1.1 Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions
1.1.a Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates
Content knowledge for the unit is defined by the Qatar National Curriculum Standards (QNCS), and its assessment aligned to professional organization and institutional standards. At this time in Qatar, there is no state program review or Title II report or any data collected by state or national agencies on performance of educator preparation programs, but content knowledge is measured throughout the programs.
Candidates in the post-baccalaureate diploma programs are expected to enter the program with appropriate levels of content knowledge, and thus must have an undergraduate degree from a recognized college or university in the field of concentration. Transcripts for degree verification are reviewed by the registrar; transcripts for equivalency are reviewed a by the program coordinator and assistant dean for student affairs. Candidates must also pass a content test that was put in place for the Diploma in Secondary Education in 2008 when the program was initiated. By 2012, the unit added a content test requirement to each diploma program. Questions for the exams were developed by faculty in the content areas either in the unit or in the associated content-area colleges. The questions are correlated to each standard in the QNCS at or above the concentration level. Content area specialists examined the questions for content validity. The unit is currently putting all questions into a database (Blackboard) so that multiple tests can be generated and test analysis can be performed. Examples of early content tests may be viewed on the confidential content test website; however, tests have been expanded and are currently being given in Arabic rather than English. Please note that this link, since it has confidential data, is only accessible if you have the password.
If a candidate meets all admission requirements except a passing score on the content exam, s/he may be conditionally admitted, but must pass the content test by the end of the first semester. The passing score was previously 70%, but in response to feedback from the specialized professional organizations for the programs, the score has been raised to 80% starting in fall 2015. Data reported below are for the last 12 months, except with the diploma programs. Since admission to the diploma programs was closed fall 2013 for program revision, data are reported over the last 18 months to include the last graduating class. [Password needed]
Diploma in Primary Education (DPRI): a mean of 87%, with 10% scoring between 70-79% and 90% scoring >80%, n=10.
Diploma in Secondary Education (DSEC): a mean of 84%, with 31 scoring between 70-79% and 69% > 80%, n=13
Data for the Diploma in Early Childhood (DEC) and Diploma in Special Education (DSPED) are posted online in the Online Exhibit Hall.
In the B.Ed. in Primary Education (BPRI), candidates take from 24-36 credit hours (CRS), according to concentration, in discipline-specific content. In the B.Ed. Secondary Programs, all candidates take 45 CRS in the specific content field. Program plans may be viewed online. A grade point average (GPA) of 2.0 or better is required at checkpoints 1 and 2 to remain in the B.Ed. programs. GPAs at checkpoints 1 and 2 for the candidates that graduated in the BPRI spring 2014 were 3.12 on a four-point scale and 3.13 respectively (n=3). The mean GPAs for BSEC (checkpoint 1 only) was 2.53 (n=50).
Candidates in the B.Ed. programs must also pass a content competency test in the semester prior to student teaching that includes both discipline area content and discipline-specific pedagogy. Previously the passing score was set at 70%, but the passing score was raised in February 2015 to 80%. The BPRI scores from 2014 had a mean of 83.86 (n=7), with 28% (2 candidates) scoring between 76-79%, 46% (5) scoring between 80-89%, and 29% scoring 90% or above. No candidates in the BSEC have reached this point in their program.
Content knowledge is also assessed on key assignments throughout all initial programs on the following activities. Note that DEC does not have data yet, and the BSEC does not have data yet from student teaching. Diploma data from unit plan, e-Folio, and CEES is from 2013, as there was not a fall 2012 cohort (to graduate in 2014).
Lesson plan in EDUC 312 or EDUC 503.
BPRI: Mean of 3.80/4, with 90% >3.0 (satisfactory), n=100.
BSEC: Mean of 3.96/4 with 100% >3.0, n=28
DPRI: Mean of 3.80/4, with 100% >3.0, n=5.
DSEC: Mean of 4.00/4, with 100% >3.0, n=4.
DSPED: Mean of 3.67/4 with 100% >3.0, n=51)
Unit plan (completed during the internship/student teaching)
BPRI: Mean of 3.90/4 with 98% >3.0, n=51.
DPRI: Mean of 3.50/4, with 100% >3.0, n=4.
DSEC: Mean of 3.50/4, with 100% >3.0 (satisfactory), n=2
DSPED: Mean of 3.90/4 with 98% >3.0, n=51.
E-Folio (completed during the internship/student teaching)
BPRI: Mean of 3.50/4, with 100% >3.0, n=6.
DPRI: Mean of 3.75/4, with 100% >3.0, n=4.
DSEC: Mean of 3.40/4, with 100% >3.0, n=5.
DSPED: Mean of 3.60/5, with 100% >3.0, n=5
Content measure on the Clinical Experience Evaluation Survey (CEES) at mid-point and final-point of the candidate’s internship or student teaching
- BPRI: Mid-point mean of 3.7 and final mean of 3.8 At both, measures 100% >3.0, n=3
DPRI: Mid-point mean of 3.22 and final mean of 3.07 At both, measures 75% >3.0, n=4
DSEC (2013 data): Mid-point mean of 3.5 with 75% >3.0, and final mean of 3.75 with 100% >3.0, n=4.
DSPED (2013 data): Mid-point mean of 3.80 with 100% >3.0, and final mean of 3.30 with 85% >3.0, n=4.
With these multiple measures of content and checkpoint content requirements, the unit is confident of the content knowledge of its graduates. Tables with more complete data are available in the Online Exhibit Hall.
1.1.b Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates
The importance of candidates having thorough pedagogical content knowledge so that they understand the importance of and have the skills to teach content in challenging, motivating, and effective ways is expressed in program design and curriculum. Each concentration in each initial program has from two to three courses designated as methods courses, which specifically focus on content-specific pedagogy. All candidates must make a C or better (2.0) in these courses to continue in the program (any course on which a candidates scores lower than C must be repeated). These courses focus specifically on pedagogical content knowledge. Each has eight field hours that include assignments in which candidates plan, conduct, assess, and reflect on instruction in authentic contexts with students in their concentration levels, either in small groups or as a whole group (micro-teaching). A criterion in the small-group rubric (used across initial programs) is: Multiple content-specific teaching techniques are used; all techniques used are appropriate to support students’ learning. A criterion in the micro-teach rubric (also used across initial programs) is: Includes multiple best practices; varied, engaging, active, appropriate for content and grade level. All content is important, correct and presented in logical order. The micro-teach rubric expresses the expectation that instruction will demonstrate knowledge and skills in pedagogical content. Satisfactory achievement on a micro-teach in a specified methods course is a checkpoint requirement in all initial programs.
This criterion on the micro-teach is used as one of the two measures for the program learning outcomes in the university assessment system. The other measure is the unit plan, measured during clinical practice (internship or student teaching) whose rubric criterion states: Plans a variety of instructional strategies and assignments to meet stated content objectives. All learning activities are student-centered, and most employ active learning. Many activities require higher level thinking skills and provide opportunities for creativity. Satisfactory achievement on the e-Folio is a checkpoint requirement in all initial programs.
The importance of content-specific knowledge and skills is also reinforced and measured on candidate’s e-folios. All initial programs except DEC have a criterion that specifically addresses pedagogical content knowledge. The rubric descriptor states: (has) multiple examples of a range of content-specific strategies incorporated into instruction. Candidates must select and post multiple artifacts that show they meet this description, and must also provide a sound reflective rationale explaining how the artifacts presented show mastery of this criterion. The content focus for DEC is conceptual knowledge and integrated content.
Four of the six initial certification programs were submitted to NCATE approved specialized professional organizations (SPAs) in fall 2014. DSPED was recognized by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). BPRI and DPRI were recognized by the Association for Children’s Education International (ACEI) with conditions related to raising the standards on the content and comprehensive exams to 80% and requiring all candidates to achieve this level of proficiency. DEC, a new program, was recognized by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) on the condition that appropriate data be submitted within the scheduled time. The only initial programs that were not submitted were the BSEC and the DSEC, which the unit hopes to submit by fall 2015. Micro-teach, unit plan, and e-Folio descriptions and results were a part of each SPA report. As these reports are available in AIMS and on Taskstream, only the data for DSEC is presented here.
Micro-teach pedagogical content results for BSEC were a mean of 3.19, with 100% of candidates scored >3.0, n=62. No BSEC candidates have yet completed an e-folio.
Micro-teach pedagogical content results for DSEC for the last graduating class (2013) were a mean of 3.67, unit plan results were 3.50, and e-folio results on this criterion were 3.46. For all three measures, 100% of candidates scored >3.0, n=4.
These multiple measures and the emphasis placed on these assessments by the unit provide evidence that successful candidates in the program have the pedagogical content knowledge they need to be qualified teachers.
1.1.c Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates
Professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills for teacher candidates are built into the program plans for each of the initial programs. Each program has a course in child or human development, a course in curriculum and assessment, a course in addressing the learning needs of students with exceptionalities, and a course in classroom management This set of courses is designed to give the candidate the foundational knowledge and skills to understand students and their learning needs, to create a warm, supportive environment, to design quality learning experiences, to assess learning and use the data to improve practice, and to address the learning needs of all students, in congruence with the unit’s commitment to the belief that every child can learn and should have the opportunity to do so. Candidates must make a C in each course.
Reflective practice is also a value that is taught and practiced throughout each program. Each small group activity and micro-teach lesson includes a reflection as a graded part of the assignment that requires: During internship or student teaching, candidates are also required to submit weekly and final reflections about teaching and learning in their classrooms. A summary of outcomes on these reflective activities follows.
BPRI: a mean of 2.70 on micro-teach reflection, with 50% scoring >3.0 on a four-point scale; a mean of 3.88 on reflective journal, with 100% scoring >3.0; n=10 for both measures.
BSEC: a mean of 3.76 on micro-teach reflection, with 100% scoring >3.0, n=62 (no candidates have reached internship yet.)
DPRI: a mean of 2.92 on micro-teach reflection, with 69% scoring >3.0. n=13; a mean of 3.22 on the reflective journal, with 89% scoring >3, n=9.
DSEC: a mean of 3.40 on micro-teach reflection, with 100% scoring >3.0, n=13; a mean of 3.00 on the reflective journal, with 100% scoring >3.0, n=1.
DSPED: a mean of 2.50 on micro-teach reflection, with 50% scoring >3.0, n=4; a mean of 3.75 on the reflective journal, with 100% scoring >3.0, n=4.
Consistently, the scores taken later in the programs were much higher, hopefully because candidates were becoming more reflective.
Leadership is one of the three pillars of the conceptual framework. It is expressed in two of the unit learning outcomes, ethical values and initiative. Unit faculty members model leadership by serving in leadership roles at the college, university, national, and international levels. Candidates are asked to collaborate on presentations, service projects, and grants. During 2013-2014r, 35 candidates did collaborative research with faculty members through the Undergraduate Research Experience program, funded by the Qatar National Research Fund. Helping candidates demonstrate leadership in the context of their programs has been more challenging, but program coordinators and faculty members are currently exploring way to develop leadership skills in teacher candidates more effectively (see Exhibit 2.3.g_6). The outcome ethical values is assessed in the philosophy statement that candidates develop early in their programs and in ethics criteria in each program’s CEES.
Results for each of the four initial programs were as follows:
For BPRI on the ethical values statement the mean was 3.21, with 82% scoring >3.0, n=72. On the CEES, the mean was 3.67 with 100% of candidates scoring >3.0, n=3.
For BSEC on the ethical values statement the mean was 3.49, with 92% scoring >3.0, n=37.
For DEC on the ethical values statement the mean was 2.64, with 71% scoring >3.0, n=7. No data is yet available for DEC on the CEES.
For DPRI on the ethical values statement the mean was 2.86, with 72% scoring >3.0, n=11; on the CEES, the mean was 3.89, with 100% scoring >3.0, n=9.
For DSEC on the ethical values statement, the mean was 2.81, with 62% scoring >3.0, n=13; on the CEES the mean was 3.75 with 100% scoring >3.0), n=4.
For DSPED on the ethical values statement the mean was 2.63, with 63% scoring >3.0, n=16; the mean on the CEES was 3.25 with 75% scoring >3.0), n=4.
Although scores were low initially on this value, early in the candidates’ programs, scores taken from late in the programs were reassuringly high by the end of their programs. As annual assessment reports affirm, the unit has expended much time and reflection on how to model, teach, and assess this outcome as well as outcome 8 (initiative). This is an ongoing concern and focus.
The unit has also found unit learning outcome 8 (initiative) problematic to teach and to assess. At the present, the key assignments on which it is measured are the assessment project and the IEP in all initial programs. The assessment projects thoroughly explained in the SPA reports posted on AIMS. The BPRI, DEC, DPRI, and DSEC share a common assignment description and rubric. DSPED description varies somewhat because of the nature of assessment in these special contexts. The criterion measured for the outcome initiative is the candidate’s analysis of the implications for instruction (how will the candidate make a positive change as a result of the data). Data from DSEC showed a mean of 3.0, with 75% scoring >3.0, n=4. Referencing the reports for the other programs on AIMS shows that overall, means on this criterion range from 2.50 (DSPED) to 3.40 (BPRI).
After much reflection, a decision was made by the unit based on two key facts: (1) the unit felt candidates in all programs needed a stronger base in assessment and the use of assessment to inform teaching (initiate change), and (2) policy changes at the Supreme Education Council (2012) changed the language of instruction in mathematics and science from English to Arabic. The decision was to submit a proposal to reduce the number of ESL-related courses by one in all programs and to add a course in assessment. That proposal is pending.
1.1.d Student Learning for Teacher Candidates
Early in all programs, candidates take a course on curriculum and assessment. In these courses they learn basic assessment techniques that they are expected to apply in all lesson planning and instruction. They are also supposed to use assessment data to inform instruction. The key assessment for this criterion is the assessment project completed during internship. This assessment (modified for the program level) was explained thoroughly in the SPA reports submitted on AIMS for the BPRI and DPRI. The assignment for the secondary programs (BSEC and DSEC) and for early childhood is the same, although the rubrics are modified to reflect the level of students the programs are designed to address. Data for the DSEC was a mean of 3.50, with 100% of the candidates scoring at satisfactory (>3.0). The candidates in DEC have not yet completed this assignment. The assignment for DSPED has been modified to fit a special education context. It is also presented in the SPA report in AIMS for that program. Mean scores for the design and interpretation of the assessment projects among the programs ranged from 3.50 – 4.000 – very high; however, as the scores for applying the information to improve teaching and learning (see section 1.1.c) were not as high, the decision to improve the programs by adding additional assessment courses still seems to be a positive improvement for the programs.
1.1.e Knowledge and Skills for Other School Professionals
In the programs for other school professionals, content is structured in reference to the literature base and standards of the professional organization associated with the major. Most measures for content knowledge occur late in the programs (checkpoints 2 and 3); as candidates are do not necessarily enter the programs with degrees in the major. Content is measured on the following:
Grade point average (GPA) at checkpoint 2, just prior to internship. Candidates must have a GPA >3.0.
Comprehensive exam (checkpoint 2). The requirement was >70%. From fall 2015, the requirement will be >80%.
Final e-folio (content criterion). The requirement is that each criterion must be achieved at >3.0.
Internship Evaluation (content criterion). The requirement is that a minimum of 80% of criteria be achievement at >3.0.
The comprehensive tests for the programs for other school professionals are correlated to the unit learning outcomes, the Qatar National Professional Standards, and the professional organizations, Education Leadership Constituent Council for Educational Leadership (EDEL) and the Council for Exceptional Children for Special Education (MSPED). The EDEL exam is taken from a database of questions prepared by faculty members in each course. Content validity is established by a review of the exam questions by the committee of faculty members in the program each year. Previously, the passing score was set at 70%. The unit has raised this passing score to 80%, to be applied for class entering in fall 2015.
The comprehensive exam for the Masters in Special Education program is an extensive essay, scored by rubric. Construct validity for both exams is evaluated by calculating correlation between candidate grades and test scores, with a correlation value of .6.
Masters in Education, Educational Leadership Program
Grade point average at checkpoint 2: 3.67, n=18.
Comprehensive exam (checkpoint 2): Mean=81%, range 70-90%, n=18.
Final e-folio (content criterion): Mean 3.72, with 100% scoring <3.0, n=18
Internship Evaluation (content criterion): Mean 3.00, with 83% <3.0, n=18.
Masters in Education, Special Education Program
- Grade point average at checkpoint 2: 3.78, n=6.
Comprehensive exam (checkpoint 2): Mean=80%, range 71-96%, n=6.
Final e-folio (content criterion): Mean 3.69, with 100% scoring >3.0, n=18.
Internship Evaluation (content criterion): Mean 3.83, with 100% scoring >3.0, n=6.
Based on these data, candidates in the programs for other school professionals demonstrate high levels of content knowledge prior to graduation.
1.1.f Student Learning for Other School Professionals
In the unit's two programs for other school professionals, graduates assume different roles in the education sector, and thus have different interactions with K-12 students. In the Masters in Educational Leadership program (EDEL), candidates' responsibilities are more directed at supporting teachers to effectively structure teaching and learning experiences, thus graduates will be looking at teaching and learning through a wider lens. Although graduates of the Masters in Special Education program (MSPED) will also be educational leaders, the roles that will play in the education sector will often focus on individual students rather than whole classes. Candidates in both of these programs, however, will be leading in education contexts, and thus must know the principles and skills of effective teaching and learning. Candidates in EDEL have a curriculum and assessment course so that they will know the principles of effective curriculum design and assessment. The three experiences in their program that most directly relate to classroom instruction and student learning are their supervision project, their action research project, and their final internship. In EDEL 605:Instructional Supervision, they learn the principles of leading people and teams to achieve educational goals. In the course that follows, EDEL 608: Issues in Educational Leadership, each candidate observes and talks with a teacher (previously approved by the school administrator) to determine specific professional development needs and interest. The candidate then designs a professional development program for the teacher, guides the teacher through the plan, and observes and reflects on the effects on teaching and learning. Although they are not directly interacting with the students, they are leading change in teaching and learning. In EDEL 609: Action Research, the candidate identifies a problem in education, designs an intervention, and assesses the effects of that intervention. The candidate must report the way and extent to which the project resulted in a positive effect on the learning of students. Lastly, in their internship experiences, which are uniquely designed according to the goals of the candidate and the context of the placement, candidates are expected to describe how and to what degree they improved learning for students.
Candidates in MSPED have four courses with field hours prior to their internship. The two that offer the opportunity to assess the candidates' impact on learning are SPED 607: Characteristics of Mild/Moderate Disabilities, in which candidates observe a student with special needs, develop an individual education plan (IEP), assess whether the plan is working as intended, and modifying the instructional plan as needed in response to results. The second course is SPED 611: Literacy Assessment and Remediation, in which candidates work with a single student over the course of the semester and report on the student's learning. In the final internship report, candidates describe their internship project and, as part of that description, describe their effects on student learning.
EDEL 608: Professional Development Report: mean of 3.44, with 89% scoring >3.0, n=9.
EDEL 609: Action Research: mean of 3.44, with 100% scoring >3.0, n=9.
EDEL 610: Internship: mean of 3.89, with 100% scoring >3.0, n=18.
SPED 607: Characteristics of Mild/Moderate Disabilities, mean of 3.00, with 100% scoring >3.0, n=9.
SPED 611: Literacy Assessment and Remediation, mean of 3.11, with 78% scoring >3.0, n=9.
SPED 621: Internship, mean of 3.89, with 100% scoring >3.0, n=9.
1.1.g Professional Dispositions for All Candidates
The goal of the unit is to model, teach, and practice dispositions throughout the programs. In Exhibit 1.3.e, charts are provided that indicate where in the programs and in association with which assignments instructors are expected to discuss the professional dispositions. The charts also display when in each program the dispositions are assessed.
As a way of making candidates more knowledgeable and reflective about dispositions, they are required to complete a disposition self-assessment survey three times over the course of their programs. This survey is one of the sections of the Clinical Experiences Evaluation Survey (CEES).
CEES Surveys
On this they record not only their self-perceptions on a Likert-like scale with four levels of agreement as to the extent to which they demonstrate the disposition, but also entering specific examples of how they have demonstrated this disposition. Dispositions in the survey are consistent with the program learning outcomes and conceptual framework. The B.Ed. programs and the diploma programs share the same dispositions, which a section of each program’s Clinical Experiences Evaluation Survey (CEES). While the dispositions remain constant across all B.Ed. and diploma programs, each program’s learning outcomes are linked to the knowledge and skills required for the specific roles each program’s graduates would assume. The dispositions for the programs for other school professionals relate to the same elements of the conceptual framework, but are aligned with the specific roles the other school professional candidates are expected to assume.
The dispositions are assessed three times over the course of all programs. The first assessment for initial programs occurs by checkpoint 2. Data is collected from rubrics for a selection of assignments. Candidates who do not show satisfactory levels on dispositions are required to attend a session sponsored by the office of the assistant dean for student support, during which dispositions are discussed. These candidates will then be given a second opportunity to demonstrate successful dispositions before being allowed to enter internship or student teaching. University supervisors complete the disposition section of the CEES for candidates at the mid-point and at the end of their clinical experiences.
Candidates in programs for other school professionals complete the self-assessment at checkpoint 1; program coordinators complete the dispositions instruments at checkpoint 1 and again in the middle and near the end of the internships. All programs have a process in place so that if, at any time, a candidate does not display appropriate dispositions an intervention occurs. If early in the program, the candidate is counseled and advised. If a deficiency is noted at the midpoint during the clinical experience, a remediation plan is completed in collaboration among the candidate, the school mentor, and the university supervisor that clearly defines the program and describes an action plan with specific commitments that must be completed by specified times to demonstrate proficiency in the disposition(s) of concern. Copies of the remediation contract form (called Intern Professional Development Plan in the masters degree programs) may be found in the program handbooks.
Program Hanbooks
Overview of field and clinical experiences
Since this process was put into place in fall 2013, no candidates have required an intervention.
Candidates in initial programs must have at least 7/8 dispositions at satisfactory level to graduate. No candidate is allowed to graduate with unsatisfactory dispositions.
BPRI: on the dispositions selection of the CEES, a mean of 3.68, with 99% of the scores on the 22 criteria >3.0, n=4.
BSEC: No candidates at this time.
DPRI: on the dispositions selection of the CEES, a mean of 3.82, with 100% of the scores on the 22 criteria >3.0, n=1.
DSEC: No candidates at this time.
DSPED: on the dispositions selection of the CEES, a mean of 3.63, with 100% of the scores on the 22 criteria >3.0, n=1.
DEC: No candidates sat this time.
EDEL: early program dispositions data as measured on the data survey instruments: mean 3.63, with 98% of candidates scoring >3.0, end of program dispositions data: mean 3.68, with 100% of candidates scoring >3.0, n=15 on both measures.
MSPED: early program dispositions data as measured on the data survey instruments: mean 3.56, with 100% of candidates scoring >3.0; end of program dispositions data: mean 3.82, with 100% of candidates scoring >3.0, n=18 on both measures.
Dispositions have been consistently strong across the programs throughout the years. When candidates enter the programs, understanding the dispositions and what constitutes evidence for them is somewhat challenging. The self-assessment that candidates take early in the program seems to help them focus on what is meant by the dispositions and how to demonstrate them.
1.1.h Follow Up Studies
One year following graduation the assistant dean of student affairs sends all graduates a copy of the post-graduate survey for graduates and a copy of the post-graduate survey for their employers by email. Whenever possible, the Office of Student Services contacts the supervisor directly. Return rates have been consistently low (less than 25%), especially for supervisors, and the Office of Student Affairs is currently researching ways to increase this number. The number of questions specifically addressing content knowledge is also low, and the surveys are currently being revised to include more survey items specifically related to content. The data that are available currently are only for the post-baccalaureate programs and masters-level programs, as the B.Ed. programs are new; data will be collected for the B.Ed. Primary starting spring 2015. Scores have been just at or just above satisfactory levels (3.00-3.25) for post-baccalaureate graduates. Although at present, data indicate that employers are satisfied with content knowledge of candidates, the expanded post-graduate surveys will provide more robust data over the coming years, and the unit aspires to raise the mean scores nearer to target levels.
Because our current system has not produced the quantity of data for appropriate analysis, the unit has been brainstorming ideas of how to increase return on the surveys. In May 2015, the unit will host its annual educational conference. Because the conference has historically been very well attended by a broad range of educators, the intent is to collect data from alumni and employers at the conference. Hopefully, by the end of spring 2015, we will have extensive and meaningful data on post-graduation perceptions. It is positive that the Supreme Education Council, the major employer of our graduates, has recognized the programs by agreeing (in 2013) to grant initial licensure to all graduates. The current licensure system in Qatar is portfolio-based, and until fall 2013, only in-service teachers could apply for licensure. In fall 2013, the Supreme Education Council, which is the governing body for K-12 schools in Qatar, agreed to grant QU graduates from the teacher education program initial licensure, based on the high quality of the program and the unit’s rigorous standards for graduation.
1.2 Continuous Improvement
Being in the midst of an education reform is both challenge and blessing. The unit is working hard to balance the needs of the society in which it is founded and to maintain the highest possible standards. Research in education reinforces the importance of strong content knowledge in education. As we improve the content tests for the diploma program, the strength of the candidates in content knowledge should increase. In the case of the diploma programs, we can ensure that candidates have a strong foundation in content knowledge prior to entering the programs. In the case of comprehensive exams, we can ensure that candidates are well prepared in to enter the next phase of their training as teachers. Our efforts to continuous improvement include ongoing work on this exams, including increasing the number of validated questions in the data base, providing more support for potential candidates who may not pass the test the first time, and more carefully reflect on the results for the purpose of providing more focused support for candidates. The unit is also investigating virtual supports of various kinds for candidates in order to provide the best possible experience for our candidates.
In addition to expanding and improving the test bank, the curriculum committee members will continue to work ardently to review syllabi and ensure that the course learning activities are fair, clear, and aligned with the mission and goals of the unit and the objectives of the lesson.
The addition of two funded chairs in the unit, one in mathematics education and the other in science education, will provide guidance for curriculum review and development.
One action item whose importance grows increasingly clear is collaboration with the administrators and instructors in other colleges who work with our candidates. Especially in courses in which our students are struggling, we must look for ways to provide them the support they need to be successful. The assistant dean for student affairs and the assistant dean for student support, in collaboration with the student support committee, will continue to look for ways to support candidate in the content areas.
1.3 Exhibits for Standard 1
More extensive data may be found on the confidential website. Please note that a password is needed to access this site.