Measure 1 - Indicators of Completer Impact

To track candidate and completer impact in their P-12 classrooms, the EPP utilizes two different measures.  The first is a Completer Teacher Work Sample, and the second is data derived from a summative question on the first and third-year teacher survey as completed by their supervisors.

COMPLETER TEACHER WORK SAMPLES

The EPP solicits Completer Teacher Work Samples from first-year completers each year. In the reviewed cohorts (graduates from the previous three years were solicited), three teachers provided data for evidence regarding Measure 1. One completer was a junior high history teacher, and two were working in elementary classrooms. The completers developed their submission by following the instruction rubric used in their senior year Teacher Work Sample during student teaching.  The sections on which we encouraged them to focus for this report were VI. Data Analysis and VII. Reflection. Each completer chose a unit of study, administered a pretest, taught the unit, and then administered the same test as a post-test. The teachers were asked to share data charts and also reflect on their results.

The junior high history completer provided data from a history unit that was taught in the spring of 2025. The data show an average gain of 69% (n=32). Eighty-one percent of the students passed the unit. 

This unit on the World Wars and the Inter-War Period included lecture, note-taking, video viewing, primary source reading, and wider reading (novel). Critical analysis of ideas and motivations created learning opportunities, as well as the debate and online discussions, plus writing activities. Barriers to achievement were attendance-related as well as poor reading comprehension. 

The teacher concluded that the pace was too fast and the content too deep for some students. He plans to make notes available for this unit when he teaches it again.

The first elementary teacher (n=27) was new to the elementary school setting. In this large class, the majority of students increased their scores between the two tests (average increase of 21%) even though the overall passing score was less than hoped for (59%). These students had the highest pretest average (51%) of all the Teacher Work Samples shared.

The reading unit test asked students a high-level question that challenged the students greatly. The male students grew the most, followed by the students with IEP status. The strategies used were suitable for a variety of students. The main change this teacher plans to use next time is that of adding incentives for completed homework and engagement.

The elementary school teacher taught and tested a class of fifth and sixth-grade students (n=7). The health unit covered the topics of labor, pregnancy, pathogens, and STI’s. The overall average growth for the entire class was 44.5%, with 85% passing the entire unit. 

The teaching strategies used included vocabulary study, lecture with note taking (new for these grade levels, so added instruction and supervision was needed), and a project of modeling the labor process with provided materials. Barriers to learning included struggles with vocabulary study, and students not finishing their work in class, and then not finishing the work for the next day. 

The teacher was pleased that both genders grew equally well. The sixth graders did better than the fifth graders, but the behavior challenges with the younger students may have contributed to that result. One student scored a 100% on the final test (though only 55% on the pretest, so learning still happened). The teacher noted that this student had prior knowledge in the field.

For next time through the unit, the teacher plans to focus on classroom management for struggling students and put systems in place for all students to complete all homework assignments.

Completer Teacher Work Sample
Collected Spring 2025 (from the last three cohorts)

Average gain per student = 45% | Overall pass rate per student = 75%

SUPERVISOR SURVEY OF FIRST AND THIRD YEAR TEACHERS

The EPP uses a Nebraska-based survey for gleaning data regarding first- and third-year teacher success. The criteria align with the student-teacher survey used in all Nebraska teacher prep programs. For the cohorts in this report (surveys sent out in Spring 2025), supervisors of the EPP’s first and third-year completers rated their teachers an average of 3.2 out of 4.0 (n= 5) when surveyed specifically about the teacher’s impact on student learning in the classroom (question #15). This score is once again up slightly from the previous year (3.11).

Supervisor Survey

Completers and their employers/supervisors are surveyed at the end of their first and third years of teaching. Survey questions align with the elements of the Nebraska Clinical Practice Evaluation document, as used in the junior-year practicums and the senior-year student teaching experience. The survey elements include Student Development, Learner Differences, Learning Environment, Content Knowledge, Application of Content, Assessment, Planning for Instruction, Instructional Strategies, Professional Learning and Ethical Practice, Leadership and Collaboration, Impact on Student Learning, and Professional Dispositions. The EPP chose to include two extra sections of particular interest to the EPP: Christian Influence and Technology Integration.

In Spring 2025, surveys were sent to supervisors of first-year teachers (n=7), with a response rate of 14% (n=1). Surveys were also sent to supervisors of third-year teachers (n=7), with a response rate of 57% (n=4).  Because of the small sample size, the EPP will report on the scores as combined.

The overall average for first- and third-year completers, as reported by their supervisors, was 3.2 for the 48 questions on the survey  (benchmark of 3.0 out of 4.0). One teacher scored a 3.94 from her supervisor with comments that “she is an excellent teacher, proficient and well-prepared.” The next most successful teacher scored a 3.63 and was praised for her ability to create a positive environment, her Christian influence, impact on students, professionalism, and her content knowledge. “Please continue to prepare great teachers” was the principal’s plea to the EPP. Other candidates struggled in areas such as differentiation and using a variety of instructional strategies, including technology.

Union College First- and Third-Year Teacher Survey — Spring 2024
Supervisor Survey

Supervisor Survey First Year / Third Year
(combined for Spring 2025)
Overall Impact = 3.20
Overall Mean = 2.98

Self-Evaluation Surveys from First-Year and Third-Year Teachers

First- and third-year teachers were asked to rate their own success based on the elements from the Nebraska Clinical Practice Evaluation--the same survey content used in the junior and senior years of their training by the EPP. The benchmark for the First- and Third-Year Teacher Survey was 3.0 of 4.0. 

In Spring 2025, surveys were sent to completers in their first year (n=7), with a response rate of 14% (n=1). Surveys were also sent to completers in their third year (n=7), with a response rate of 57% (n=4).  Because of the small sample size of each cohort, the EPP is reporting on the scores as combined.

Responses from Spring 2025 participants had ratings that ranged from 2.00 to 4.00, with 34 of 48 average scores (71%) above benchmark (3.0 of 4.0). This percentage was similar to the prior year (69%). Lower scores surfaced for completers in Standard 3, where some felt they struggled to create fully supportive learning environments for each student (2.94), in Standard 10, which focuses on communication with parents (2.63), and Standard 14, which asks about technology integration skills (2.7). Completers gave themselves top scores for their commitment to lace together faith and learning (3.47, Standard 13), for understanding diverse cultures and communities (3.44, Standard 2), and participating in ongoing professional development (3.42, Standard 9).

Union College First- and Third-Year Teacher Survey — Spring 2025
Self Evaluation

1st / 3rd Year Self-Evaluations

Overall Impact = 3.06
Overall Mean = 3.10

Completer Case Study

The EPP communicates with completers in order to provide support. During those conversations, the Education faculty glean valuable insights as to completer confidence and success. This report will focus on one completer working in a high school STEM setting who shared his experiences (over the course of his first year) regarding curriculum, classroom management, technology use, school culture, and the balance of work and life.

This completer had the opportunity to assist the school develop the high school science curriculum, which included lab development and setting the pace for appropriate teaching strategies, homework, and assessment paradigms. With strong administrative support, he has been able to provide quality instruction and modeling for student rigor. In addition to an expectation to focus heavily on curriculum, this completer has had a year to develop a classroom climate that meets his personality and student needs. He set up his classroom expectations and kept a professional stance, which helped the students give respect and to feel secure in the room.  He reports that for the most part, the atmosphere is strongly positive.

Technology use is always part of a teacher’s life. This completer uses the school’s LMS for grade distribution, but also utilizes Google Classroom for sharing information and doing assessments. He is confident in hosting virtual classes, as happens for certain holidays and for snow days. He has strategies for guiding students in the use of AI and can track when it is being used inappropriately. For his own leadership responsibilities, he finds that occasionally utilizing AI for planning has been useful.

Moving to a new part of the country takes courage and an ability to study the school and local culture and contribute skillfully. This completer is mindful of his need to stay attentive and thereby bring his best to each class and faculty meeting. Along with planning for first-year teaching, this challenge has filled his time.

Finally, balancing work and home life can be difficult for all teachers--veteran or not. This completer is thankful he arrived to the area early enough to prepare fully for school as well as acclimate to the geography. He is also thankful for the tremendous support for his administration in expecting a workload that he can manage. The winter months felt heavy, but helping the school plan for bonding among the new high school students inspired him in ways he did not expect. His perceptions of the needs around him prompt him to seek solutions and to support students and other faculty members on the staff, which shows a unique maturity for a first-year teacher.

CAEP Visit/Review —  AFIs Report

The EPP hosted CAEP reviewers (via Zoom) during the 2024 Fall semester. The exit meeting report resulted in a reduction in AFIs from the previous review (down from five to just three). There were no stipulations given.

The three AFIs included a focus on improvements in technology integration (R1.3), recruitment (R3.1), and disaggregated data (R3.2). 

The EPP had anticipated AFIs in these three areas and had already begun to meet the needs with appropriate action plans. 

Technology

For the technology integration expectation, the EPP has developed a new scoring rubric that aligns with ISTE expectations. Candidates in Spring 2025 are providing lesson plan samples that fulfill the elements of those expectations. All artifacts will be evaluated with scores beyond the former pass/fail system--scores that will be delineated by a scoring rubric with descriptions of twelve elements:

1. Teacher candidate designs instruction that utilizes content-specific technologies to enhance teaching and learning.
2. Teacher candidate uses online tools to communicate and collaborate for student learning.
3. Teacher candidate uses technology to differentiate instruction to meet diverse learning needs.
4. Teacher candidate uses appropriate technology tools for assessment, presentation, and research.
5. Teacher candidate uses/can use effective strategies for teaching online and/or blended/hybrid learning environments.
6. Teacher candidate uses technology to connect globally with a variety of regions and cultures.
7. Teacher candidate addresses digital literacy, including the legal, ethical, and socially responsible use of technology in education.
8. Teacher candidate engages in ongoing professional development and networking activities to improve the integration of technology in teaching.
9. Teacher candidate engages in leadership and advocacy for using technology.
10. Teacher candidate applies basic troubleshooting skills to resolve technology issues.
11. Teacher candidate aligns technology integration choices to denominational, state, and international technology standards (ISTE).
12. Teacher candidate uses technology to engage students in academic growth, enhance the learning environment, and extend authentic exploration beyond the classroom.

A developed scoring rubric, ranging from 1-4, allows the EPP faculty to provide more specific feedback. The EPP can report more robust data in the near future.

Recruitment

For the AFI regarding recruitment, the EPP has sketched plans to reach out to more diverse students in our city, our state, and within the denominational high schools in our nine-state region (Mid-America Union Conference). In addition, the following goals were voted:

1. Be an effective EPP for all groups of candidates.
2. Increase Black candidates to reach national statistics (= add 3 candidates to our program) and other non-White candidates by two per year going forward.
3. Work to support ethnic students so they can stay on a qualifying track.
4. Meet the needs of all students with learning disabilities.
5. Work to keep potential candidates from melting in the summer.
6. Recruit one more STEM teacher candidate per cohort. (Deposits for next year indicate this goal is already met.)

Disaggregated Data

The EPP had received feedback from the CAEP team in May 2024, which required that the program’s data needed more demographic disaggregation. It had not been the practice for the EPP to disaggregate all key assessments according to demographic categories (program, content area, gender, ethnicity) due to small sample sizes. However, for the Self-Study report, submitted in January of 2024, the sample sizes of combined cohorts provided opportunity to report data in this way. The EPP faculty worked throughout the summer to provide these additional data points to the CAEP team. 

The EPP will continue this practice as data are collected and analyzed each semester. They believe that disaggregating in this way is important, but that major trends will not be seen clearly unless an effort is made to group cohorts and note scores of those larger sample sizes.

Measure 2 - Satisfaction of Employers

Supervisor Survey

The EPP relies on data from the Supervisor Survey to gauge satisfaction of work done by EPP completers each year. The format of the survey aligns with the Nebraska Clinical Practice Evaluation elements, as described above (Measure 1).

First- and Third-Year Teacher Survey (sent to supervisors/employers)

Completers and their employers/supervisors are surveyed at the end of their first and third years of teaching. Survey questions align with the elements of the Nebraska Clinical Practice Evaluation document, as used in the junior-year practicums and the senior-year student teaching experience. The survey elements include Student Development, Learner Differences, Learning Environment, Content Knowledge, Application of Content, Assessment, Planning for Instruction, Instructional Strategies, Professional Learning and Ethical Practice, Leadership and Collaboration, Impact on Student Learning, and Professional Dispositions. The EPP chose to include two extra sections of particular interest to the EPP: Christian Influence and Technology Integration.

In Spring 2025, surveys were sent to supervisors of first-year teachers (n=7), with a response rate of 14% (n=1). Surveys were also sent to supervisors of third-year teachers (n=7), with a response rate of 57% (n=4).  Because of the small sample size, the EPP will report on the scores as combined.

The overall average for first- and third-year completers, as reported by their supervisors, was 3.2 for the 48 questions on the survey  (benchmark of 3.0 out of 4.0). One teacher scored a 3.94 from her supervisor with comments that “she is an excellent teacher, proficient and well-prepared.” The next most successful teacher scored a 3.63 and was praised for her ability to create a positive environment, her Christian influence, impact on students, professionalism, and her content knowledge. “Please continue to prepare great teachers” was the principal’s plea to the EPP. Other candidates struggled in areas such as differentiation and using a variety of instructional strategies, including technology.

Union College First- and Third-Year Teacher Survey — Spring 2025
Supervisor Survey

Supervisor Survey First Year / Third Year
(combined for Spring 2025)
Overall Impact = 3.20
Overall Mean = 2.98

Stakeholder involvement

The EPP partners with a variety of stakeholders from the local area and beyond. Closest at hand is the Teacher Preparation Committee (TPC), and most remote would be the high schools across the nation that board and host student teachers as the need and opportunity arise.

The Teacher Preparation Committee (TPC) meets monthly to provide perspectives regarding all aspects of the Union Adventist University  Education Program. Started over twenty years ago, this group includes college professors (in relevant content areas), P-12 classroom teachers, school administrators from Union Adventist University and local P-12 settings, representatives from the local public school, and teacher candidates. The group regularly votes on regulatory activities such as admitting teacher candidates into the program officially, approving student teacher placements, and endorsing department changes and policy exceptions (curricular and otherwise). 

Another major stakeholder is the Mid-America Union Conference (MAUC) of Seventh-day Adventists. This entity supports and oversees denominational schools (P-12) from a nine-state region, with headquarters located in our city. Leadership at the MAUC attends official education department functions such as the Annual Constituency Meeting, the Education Program Banquet, and the Teacher Dedication ceremony. They host events to recruit and educate teacher candidates in the job-seeking process. Various members present in EDUC courses on topics of expertise. A final element of support by this group includes professional development. The MAUC regularly provides financial support for events aimed at current faculty but also teacher candidates, first-year teachers, and beyond. A recent collaboration with this group regarded the need to recruit more candidates from the MAUC’s nine-state region. A MAUC-funded scholarship is in its first year of use and has benefited four teacher candidates already. The MAUC also recently voted to fund attendance at a national educators conference for all faculty and teacher candidates of junior and senior status.

There are three local schools and/or districts that perform stakeholder functions. Most immediate is George Stone School--the two-teacher, K-8, multigrade lab school on campus. Here, elementary education majors (junior and senior year) are trained in denominational textbooks/expectations and multigrade structuring. Lab-school faculty teach for the EPP during the fall semester each year. A recent collaborative project includes learning to do initial assessments in reading and handwriting skills, multigrade practicum experiences, and substitute teaching opportunities.

Across the street is an affiliated high school. This P-12 school with single-grade classrooms is where both elementary and secondary education majors do practicum teaching and some student teaching. Cooperating teachers collaborate with university supervisors regarding specific needs for each placement, and faculty members hold TPC membership. Collaborative activities include technology training (EPP candidates instructing cooperating teachers through a webinar) and music class collaboration, which benefits EPP music education majors in the leadership experience they can acquire.

Finally, Lincoln Public Schools (LPS) administrators sponsor placement meetings, where faculty from all local colleges gather to choose placements. University representatives and LPS leadership offer insights as to quality placement choices. In addition, LPS administration provides training for substitute teaching and student teaching expectations within their system, plus includes the EPP in recruiting for diverse candidates. The EPP has too many candidates in each cohort to utilize only denominational schools, so the EPP appreciates the LPS faculty for their willingness to host practicum and student teachers. The EPP faculty appreciates the ongoing faculty collaboration. In the recent past, LPS teachers have provided feedback on lesson plan expectations (too many and not useful formats). The EPP has made modifications to expectations to ease the frustrations.

Besides local placements, several candidates have chosen to do their student teaching out-of-state and beyond the Mid-America Union Conference (MAUC).  While there, candidates are given food and board, work opportunities, supervision experience, and multiple prep and teaching opportunities. Cooperating teachers provide feedback, and the local administration oversees the experience overall. As with any placement, regular feedback is solicited, so these more remote locations play a role in wider perspectives for EPP consideration.

Completers themselves are stakeholders in the sense that they provide the EPP opportunities to glean Teacher Work Sample data, survey data, and case study feedback. EPP faculty visit first and third-year completers as time permits, and for the rest, host Zoom meetings for collaboration. Recent feedback from completer interviews suggested that candidates be placed in more diverse settings, especially for elementary placements. They also hoped for even more contact from the EPP faculty during the first year.

A final stakeholder includes the high school students from the Mid-America Union Conference (MAUC). During a major recruiting campaign hosted by the university, the education faculty met with every high schooler in the MAUC during the past year. Part of the presentation included a survey regarding career plans. For those students expressing interest in becoming a teacher, communications are ongoing as the EPP seeks to recruit. Feedback from each senior is also guiding us in teaching strategies to model and promote for all teacher candidates. The resulting infographic on the 4 C’s of 21st Century Learning was shared with teacher candidates as well as the high schoolers and their faculty.

Measure 3 - Candidate Competency at Completion

The EPP measures candidate competency with five main assessments.  Those assessments include Praxis II scores, the Nebraska Clinical Practice Evaluation, lesson plan scores, teacher work sample scores, and cooperating teacher feedback regarding candidate strengths and successes through the end of the student teaching semester.

Praxis II

While the state of  Nebraska has created alternative pathways to teacher certification that do not involve taking the Praxis II test, the EPP is currently committed to maintaining its use because it is the most efficient way for completers to acquire initial state certification.

NCPE

A second resource for data collection is the Nebraska Clinical Practice Evaluation (NCPE). The EPP is reporting on the 2024-25 cohort (n=6). On the final evaluation, the cooperating teachers gave the cohort a 2.97 average score with a range of 2.00 to 4.0, while the university supervisors awarded a 2.93 average score with a range of 1.5 to 4.0 (benchmark = 3.0). These average scores are highly comparable, though both are slightly below benchmark. One candidate’s scores lowered the averages. This candidate performed poorly overall and did not graduate with an education degree in the end. 

The EPP reports on combined scores between cooperating teachers, university supervisors, and self-evaluation. Highest scores were given for having the ability to accept critique (3.51, Standard 9), skill at planning for instruction (3.27, Standard 7), using research-based teaching strategies (3.21, Standard 8), and for providing a positive classroom environment during student teaching (3.2, Standard 3). Lower scores showed a need for improvement in developing literacy and communication skills through content (2.77, Standard 5) and using knowledge to meet student needs (2.86, Standard 1).

Lesson Plans and Teacher Work Samples

During the senior year, teacher candidates submit lesson plans and Teacher Work Samples. Through both of these key assessments, the EPP gleans data as to candidate competency. This review features the 2024-2025 cohort (n=4).

For lesson plan scores overall, the average was 3.37 (up from 3.17 a year ago) with a range of 2.9 (Closure) to 3.65 (Standards and Practice) (benchmark of 3.0 out of 4.0). The EPP feels that the added training in writing lesson plans produced higher scores and stronger teaching overall.

For the Teacher Work Sample, candidates are scored on project quality, even as the EPP marks student achievement in each sample submitted (n=4). Scores for project quality showed a 3.44 (of 4.0) average (benchmark=3.0). This score is up from 3.24 for the previous cohort. The overall average gain for the cohort was 42.24%, similar to the 44% growth of the previous cohort. The pass rate was 95, close to the 100% pass rate from the year before (for all students, n=54).

Cooperating Teacher Reflective Survey

A final assessment for determining teacher candidate competency is the reflective feedback that comes from cooperating teachers at the end of the student teaching semester. Cooperating teachers (n=4) gave an average score (for all elements combined) of 4.33 of 5.0 (benchmark 3.5), which is up from the previous cohort, with a very strong range of 4.00 to 4.5.

Cooperating teachers appreciated the professionalism of all four candidates, noting their commitment to punctuality and thorough planning. The candidates showed great attentiveness to the various needs of their students, though they may need to strengthen their SEL awareness and incorporate lessons for students in their curriculum.

All endorsements offered by Union College were approved by CAEP during the most recent accreditation visit (2019).