating teachers for early field experiences and master teachers for student teaching are the responsibility of each program. Because of its size, the Multiple Subject Program has a Field Programs Office (FPO) that is dedicated to placing student teachers, hiring and training university supervisors, and working with the school districts on various related issues. In the Single Subject Program, each of the 10 subject matter programs is responsible for establishing its own district and school contacts, as well as for hiring and training its own university supervisors. To secure appropriate sites and classrooms, subject program advisors work with classroom teachers, department chairs, principals and district personnel. In the Education Specialist Level 1 Program, which is relatively small, the program coordinator carries out the function of placing student teachers, assigning university supervisors, and working with schools and districts. Fieldwork in advanced programs is the responsibility of the program coordinator and individual course instructor.
Candidates in the preparation programs for teachers and other school personnel often report that field experiences and clinical practices are the most powerful component of their programs. Recognizing the critical nature of this component, faculty and district personnel collaborate extensively and carefully to plan a meaningful sequence of field experiences and clinical practice that align with state and professional standards and allow candidates to develop their skills and become life-long learners and socially responsible professionals.
Early and culminating field experiences in unit programs take a variety of forms. Several examples will be included here. For a complete display of early fieldwork and culminating field experiences in all unit programs refer to Table 3.03 (Field Experience and Clinical Practice in Unit Programs).
In initial teacher preparation programs early field experiences are course-embedded. The culminating field experience, student teaching, occurs at the end of the program after all course work is completed. Each program has a 45-hour pre-program fieldwork requirement mandated by the CSU system. State and professional standards guide programs in the kinds of field experiences candidates should have, but the actual number of fieldwork hours is determined by each program (Table 3.04: Fieldwork/Internship Hours in Initial Teacher Preparation Programs).
In early fieldwork, candidates engage in such activities as observation of a variety of veteran teachers, collecting data on schools, classrooms, and students, developing classroom management plans, writing unit and lesson plans, and co-teaching and independent teaching. Student teaching is an all day, five days per week assignment with a master teacher in which the candidate gradually assumes greater responsibility for the total instructional program in the class. Table 3.03 (Field Experience and Clinical Practice in Unit Programs) displays course-linked fieldwork assignments and culminating field experience-linked assignments for each program. The following paragraphs give examples of fieldwork experiences for each of the three programs.
Candidates in the Single Subject Program complete approximately 105 hours of early fieldwork in secondary classrooms closely tied to assignments in their program courses. Assignments take the form of a school study project that is conceptualized as a case study or mini-ethnography (EDSS 300), cultural plunge (EDSE 435), observational journals in which candidates report and reflect on what they see in classrooms (EDSE 436), case study of an English Learner (EDSE 457), and development of lesson and unit plans (EDSS 450). In addition, California Teaching Performance Assessment Tasks 1-3 (see Standard 2 for a description of the CA-TPA; Exhibit 11) are course-embedded assignments that provide four uniform, prescriptive assignments that draw on a combination of course work and fieldwork.
The culminating field experience is student teaching, which is approximately 20 weeks (or the length of the site semester). Student teachers in the Single Subject Program teach three classes in their discipline and are on campus for an additional two periods for such activities as preparing lessons, assessing student work, conferencing with the master teacher and university supervisor, participating in department activities, and observing other teachers both in their subject and in other disciplines. The program feels very strongly that student teachers should observe in classes across disciplines since they can learn much from exemplary teaching outside their subject, but also because it gives them the opportunity to see their students in other settings. The program seeks to instill in candidates a holistic attitude in which they view the student comprehensively and take the entire school as their professional field of operation, rather than simply their own classroom and their own students.
Candidates in the post baccalaureate pathway of the Multiple Subject Program complete 115 hours of early field experiences. Assignments in this program take the form of a case study of an elementary student, development of unit and lesson plans, field-based observational journal entries, and a school/community study. Multiple Subject Program candidates also complete assignments based on CA-TPA Tasks 1-3 (Exhibit 11) prior to student teaching. Student teaching in the Multiple Subject Program is a 16-week experience. Candidates complete two 8-week placements, one in a K-3 classroom and one in a 4-6 or 6-8 classroom. Student teachers spend the entire teaching day in the master teacher’s classroom, teaching, team-teaching and observing. They gradually assume increased teaching responsibilities on the way to taking complete responsibility for the class.
California Teacher Performance Assessment (CA-TPA) Task 4 (Exhibit 11) is a part of the student teaching experience for both the Single Subject and Multiple Subject programs. CA-TPA Task 4 brings together all of the 13 California Teaching Performance Expectations (TPE; Exhibit 12) in a multi-part assignment completed in the student teaching placement that includes student teachers videotaping a lesson, reviewing it, and completing a critical and reflective write-up. By design, the CA-TPA requires candidates to consider and plan for English learners, students with special needs, making content accessible to all students, teaching strategies, meaningful and equitable assessment, and student outcomes as part of their developing teacher thought processes.
Candidates in the Education Specialist Level I Program complete approximately 60 hours of early fieldwork. They write reflective papers, prepare a case study, develop and implement a behavioral and literacy intervention, create lesson plans and short units, and write IEPs and behavior plans for students. Student teaching in the Education Specialist Level I Program is typically 32 weeks over 2 university semesters. Special education teachers are in such short supply that most candidates are already teaching special education. In addition to a full day of student teaching, candidates attend before and after school meetings (e.g., IEP meetings, pre-referral team meetings). Traditional student teachers gradually take over full responsibility for planning and teaching.
All three initial teacher preparation programs have intern programs in which candidates who meet intern requirements are employed as full-time classroom teachers of record in cooperating school districts. Interns are responsible for all course work, early fieldwork, and student teaching program requirements and assignments, e.g., CA-TPA Tasks 1-4 (Exhibit 11). The primary difference between interns and traditional preservice students is that interns are employed as they progress through the programs and are fully responsible for all aspects of classroom instruction in their teaching assignments. When they advance to student teaching, they use their paid teaching positions as their “student teaching” experience.
Field experiences are embedded in course work in advanced (continuing) programs and programs for other school personnel. Table 3.05 (Fieldwork/Internship Hours in Advanced (Continuing) Programs and Programs for Other School Personnel) displays early fieldwork hours and internship/practicum hours in each program. Table 3.03 (Field Experience and Clinical Practice in Unit Programs) displays course-linked fieldwork assignments and culminating field experience-linked assignments for each program. The following paragraphs give examples of fieldwork experiences in selected programs.
Candidates in the School Counseling Program spend approximately 145 hours in course-related early field experiences. They engage in such activities as observe at a school site, “shadow” a credentialed school counselor, develop a map of school-based community resources, participate in direct counseling services to P-12 students and parents under the guidance of a credentialed school counselor, and practice micro- and group counseling skills. School Counseling candidates complete 600 hours of culminating fieldwork, during which they perform the functions of school counselors under the direct supervision of a credentialed counselor. Candidates must spend at least 100 hours in a diversity program and 50 hours working with a minimum of 10 students of a racial and ethnic background different from their own. Candidates must work at 2 of the 3 schooling levels, with a minimum of 200 hours at each level.
Educational Administration Tier I Program candidates complete 170 hours of early field experience. Through course-related assignments, candidates engage in such activities as mentoring or coaching beginning teachers, serving or chairing a site leadership team, planning and implementing a parent meeting, analyzing student achievement data, and serving on employee selection panels. In the culminating field experience candidates spend 15 full days (120 hours) under the supervision of a credentialed administrator at a site and level different from their employment site. A portfolio of work artifacts and a reflective journal are submitted at the end of the semester. They also engage in such activities as supervising and evaluating an after-school academic intervention program, developing school technology plans, writing grants, and parent conferences.
Clinical Rehabilitative Services Program candidates complete 400 hours of early fieldwork in the on-campus Speech and Hearing Clinic under the supervision of a CRS and American Speech and Hearing Association (ASHA) certified speech-language pathologist. Experiences include report writing, data collection and analysis, administration of standardized and non-standardized assessment protocols, implementation of a variety of treatment procedures, client and family counseling, and administrative tasks. In the culminating field experience, each candidate is required to complete a 5 day per week (9 week) or 3 day per week (14 week) externship in a public school setting for a minimum of 100 hours under the direct supervision of a master clinician employed at the site. Candidates engage in a variety of diagnostic, treatment and administrative experiences, depending on the work requirements of the setting.
All programs plan and implement supervision and evaluation of the culminating field experience consistent with the candidate proficiencies in the Conceptual Framework (Exhibit 5), state standards, and standards of professional organizations. The school provides a master teacher, master counselor, master clinician, etc., and the program provides a university supervisor. The “master” practitioner operates at the school, clinic, or agency site—usually in the candidate’s classroom, office, or center—and works very closely with the candidate, particularly in the early stages before the candidate is ready to assume major instructional or clinical responsibilities. Typically, both “master” practitioner and university supervisor complete a formative and summative evaluation of the candidate on program forms that are based on state and/or national standards. Forms vary by program and are available in program PAES binders in the Exhibits Room.
During student teaching in the Single Subject Program the master teacher is usually in the student teacher’s classroom at all times. S/he is the professional who is most familiar with the candidate’s work, and serves as the closest mentor during the student teaching semester. The university supervisor observes the student teacher a minimum of 6 times during the semester, more frequently if the student teacher is struggling. Both the master teacher and the university supervisor complete mid-term and final evaluations on the student teacher’s performance utilizing the program-developed Student Teaching Evaluation Form. This form is based on the California Teaching Performance Expectations (TPE; Exhibit 12), which is itself based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP; Exhibit 17). The form contains 57 performance indicators clustered in the 6 domains of the TPE. Evaluators rate the student teacher’s performance on a rubric whose categories are exceptional beginning practice, proficient beginning practice, developing beginning practice, not consistent with beginning practice, or not observed. Whereas the mid-term evaluation is formative, the final evaluation is a high-stakes summative evaluation. Student teachers must successfully pass this evaluation to be recommended for the credential.
Candidates in the Multiple Subject Program have numerous opportunities to practice teach in the major domains of the Teaching Performance Expectations (TPE; Exhibit 12) prior to assuming daily instructional responsibilities in student teaching. In all of the subject-specific pedagogy courses, the six TPE teaching domains are heavily emphasized in course readings, class activities and course assignments. A minimum of 10 hours of fieldwork is attached to each pedagogy/methods course. Fieldwork provides multiple chances for candidates to practice these six domains of good teaching. All of the fieldwork related to subject-specific coursework also provides embedded practice activities for each of the 13 Teaching Performance Expectations.In student teaching, candidates complete Teaching Performance Assessment Task 4. TPA Task 4 requires the student teacher to employ all of the TPEs as they consider their students’ backgrounds, learning needs, and starting points, plan instruction and assessment, make adjustments for both English learner and students with special needs, deliver instruction and analyze a videotaped teaching segment, and write critical reflections.
The Education Specialist Level I Program (initial program) uses a Candidate Competency Checklist based on the unit Conceptual Framework (Exhibit 5) and state and professional standards that is completed by the candidate, the university supervisor, and the site support provider during advanced fieldwork/student teaching. Students are introduced to this checklist in the first core course taken in the program, EDSP 480, and use it as a guide to start building their program portfolio. Upon starting advanced fieldwork, they complete a self-evaluation using the Competency Checklist to identify their areas of strength and need. The field site support provider completes an abbreviated version of this competency checklist early in the fieldwork experience, and areas of need are identified and a plan designed to address them in a joint meeting among the student, supervisor, and site support provider. The university supervisor rates the student on this checklist and provides ongoing feedback. Each candidate must demonstrate each competency area minimally at the “beginning level” in order to receive credit for advanced fieldwork.
Adapted Physical Education (APE) Program candidates have several fieldwork opportunities to apply theoretical knowledge in practical settings. These experiences afford candidates the opportunity to provide physical education instruction to individuals with diverse needs and various disabilities across the life span (preschool to adults). Courses with field-based opportunities include directed fieldwork experiences in APE, both on and off campus (i.e., Preschool Motor Development Center, Perceptual Motor Development Clinic, agencies such as Ranch Los Amigos Medical Center Sport Program, and various public school sites). The program works with over 20 public school sites in Los Angeles and Orange Counties that provide supervising by Certified APE Specialists. Educational theories and models regarding diversity, growth and learning, collaboration, and social responsibility are embedded in course work and key assignments. More specifically, student learning outcomes of content knowledge and application are evaluated during key assignments throughout each candidate’s program of study and during the APE Portfolio Notebook exit evaluation and interview. For example, a key assignment evaluated during the program and when the candidate exits is for the candidate to design and implement lesson plans that meet the diverse needs of all learners including students with disabilities.
School Psychology Program interns and practicum students are required to gain experience and successfully contribute to the achievement of a variety of different student groups, including English language learners and children raised in poverty. Fieldwork students also are required to engage in and show proof of consultation activities with teachers, parents and administrators and thus serve and collaborate with other educators and the community. Fieldwork students are required to complete two program evaluations in the field and engage in research, scholarly activity, and ongoing evaluation.
In the Reading Program, two courses require candidates to complete field experiences (EDRG 551: Assessment and Instruction in Reading and Writing; EDRG 559: Practicum in Teaching Reading/Language Arts). In both courses, candidates apply what they are learning to individuals and groups of students, including beginning readers, older readers who are experiencing reading difficulties, and English language learners. This integration of program theory and content within a supportive environment that includes self-assessment, peer review, and conferencing—as well as supervision—promotes the kind of reflection and decision-making that is congruent with the mission of the program.
Clinical Rehabilitative Service Program fieldwork students are evaluated at mid-term and at the end of their field experience using American Speech and Hearing Association (ASHA) competencies specific to clinical experience. This is done by the supervising master clinician and discussed with the student and the Field Experience Coordinator. In addition, master clinicians provide daily verbal and/or written feedback about the student’s performance.
Clinical faculty are selected for their skill as classroom teachers, their ability to mentor an adult learner, and their willingness to spend the extra time required to work with preservice candidates. In the Single Subject Program cooperating teachers are required to be credentialed in the subject they teach, be tenured teachers (or have three years of successful teaching experience), demonstrate outstanding teaching attributes, teach a standards-based curriculum, display effective collegial characteristics, and have an explicit desire to mentor preservice candidates. Cooperating teachers who work with program students in early field experiences frequently also serve as master teachers for student teachers, often with candidates they’ve work with previously in early fieldwork. Master teachers are informally evaluated by university supervisors and program coordinators. Student teachers provide formal written feedback to the program on the Master Teacher Feedback Form at the conclusion of student teaching. Candidates similarly provide formal written feedback on university supervisors using the University Supervisor Feedback Form.
In the Multiple Subject Program master teachers must meet the criteria established and described in the program’s Student Teaching Handbook (Exhibit 46). Selection criteria include: credentialed in the state of California, minimum of three years of successful classroom teaching experience at the elementary level, recommendation by school principal, willingness to have a student teacher, recognized outstanding teaching abilities, teach a balanced, comprehensive reading program based on the English Language Arts Content Standards for California Public Schools, teach a curriculum based on the California Academic Content Standards, display effectiveness in collaborating and communicating with other teachers, and have approval of the CSULB Field Programs Director. Principals are asked to nominate master teachers, whose names are forwarded to the responsible district person (usually in Human Resources) who then forwards the recommendations to the Field Programs Office. The Field Programs Office ensures that applicants for the position of master teacher meet all the criteria before they receive student teachers.
Field experience supervisors in the Education Specialist Program are selected for their expertise and experience in a designated special education area. At minimum, they must have a credential and several years of experience teaching in the area of authorization, and a Master’s degree in Special Education or a related field. Because program faculty feel it is important to identify qualified field supervisors, they recognize the necessity of maintaining close ties with former exemplary students and those teachers who have provided excellent experiences for our current credential candidates. Faculty also seek recommendations from our partner districts. These are often teachers retiring from leadership positions or who have demonstrated skills in mentoring and supporting beginning teachers. Potential supervisors must submit a letter of intent, a professional resume, and three letters of recommendation to the department chair who reviews them and forwards them to the Education Specialist Program faculty. Program faculty review the potential applicants and make recommendations to the department chair.
In the Adapted PE Program one of the strengths noted by the NCATE and CCTC Accreditation Team’s 2001 site visit was field and clinic experiences: “The extensive field experience component of the program has assisted graduates of the program to successfully transition into an initial teaching position.” Since 2001 there has been an increase in the number of APE fieldwork student teaching and fieldwork sites to include over 30 sites taught by APE Credential Specialists in Los Angeles County and Orange County locations. Fieldwork sites are all supervised by certified APE Specialists, the majority of whom are graduates of the CSULB APE program. This very comprehensive list of school sites is updated every year and provides candidates with fieldwork experiences with a variety of disabilities by age and grade levels.
In the Educational Administration Tier 1 Program field experiences are typically conducted at the candidate’s own site under the supervision of the site administrator or his/her administrative designee. Field supervisors must possess administrative credentials. When field experiences are conducted at a site/level other than the candidate’s own site, the university coordinator works closely with the candidate and district administrative representative to assign appropriate placements with experienced administrative site supervisors.
In the School Psychology Program Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) and National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) standards require that field-based supervisors hold a Pupil Personnel Services School Psychology Credential for at least 2 years to supervise practica and intern students. Recommendations are made by university faculty regarding field-based supervisor criteria to district lead psychologists responsible for assigning supervisors to candidates. Interns provide feedback to the program by rating the quality of supervision received in the field each year. University-based faculty supervisors have extensive school-based experience in a variety of settings and positions. For example, an adjunct faculty who teaches in the Education Psychology Clinic maintains a full-time position as a school psychologist in a local school district and where she is a leader in the provision of school psychological services. Another adjunct, who supervisors practica and intern students, has over 25 years’ experience as a school psychologist practitioner and lead school psychologist in several large, urban districts.
In the Clinical Rehabilitative Services Program master clinicians are required to have an active American Speech and Hearing Association (ASHA) Certificate of Clinical Competence and a Clinical Rehabilitative Services (CRS) credential. Master clinicians are selected in agreement with the Field Experience Coordinator and the local school district coordinator. Criteria for selection include more than two years of experience, aptitude, and desire to be a master clinician. Master clinicians are evaluated by candidates at the end of the field experience.
University supervisors in the Single Subject Program are retired and current teachers and administrators, as well as university faculty. They draw on many years of experience teaching at the secondary or tertiary levels, or both, and the vast majority have worked with student teachers for many years. New supervisors are provided with a Student Teaching Handbook that contains policies and procedures for working with student teachers. They are oriented to supervision by the Credential Advisor in the subject matter program that employs them. Subject programs have periodic meetings of their supervisors to discuss issues, concerns, and practice. Additionally, the Single Subject Program office runs periodic Clinical Supervision Workshops for master teachers, intern site support teachers, and university supervisors. The workshops are ½ day and include substitute reimbursement for attending. Topics covered include updates on the Single Subject program, presentation of clinical supervision models and practices, and case studies that provide contexts for group discussions about clinical supervision issues.
In the Multiple Subject Program the Department of Teacher Education has provided professional training of supervising teachers and site administrators with regard to the SB 2042 teacher preparation standards for MSCP, the Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA; Exhibit 11), and the Teaching Performance Expectations (TPE; Exhibit 12). Beginning in fall 2002 a series of professional training seminars has been held for the purpose of orienting clinical faculty members to the teacher preparation standards. The Field Programs Director conducts periodic master teacher training at school sites. University supervisors meet regularly with master teachers in site-based meetings, either on a one-to-one basis or in groups, to discuss problems and issues with student teachers and/or administration of field experience policies and procedures. New supervisors attend an orientation seminar with the Field Programs Director and are assigned a mentor.
In the Education Specialist Program each supervisor meets with the Level I Program Coordinator for orientation to both the Education Specialist Program as well as to the specific competencies associated with the field experience. In addition, the field supervisor and coordinator discuss observation strategies and coaching techniques to assess the candidates in their field experiences. At the start of each semester the coordinator invites all field supervisors to a supervisor meeting. Specific components of the fieldwork process are reviewed and discussed. Supervisors maintain regular and ongoing contact with the Level I program coordinator and troubleshoot with the coordinator and other program faculty as student related issues come up. Supervisors are informed of ongoing professional development meetings held on campus and in the community and are encouraged to attend.
In all three initial teacher preparation programs, many school-based teachers who serve as master teachers or intern site support teachers have now completed California Formative Assessment and Support System for Teachers (CFASST) training as part of their participation in their district-sponsored Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA)/Induction Program. They bring very rich experience working with first-year teachers during induction to their work with preservice student teachers and program interns.
In the Educational Administration Tier 1 Program it is the responsibility of each candidate to provide his/her site supervisor with a copy of the Field Experience Handbook. The handbook delineates the roles and responsibilities of supervisors, includes examples of field experiences, and provides copies of student evaluation instruments utilized during the course. Clinical faculty also provide guidance and direction to site supervisors in their roles related to field experiences. Program faculty hold an orientation meeting for clinical faculty prior to the beginning of classes, at which are discussed course expectations, supervisory responsibilities, communication processes, and grading procedures.
In the Library Media Teachers Program all site-level supervising LMTs are trained by the program coordinator or field experience coordinator. They are given written or electronic descriptions of their role, evaluation forms, and personal instruction. Typically, the program coordinator talks with them initially on the telephone to interview them and to orient them to the process. The program/field experience coordinator meets with supervising LMT and the candidate at the beginning of the field experience to further delineate the responsibilities and expectations, as well as to answer questions, and then returns to the site to observe the candidate’s instruction as well as to process the ongoing experience with the site-level supervising LMT.
In the Clinical Rehabilitative Services Program written material is provided to master clinicians prior to placing a student under their supervision. This written material contains a variety of instructional items, including the American Speech and Hearing Association (ASHA) Code of Ethics and ASHA guidelines specific to supervision of a student, CSULB guidelines specific to CCTC requirements for field experience placements, as well as other general recommendations and suggestions regarding student supervision. This information is reviewed in-person with the master clinician by the Field Experience Coordinator. The Field Experience Coordinator also provides in-person training in administrative duties, such as the procedures and policies for record keeping and evaluation.
University supervisors in the Single Subject Program observe student teachers a minimum of 6 times during the semester, more if needed. They have pre- and post-observation conferences with the student teacher and are in email and telephone contact throughout the term. Supervisors are also in regular contact with master teachers in the same manner. The mid-term evaluation provides an opportunity for a three-way discussion around the master teacher’s and university supervisor’s evaluation of the student teacher. Supervisors submit logs of their site visits to the Single Subject Program office. The program also monitors supervision through the University Supervisor Feedback Form completed by student teachers, on which they indicate the number of observations made by their supervisor and also comment on the quality of supervision during the semester.
In the Multiple Subject Program university supervisors schedule weekly or bi-monthly seminars with their student teachers or interns. Supervisors observe student teachers weekly or every other week, depending on the requirements of the program track, and maintain dated observation forms verifying their site visits. Observation visits give them an opportunity to discuss the student teacher’s progress with the master teacher. Supervisors also maintain telephone and email contact with student teachers and master teachers.
In the Education Specialist Level I Program fieldwork notes are taken at each meeting of the student and supervisor. A copy is given to the candidate and a copy retained in his or her fieldwork folder. Supervisors complete the Competency Checklist on an ongoing basis and share it with the student at mid-semester and end-of-semester, along with a written narrative summarizing strengths and areas the candidate needs to continue to work on.
Supervisors in the School Psychology Program conduct in-person, group supervision meetings for a prescribed number of hours during the semester. They submit a syllabus to candidates (and the program coordinator) regarding the dates and hours of supervision, content of supervision meetings, and requirements for fieldwork. Candidates submit practica and intern logs each week to the university supervisor, and at least one field visit per semester is conducted by the supervisor to observe the fieldworker engaged in a professional skill. An interview with the school-site supervisor regarding the candidate’s skills is also conducted. A written report of the observation and interview is provided to the intern candidate and placed in his or her program file.
In the Reading Program, EDRG 559 (Practicum in Teaching Reading and Language Arts) is a 3-unit course. The professor who teaches the class receives 4 units of credit so that s/he may supervise each of the candidates in the course. The professor assists candidates who are not currently teaching in finding a placement for the purpose of completing the field experience requirements. During the semester each candidate is observed in the field a minimum of two times. The focus of these observations is large group and small group intervention instruction. Additionally, candidates are required to submit videotaped lessons which are self-assessed, peer reviewed, and evaluated by the professor. Reading Program candidates also have field experiences in the Educational Psychology Clinic through the course EDRG 651 (Advanced Diagnosis and Intervention in Reading/Language Arts). Students are brought to the clinic by their parents for reading diagnosis and instruction. The course instructor is the supervisor for this on-campus clinical component of the program. The clinic is housed within two long hallways with a number of small tutorial rooms, each with a one-way mirror. A central room is available for supervisors to observe the instruction that is taking place within each of the tutorial rooms.
Program evaluation data provide evidence that candidates have positive early fieldwork and culminating field experiences. The three initial preparation programs participate in the California State University System-wide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation (see Standard 2; Exhibit 29). Exit Surveys (Exhibit 6) capture self-report data on a variety of dimensions, including ratings of early fieldwork, student teaching experiences, university supervisors, and master teachers. Table 3.06 (Student Teachers' Satisfaction with Selected Fieldwork Elements in Initial Teacher Preparation Programs) shows that student teachers give very positive ratings for their early and culminating field experiences in the three programs. These ratings are greatly attributable to the collaborations between programs and our school partners around program goals and expectations for candidates in early fieldwork and student teaching.
Data from the California State University System-wide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation show that graduates of the initial preparation programs, reflecting back on their preservice preparation at the conclusion of their first year of teaching, also perceive their field experiences in a positive light, although their reflections after one year of teaching tend to rate the program lower on four comparative dimensions than they do as exiting student teachers. Over 80% of respondents across the programs felt their pre-student teaching fieldwork and their student teaching experience were very or somewhat valuable in their development as a teacher. Similarly, over 80% also felt that both their university supervisor and cooperating teachers during student teaching were very or somewhat valuable working with them (Table 3.07: Graduates’ Satisfaction with Selected Fieldwork Elements in Initial Teacher Preparation Programs).
Initial preparation program graduates also expressed strong agreement about the efficacy of their student teaching placements (Table 3.08: Graduates' Satisfaction With Their Student Teaching Placement in Initial Teacher Preparation Programs).
Spiraling field experience requirements and assessments provide systematic and ongoing information about candidate performance. In early fieldwork, initial programs require candidates to observe and practice applying the theories and principles they are learning about in their coursework. These experiences help candidates to gradually gain real-life skill in designing effective educational experiences for all students. A description of how each program assesses candidates during early field experience and the culminating field experience is incorporated in each program Self-Study and is documented in each Program Assessment and Evaluation System (PAES) binder, both of which are in the Exhibits Room at each program’s station.
Initial teacher preparation programs and advanced (continuing) teacher preparation programs offer a progressive set of authentic assessments through required coursework and field experiences. Candidates receive feedback from course instructors, advisors, and program coordinators as they progress through the program. During student teaching, university supervisors and master teachers observe candidates and provide additional information on candidate competence at the midpoint and end of the semester. Letters of recommendation and program field experiences provide information on candidate competence from professionals in schools. Some programs use portfolio reviews as a method to systematically assess candidates and to identify those who are having difficulty progressing through program requirements. The Credential Center provides evaluations (Exhibit 47) of initial and advanced candidates at key transition points that help programs monitor candidate progress on such benchmarks as passage of benchmark courses, grade point average, character clearance, and so on.
The flat organizational structure, multiple assessment points and methods, and collaborative program development characteristic of our initial and advanced teacher preparation programs all contribute toward systematically using data to identify and assist candidates who are not making progress. Faculty meetings are one venue in which faculty discuss candidates who are having
difficulty in their courses and in field experiences. The Multiple Subject Program uses a Referral for Assistance (Exhibit 48) form by which faculty identify problems a candidate might be having with professional behavior, communication skills, or developmental progress that surface in a course or fieldwork assignment. The form provides a way for faculty to counsel candidates regarding concerns about professional behavior and to formulate an action plan which includes referrals to appropriate resources on campus if the problem is beyond the scope of program faculty.
In the rare circumstances when a candidate exhibits non-professional or inappropriate behaviors, the program coordinator typically consults with an associate dean, who serves as a facilitator to access campus resources, such as the Counseling Center or Student Services. Candidates who are experiencing difficulties are provided with a variety of supports including: (a) individual advisement with course instructors, (b) conferencing with advisors and/or program coordinators, (c) development of an individualized learning plan, and (d) referral to support services
Candidates in all programs are formally assessed for readiness to advance to the culminating field experience (student teaching, clinical practice). This checkpoint allows for an assessment of whether candidates have completed the necessary preparatory experiences that will support success in their culminating field experience. This checkpoint typically includes a review of overall grade point average as well as target grades in specific courses, passage of mandated exams, and successful performance on benchmark assessments. In addition, candidates are reviewed for such items as current tuberculosis clearance and valid background clearance. A fuller description of benchmark assessments at key program transition points is contained in the document Transition Points in Initial Teacher Preparation Programs, Advanced (Continuing) Teacher Preparation Programs, and Programs for Other Professional School Personnel (Exhibit 10). Most candidates who advance to the culminating field experience complete it successfully (Table 3.09 Eligibility for and Completion of Culminating Fieldwork/Clinical Practice).
In the Single Subject Program student teachers are formally evaluated by the university supervisor and the master teacher or intern site support teacher utilizing the Single Subject mid-term (formative assessment) and end-of-term (summative assessment) student teaching evaluation. Master teachers make regular formal observations and conference regularly with student teachers. Additionally, they are in constant contact with the university supervisor regarding the student teacher’s progress. University supervisors formally observe student teachers a minimum of six times during the student teaching semester. Observations follow a clinical supervision cycle, which includes a pre-observation conference, observation, and post-observation conference (refer to Single Subject Program Student Teaching Handbook in Exhibits Room).
In the Multiple Subject Program assessments during field experiences are conducted in all five subject specific pedagogy courses through signature assignments administered on TaskStream. During student teaching, candidates are formally assessed at least eight times. They receive a formative (mid-term) and summative (end of term) assessment by both the master teacher and university supervisor during each of their two student teaching assignments. The master teacher and university supervisor meet with the student teacher to discuss the formative assessment. If a student is not progressing, or the master teacher and/or university supervisor have serious concerns, a meeting is held with the school site administrator and/or the Director of Field Programs.
University supervisors in the Education Specialist Program make a minimum of six on-site observations per semester. They also meet with the candidate at the university as necessary. During observations and conferences the supervisor assists the candidate to complete a “baseline” evaluation of his/her competencies, observes the candidate teach across days and time, reviews relevant educational records the candidate has prepared, provides written feedback after each session, reviews the candidate’s program portfolio, and completes a mid-term and final written evaluation each semester. The final evaluation is comprised of the completed Competency Checklist and accompanying narrative that indicates that the student has demonstrated each program competency area at minimum at a “beginning level.”
During student teaching in the Adapted Physical Education Program both the university supervisor (APE Coordinator) and the master teacher (APE Specialist) assess the competence of the candidate. Student Teaching Performance Reports are written and reported by the university supervisor, the master teacher (APE Specialist), and the student teacher at mid-term and during the final week of the candidate’s student teaching experience. All reports discussed with the candidate are placed in the candidate’s APE portfolio.
In the School Psychology Program in addition to the university supervisor site observation and school-based supervisor interview, a survey based on the NASP domains for training and practice is completed twice yearly by school site supervisors to evaluate candidates’ skills in fieldwork.
In the Library Media Teacher Program the candidate self-assesses his/her competency relative to state and national LMT standards at the beginning and end of the field experience. Through analyzing and responding to candidate learning logs and direct observations, both the site-level supervising LMT and the field experience coordinator evaluate the candidate in light of state and national LMT standards. The candidate also submits an e-portfolio, which includes the field experience plan/reflection/evidence of learning as well as other supporting documentation demonstrating competency meeting state and national LMT standards. The field experience coordinator evaluates the e-portfolio using program-developed culminating rubric.
Assessment of School Counseling Program candidates’ work is conducted by the university supervisor, site supervisor (school counselor), district supervisor of school counselors, and school principals. Paper and pencil assessments are based on observation and discussion of candidate work. University supervisors listen to audio tapes/CDs of at least 5 counseling sessions conducted by candidates during fieldwork.
In the Clinical Rehabilitative Services Program, a minimum of two formal written evaluations are completed during the culminating field experience, one at mid-term and one at the end of the experience. However, Master Clinicians are encouraged to provide informal feedback on a regular and on-going basis. If issues or concerns arise about student performance, more frequent and structured evaluation would be requested by the Field Experience Coordinator.
Providing feedback from professionals, e.g., faculty, supervisors, cooperating teachers, and clinicians, is crucial to our responsibilities to candidates. Equally crucial are candidates’ reflections on their growth and development as practitioners gained through program experiences. Opportunities for feedback and critical reflection exist in every course and field experience across the unit. The following are examples of how formal feedback and reflection are institutionalized in unit programs.
In the Single Subject Program feedback and reflection are an important part of all courses and fieldwork, but especially of student teaching. Each of the 10 subject matter programs sets its own requirements, but all require some type of reflective journal or learning log. Additionally, candidates reflect on and incorporate into their teaching what they learn as they complete Teaching Performance Assessment Task 4 as part of the student teaching seminar. Single Subject candidates receive both formal and informal feedback from their master teachers daily, weekly and monthly during the student teaching experience through quick conversations throughout the day as well as in formal, sit-down conferences. Critical feedback is provided formally through formative and summative feedback during the student teaching experience. Candidates receive formal mid-term (formative) and final (summative) student teaching evaluations from their master teachers. Candidates receive formal and informal feedback from their university supervisors during each of the 6 or more observational visits made during the student teaching semester, as well as from the mid-term and final student teaching evaluation.
In the Multiple Subject Program, reflection and feedback are built into subject specific pedagogy course assignments and fieldwork administered through TaskStream, and through the unique assessments created by each faculty member for their courses. Weekly seminars are a feature of student teaching. During these seminars candidates discuss and reflect on practice and events that occur in the course of student teaching. Many of the supervisors require weekly written reflections from their student teacher based on specific prompts or lessons the supervisor has observed (or both).
In the Education Specialist Program, site observations are scheduled at different times and days of the week, with an attempt to schedule a debriefing/reflection time after each observation. Due to the candidates’ teaching schedules this is not always possible, and supervisors and candidates communicate via email, telephone, and student journals submitted weekly. The supervisor maintains written field notes and provides a copy to the candidate after each visit. These notes include feedback on the session observed and questions for further reflection.
In two of the courses in the Reading Program candidates are required to complete field experiences (EDRG 551: Assessment and Instruction in Reading and Writing; EDRG 559: Practicum in Teaching Reading/Language Arts). In both classes candidates apply what they are learning to individuals and groups of students, including beginning readers, older readers who are experiencing reading difficulties, and English language learners. This integration of program theory and content within a supportive environment that includes self-assessment, peer review, and conferencing, as well as supervision, promotes the kind of reflection and decision-making that is congruent with the mission statement of the Reading Program.
In the School Psychology Program weekly supervision meetings are a time to reflect and provide feedback to/from candidates regarding the activities engaged in during fieldwork. Also, field logs are kept by candidates and submitted to university supervisors indicating activities engaged in as well as reflections regarding these activities. University supervisors provide written feedback to candidates regarding the content of their logs.
Candidates in the School Counseling Program reflect and receive feedback through 7 group supervision sessions and 6 individual sessions that candidates have with university supervisors. Candidates provide a write-up of cases they work with in which they reflect on the case and their skills, and identify specific needs to improve. Candidates present a case study to the group in which they reflect and after which they receive feedback from their peers and university supervisor.
In the Clinical Rehabilitative Services Program master clinicians are encouraged to set aside time either on a daily basis or at the end of each week to answer candidate questions and provide assistance as needed. In addition, candidates are required to attend a weekly meeting with the Field Experience Coordinator and fellow candidates who are also completing their field experience. These meetings are used to reflect, discuss and problem solve issues and topics occurring during each candidate’s field experience.
The unit is committed to faculty, staff, and students’ having opportunities to use technology effectively. There is a full time systems specialist with a half time assistant who monitors and maintains computer equipment and a full-time web master who develops and supports programs websites and student information. Faculty have enthusiastically adopted BeachBoard, using it in a range of ways to support instruction including field experiences.
The most recent form of the unit Technology Survey (Exhibit 36) was administered in fall 2006. The survey revealed a wide range of technology utilization reported by faculty in the courses they teach (Table 3.10: CED Faculty Technology Use, Fall 2006 [n = 60]). On the one hand, faculty reported high use levels of hard and software that have become ubiquitous in our lives. At least 75% of the faculty say they use email/listservs, computers and peripherals, and the Internet within their courses at least 1-2 times per week; many reported far higher frequency. Reflecting their own levels of use, faculty also reported that they asked students to use these same three items most frequently in their coursework. In contrast, there were very low levels of reported use of tools such as hand-held electronic devices, audio-based creation tools, social networking applications, database and statistical tools, and ePortfolios. These were reported used at least once per week by fewer than 25% of faculty. Media and multimedia presentation tools and computer aided instruction reflected a medium level of use, with about 30-50% of faculty reporting at least weekly use.
Aside from the use of specific tools, faculty report generally quite frequent use of some sort of digital technology for a wide range of purposes (see “How often do you use technology tools to…,” e.g, creating instructional materials, delivering instruction, communicating with students and peers, and accessing educational materials). Digital technologies, however, are less frequently used to assess student learning and analyze data (either for teaching or research). In contrast to this fairly high level of use by faculty themselves, faculty report asking students to use technology far less (“How often do you ask students to use technology tools to…”).
The Multiple Subject Program utilizes TaskStream as the administrative vehicle for signature assignments. All candidates in subject-specific pedagogy courses, during fieldwork, and in student teaching create e-folios of their learning on TaskStream. An example of an e-folio assignment on TaskStream during student teaching is for the candidate to develop an electronic grade book. The TaskStream e-folio is aligned with the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP; Exhibit 17) and is a demonstration of knowledge, skills and professional dispositions according to the Teaching Performance Expectations (TPE; Exhibit 12). A number of school districts in the CSULB service area employ TaskStream for their teacher induction programs, which permits graduates to continue to use their TaskStream e-folio and other materials after they leave the program. Increasingly, university supervisors use the campus electronic administrative tool, BeachBoard, as an administrative and teaching tool for their student teaching seminars.
Single Subject Program candidates take a required, state-approved course in using computer technology for instructional and administrative purposes. Some of the content programs have their own discipline-specific technology course, while others utilize the generic technology course for educational purposes course offered through the College of Education. These courses have specific assignments that require students to develop presentations, conduct web-based research, learn and practice skills for assessment of web-based resources, etc. Many, but not all, faculty in other program courses utilize BeachBoard as a course administrative tool, e.g., for submitting assignments, setting up chat rooms, which gives candidates firsthand experience that they draw upon in fieldwork, student teaching and in their careers.
In the Education Specialist Program, BeachBoard is used by most university supervisors to communicate and share resources with students. Students are required to maintain a weekly journal that they share with their supervisors, and several do this electronically via email. Importantly for special educators in training, the program has a fieldwork seminar on assistive technology and the use of augmentative communication devices.
In the Adapted Physical Education Program all candidates have available to them learning management systems such as BeachBoard where they can access instructional materials. There is open access to computer labs throughout the university. The Kinesiology Department has available to all students a department computer laboratory, physical education/adapted physical education teaching laboratory, and a professionally maintained instructional resource center. All students in the APE program complete a number of computer-based technology assignments that include website technology, use of Powerpoint and spreadsheets to streamline paperwork in APE such as computerized unit and lesson plans and IEPS.
In the School Psychology Program interns gain technology experience during practica and internship utilizing assessment tools that include scoring software that is available for use in the Educational Psychology Clinic. During the field practica, candidates are required to download a free demonstration copy of the Behavioral Assessment System for Children—Portable Observation Program to collect observational data on a P-12 child attending public school.
In the Library Media Teacher Program candidates must be placed in at sites that ensure interaction with technology common in library settings (e.g., automation systems, teaching aids, library web portals, desktop and laptop systems, software, Internet searching/use, etc.). Course instructors utilize technology in practically all class meetings.