Standard 1

Standard 1. Content and Pedagogical Knowledge

The Department of Education at Washburn University supervises 15 licensure programs at the initial level. All the programs were submitted for a state program review in 2016 and we anticipate that all programs will receive full approval. Candidates have historically done very well in all licensure programs and our overall pass rate on content tests has been very good.


Table 1.1D provides evidence for three semesters (fall 2015, spring 2016 and fall 2016) of how the InTasc standards are addressed through our Student Teaching Summary Evaluation. This evaluation is completed by mentor teachers and university supervisors during student teaching. Table 1.1D is disaggregated by licensure area for all programs except ESOL as we have not yet had candidates complete this program. Data is provided for five constructs within that evaluation.

There is a focus on the InTasc standards throughout the program and is in line with our assessment system phases. Candidates in Phase 1 get exposed and introduced to these standards in ED 150, ED 225 and ED 285. The most extensive work on the standards occurs in Phase II which includes all the methods and content courses. Candidates are expected to demonstrate the standards by Phase III which is the student teaching semester and by Phase IV which is a follow-up to student teaching. The 1.1 InTasc Standards Course Summary file shows how coursework across all programs aligns with the 10 InTasc standards.

Table 1.2F shows data regarding instructional practice from the KPTP for three semesters. The Kansas Performance Teaching Portfolio (KPTP) is a teacher work sample that provides candidates an opportunity to demonstrate the use of contextual factors in a classroom to design and implement a unit of study. Included in the portfolio is information about the unit’s lesson plans and assessments and candidates also reflect on their instruction and the data obtained. The table shows the state and unit cut scores and the average score of all the candidates who completed the KPTP by licensure program. Please note that the KPTP is conducted during the first half of student teaching so specific scores for second licensure areas (early childhood, ESOL middle school) are not computed.

InTasc standards 6, 7 and 8 are tied to the category of Instructional Practice and each is addressed in the KPTP. Standard 6 focuses on assessment and candidates address this in Tasks 2 and 3 Focus Area E. Standard 7 focuses on planning for instruction and this is addressed in Tasks 1 and 2 Focus Area A. Standard 8 focuses on instructional strategies and this is addressed in Tasks 2 and 3 Focus Areas B and C of the KPTP.

The 1.1 InTasc Standards Course Summary file provides evidence that the 10 standards are addressed in a variety of courses across all licensure programs. The 1.1 & 1.5 Technology file provides evidence that ISTE standards are addressed.

We have information and measures on content knowledge from several sources. The content test scores (Table 1.1B) and PLT test scores (Table 1.1A) provide evidence for three years that our candidates are well grounded in content knowledge and pedagogical skills. The KPTP, completed by candidates at student teaching, is a teacher work sample that requires them to demonstrate skills in content, instruction, and assessment. The Student Teaching Summary evaluation, completed by mentor teachers and university supervisors, contains items relevant to content knowledge. Our follow-up study of building principals, conducted on program completers in teaching positions, contains an item about content knowledge and our self-assessment of the completers themselves also includes an item about knowledge of content.
All of these assessments provide evidence of a positive trend in terms of content knowledge and skills. For example, the item regarding content knowledge in the follow-up survey of building principals showed scores from 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 as 3.69, 3.32, 3.63, and 3.58 which is a very consistent positive trend.

The unit reviews data at our assessment retreats conducted twice a year (August and January), but data is also shared and discussed by email or at faculty meetings (department and UTEC) throughout the year. The results of many assessments are organized to clearly reveal trends and patterns (i.e. impact scores, follow-up surveys, candidate self-assessments). We do have comparisons to external benchmarks for KPTP scores and content test scores from ETS.

Table 1.1C shows data on candidates in the P12 and Secondary programs that take classes attended by both education majors and non-majors. The table shows the GPA’s of majors and non-majors for three years. The GPA’s of candidates are comparable and in some instances the GPA’s of education majors are higher than non-education majors.

Kansas does not provide information to IHE’s regarding the comparison of candidates. A broad survey was conducted through Kansas State University in 2013 on all 7 major IHE’s but the scores are not specific to Washburn (see standard 5.4 KS Alumni survey). We do, however, have two external benchmarks, ETS scores and KPTP data, and both can be found in the evidence of standard 5. We have included the KPTP comparison below.

External Benchmark – KPTP scores
Washburn University comparison to all state institutions
 Screen Shot 2017-06-19 at 1.08.11 PM

These are data from KSDE for the years 2010-2016. N is the total number of portfolios. First row (all years) then descending 2011-2012; 2012-2013, etc. The state cut score is 20, the WU cut score is 21. The maximum score = 30.

Washburn University Total Scores:

Spring 2013: 25.2
Fall 2013: 23.6
Fall 2015: 26.6
Spring 2016: 24.8
Fall 2016: 26.8
Spring 2017: 26.6

Average for six semesters for WU candidates = 25.6. The overall state average was 23.9
Note: The STEP was used in 2014-2015 so no KPTP scores are available. The KPTP scores indicate that our candidates score very well in comparison to candidates from other state IHE’s.


Tables 1E, 1.2F and 1.2G provide evidence of candidate’s use of research and planning for instruction and assessing student progress. Table 1E provides evidence from Tasks 1 & 3 Focus Areas A, E and F from the KPTP’s for three semesters that candidates
have proficiency in the use of assessment.

Another specific example of using and conducting research occurs in the ED 405 course. Student teachers complete a behavior management project in which they must collect baseline and intervention data and plan and implement a management project. They present the data and reflect on the success of their progress. Candidates in ED 405 also provide data on their impact on learning for both academic and non-academic measures.

Another specific example includes candidates in ED 440 and SE 460 who write papers to address specific licensure competencies and are required to utilize research findings to support their discussions. Information on researched-based practices is discussed in ED 302, SE 460 and SE 420.

Reflection is a central theme of our unit and is built into about everything candidates do. The KPTP requires candidates to collect and monitor data and to reflect on the effectiveness of their instruction. Task 4, Focus Area F of the KPTP requires candidates to reflect on communication, objectives, implementation, professional goals, and discuss what was successful and what was not. The ED 405 management project completed during student teaching also requires reflection based on the data obtained. Reflection is also built into assignments within methods courses.

The KPTP requires candidates to collect pre-test and posttest data on the unit they teach and they are required to discuss how formative assessments are used to make changes in their instruction based on those data. Candidates completing behavior management projects in ED 405 at student teaching will also use data to make decisions about the success of their efforts and make changes as needed.


Tables 1.1A and 1.1B provide data on the content test and PLT scores of candidates, disaggregated by licensure area, for three years that provides evidence of content and pedagogical knowledge. Table 1.2F provides evidence of the ability to plan and monitor instruction. The 1.3 Unit Plan Summaries file also demonstrates how completers apply content and pedagogical skills.

Kansas uses a system of Program Review for the evaluation and approval of licensure programs. All 20 (15 initial, 5 advanced) of our licensure programs were submitted to the state for review in the fall of 2016. The program reviews focus primarily on six assessments and includes sections for content knowledge, ability to plan instruction, assessment of clinical experience, candidate effect on student learning, and content-based assessments which includes course grades. Data is presented for at least 3 years. About half of our licensure programs have seen new licensure standards come from the state in the last two years. Individual licensure programs must meet at least 75% of the program standards in order for the program to reach the continuing accreditation level. Program reviews are submitted to the state every seven years.

Program reviews focus primarily on six assessments and includes sections for content knowledge, ability to plan instruction, assessment of clinical experience, candidate effect on student learning, and content-based assessments which includes course grades. Data is presented for at least 3 years. Assessment 1 is content test scores. Assessment 2 is an EPP assessment that focuses on the ability to plan instruction. Assessment 3 is an assessment of clinical practice and includes data from out Student Teaching Summary Evaluation. Assessment 4 includes data from the KPTP and the impact on student learning. Assessment 5 is primarily content-based course grades and assessment 6 is an EPP assessment of content knowledge. Assessments 1, 3 and 4 are common to all licensure programs while assessments 2, 5 and 6 are licensure program specific.

Table 1.1b shows trend data in content test scores for a three year period. With only a few exceptions our candidates have scored very well over this period of time. Many of the licensure programs have consistent 100% pass rates. In a number of instances in which the pass rates have not been as good as expected the explanation can often be due to very few test takers in that year. For example, if we only have two test takers and one does not pass the content test the first time our pass rate quickly drops to 50%. This has been one reason for lower scores in some programs such as MFL.

We review data on candidates in aggregate form and disaggregate by licensure program. For the annual assessment reports required by WU we typically divide candidates into two broad groups – elementary candidates and P12 and Secondary candidates. Data on KPTP’s and the Student Teaching Summary Evaluations are often divided by these two groups. We do have data organized in ways to see trends and patterns

Our licensure programs are producing the kinds of results we would want. We examine content test scores by specific licensure program. A summary of an analysis of each program with some explanation of changes and improvements is provided in the 5.3 Program Changes file. Our program reviews have shown, however, that one of our programs needs additional attention - Modern Foreign Languages (MFL). The pass rates within this program have been lower due to inconsistent leadership in that program and the fact that we have had very few candidates in that program in the last few years. If only one candidate does not do well on the content test our average score drops considerably.

We have and do make changes in programs and information on our program changes can be found in the 5.3 program changes file. Some of the recent changes have been brought about by changes in licensure standards at the state level. About half of our licensure programs have seen new standards come out in the last two years.


The 1.3 Unit Samples file provides evidence of how our candidates incorporate common core standards into their instruction. These samples were selected at random from KPTP submissions and other examples can be provided. The KPTP requires candidates to incorporate college and career reading standards.

Candidate’s ability to provide effective instruction for all students is demonstrated by
Task 2, Focus Areas A and B of the KPTP which focuses on designing instruction, differentiation, adaptions, and modifications based on the needs of different students. Candidates completing the KPTP are required to address the needs of focus students. As noted in standard 4, these focus students are usually students who come from diverse backgrounds, are at risk, ESL or on IEP’s.

The candidate’s ability to have students apply knowledge to solve problems and think critically is addressed by Task 3, Focus Area C of the KPTP which focuses on critical thinking and integration of content.

The candidate’s ability to include cross-discipline learning experiences and to teach for transfer of skills is addressed by Task 3, Focus Area C of the KPTP which focuses on critical thinking and integration of content.

The candidate’s ability to design and implement learning experiences that require collaboration and communication skills is addressed by Task 4, Focus Area F of the KPTP which requires candidates to discuss communication and collaboration and their roles in designing and implementing instruction.


We do have evidence that candidates model and apply technology standards. The 1.1 & 1.5 Technology ISTE Standards file shows that the technology standards are embedded into course work across the program. The Technology Samples file (Technology evidence) also provides examples of what candidates learn. Technology use is also evident in student teaching and is evaluated both by the KPTP and the Student Teaching Summary evaluation.
The KPTP includes 4 specific items regarding technology that align with the first three ISTE standards for teachers. The overall KPTP scores provide evidence that candidates are making use of technology. Specific indicators in the rubric include:
  • “Effective teacher use of technology is evident in the instructional design and clearly enhances instruction.
  • Effective student use of technology is evident in the instructional design and clearly enhances student learning.
  • Technology strategies are described in the overall unit plan and at least one of the detailed lesson plans incorporates a detailed technology strategy that enhances the content.
  • Incorporates technology and justifies the use of technology to enhance instructional practices, and help all students use instructional technology effectively”.

The Student Teaching Summary Evaluation is completed by mentor teachers and university supervisors (scores on a 4-point scale: Advanced = 4, Target = 3, Developing = 2, Unacceptable = 1). This assessment includes a specific indicator regarding technology:

Item: “The teacher candidate utilizes technology to engage and challenge learners in a variety
of learning situations”.

Screen Shot 2017-06-19 at 1.14.25 PM

Candidates make use of technology in many ways across all the licensure programs. Candidates must demonstrate technology competency as a university Student Learning Outcome (SLO) and by passing our ED 300 Integrating Technology class which is required of all candidates. Other specific examples of technology use and competence can be found in the Technology Evidence and the Technology Samples file. Other examples of the use of digital media include:

EN 300 Teaching Composition To write these papers, students are required to conduct research using the Mabee databases and other digital resources. Evaluation: Rubric
SE 420, SE 440 and SE 460 – candidates make use of electronic sources to research papers and the program model. Candidates review videos and a web-based IEP program in SE 420,
ED 353 Candidates learn about technological applications for assessment including AimsWeb.
KN 250 Research topics using phone apps and databases. Candidates research various topics by accessing WU databases.
ED 302 Secondary and P-12 Jigsaw Assignment Candidates use electronic databases to find information about the special education topics they are researching for their expert topic (e.g., LD, ED, ADHD, ID, etc.). This assignment is scored using a rubric.
BI 333 Use genetic analysis software to align DNA sequences. Use online databases to identify unknown DNA sequences. Evaluation: in all courses candidates are assessed based on their success.
BI 390 Seminar presentation Candidates use online databases to find information about the specific topic that they are researching. (Broad topics vary by semester depending on the professor who is leading the course. Recent topics have included sustainable agriculture, coevolution, and cancer biology.) Evaluation: rubric
KN 248 Research Papers and Class Projects - Use of online databases to complete presentations and papers.
KN 250 Research Papers and Class Projects - Use of online databases to complete presentations and papers.
EN 300 Argumentative Research Paper -A representative from Mabee library visits the class, goes over the databases, and discusses ethical use of the electronic databases.

Several assessments provide evidence of candidates’ ability to design and use digital learning including the KPTP, Student Teaching Summary Evaluation, Follow-up Survey of Building Principals, and the candidate technology self-assessment. Included here is an example blog from one of our candidates which also provides some evidence of these skills --.

Candidates do demonstrate the ability to track and share student performance data digitally. The KPTP requires candidates to show results of pre-post testing of students; data shown in graph form is required. KPTP Tasks 2 & 3 show data and graph. Student teacher candidates must track pre-post assessment data on students and focus students. The KPTP Tasks 2 & 3 document this data collection. In ED 405 candidates are required to present their data in a graph (usually from Excel). Candidates must complete a Gain Score Template (an Excel spreadsheet with formula) at student teaching.

ED 402 Secondary and P-12 KPTP Assignment - Within the KPTP document candidates show progress made by the student with whom they are working on a graph or chart. Their graphs and charts are all developed using technology. (e.g. Use of graphs or charts in Word or Powerpoint).

ED317 Lesson plans with pre-assessment / post-assessment

ED 353 Technology use in assessment including the use of Excel, PowerSchool, Skyward and electronic grade books.

1 Evidence Summary
1.1 & 1.5 Technology ISTE Standards
1.1 InTASC Standards Courses Summary
1.1 Progression Levels
1.1a PLT Learners and Learning
1.1b Content Test Performance
1.1c GPA Comparison Chart
1.1d InTasc Proficiency
1.2E Use of Assessment Data
1.2F Design Implement Evaluate Instruction
1.2G Professional Research
1.3 Unit Plan Summaries

[ WU Home ] [ Directory ] [ A-Z Index ] [ Sitemap ] [ Contact WU ] [ Statements & Disclosures ] [ Accessibility ] [ Search ]
© 2015 Washburn University, 1700 SW College Ave, Topeka, Kansas 66621 785.670.1010
Contact with questions or comments.