School of Education
Undergraduate Unit Assessment
2014-2015 Annual Report
2014-15
By: Dr. Brian McAlister, Assoc. Dean of Professional Education &
Dr. Anthony Beardsley, Assessment Coordinator
Table of Contents
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................2
School of Education Response to previous AIM Report(s) and Department of Public Instruction Annual Report ................................................3
Previous Goals and Evidence...................................................................................................................................................................................4
Progress Implementing the Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) ................................................................................................................7
Benchmark Tracking ................................................................................................................................................................................................7
Benchmark I: Acceptance into Program/School of Education ................................................................................................................................8
PRAXIS I: CORE Tests: Academic Skills Tests for Educators ..........................................................................................................................9
CORE Reading...................................................................................................................................................................................................10
CORE Writing ...................................................................................................................................................................................................12
CORE Mathematics ...........................................................................................................................................................................................14
CORE First Time Test Takers ...........................................................................................................................................................................16
The Praxis Lab ...................................................................................................................................................................................................16
The ePortfolio Lab .............................................................................................................................................................................................17
Benchmark I Applications .................................................................................................................................................................................18
Benchmark I Review Results (old rubric) .........................................................................................................................................................20
Benchmark II: Admission into Student Teaching ..................................................................................................................................................21
PRAXIS II Content Test ....................................................................................................................................................................................22
Praxis II First Time Test Takers ........................................................................................................................................................................24
Interview Results ...............................................................................................................................................................................................25
Benchmark III: Program Completion ................................................................................................................................................................28
Student Teacher Performance Ratings ...............................................................................................................................................................28
Interview Results ...............................................................................................................................................................................................32
edTPA ................................................................................................................................................................................................................33
Foundations of Reading Test (FORT) ...............................................................................................................................................................35
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) for Exiting Student Teachers ......................................................................................................36
School of Education Mission and Vision...............................................................................................................................................................41
School of Education 2015-2016 Goals ..................................................................................................................................................................41
Appendix A-I: Supporting Data by Program .........................................................................................................................................................43
Appendix J: Program and Course Revision for 2014-15 .......................................................................................................................................48
Introduction
The School of Education (SOE) celebrates the 144 undergraduate students that were awarded a degree during the academic year. Twenty
students earned a degree in Career, Technical Education and Training. 120 students earned a degree in teacher education and 98 of those
students met the criteria for Endorsed Candidate for Licensure. SOE undergraduate programs continue to be committed to achieving the
vision and mission of the university and have compiled impressive data supporting that commitment. Each program has documented gains in
specific areas of focus reported within their program Assessment in the Major (AIM) reports (see table 1). This Unit Report will provide
overview data and analysis as well as provide specific input into what has been learned from the existing assessment system and what has
been initiated as a result.
Program
# of 2014/2015 Graduates
(# Endorsed Candidates for Licensure)
Art Education
11
(11)
Early Childhood Education
52
(45)
Family Consumer Sciences Education
12
(10)
Marketing and Business Education
9
(4)
Mathematics Education
2
(2)
Science Education
3
(3)
Special Education
21
(12)
Technology & Science Education
1
(0)
Technology Education
13
(11)
Career, Technical Education and Training
20
N/A
Total:
144
98
Page 2
School of Education Response to previous AIM Report(s) and Department of Public Instruction
Annual Report







Shared AIM reports with the Dean, Provost, School of Education Council, and School of Education faculty and staff.
Consistently monitored candidate pass rates on the CORE, PRAXIS II and FORT to determine need for curricular and/or
programmatic changes (see table 1).
Investigated potential need for increased emphasis in the curricular areas of assessment and classroom management strategies based
on EBI and Student Teacher data over time.
Selected programs continued to work with UW-Stout’s Career Services office to improve services for candidates in the School of
Education.
SOE made the following improvements to the assessment system:
a. Designed a more efficient system of acquiring raw data regarding student participation on the PPST
b. Reviewed dissemination options for program data
c. Updated and improved the SOE Webpage
d. Provided current links to Program reports on the SOE Webpage
Improved the design of the data tracking system for the PRAXIS tutors to effectively monitor the effectiveness of the program.
Improvements to the clinical placement process continued to be initiated as provided in DPI recommendations.
Page 3
Previous Goals and Evidence
2014-2015 Goals
1
2
3
Explore the potential expansion of the Ed.S. in Career and Technical
Education to become an Ed.S. in Education
a. Complete marketing research to determine the viability of this
and the viability of adding additional administrative licenses
b. Draft a request to make this change.
Continue to integrate the edTPA within the teacher preparation
process.
a. Scale up the implementation process by increasing the number
of teacher candidates who complete an edTPA
b. Engage faculty in the process of local evaluation for
completed edTPAs.
c. Review that viability of integrating a seminar to assist students
permanently.
d. Identify specific courses where embedded signature
assessments will be developed and a process to evaluate their
effectiveness.
Continue to improve the assessment process with valid and reliable
measures.
a. Identify and develop embedded signature assessments to be
included within the Benchmark system.
b. Monitor and evaluate student progress with the new CORE
test
c. Monitor and evaluate student progress with the new Reading
test
Evidence of Success
An SOE Committee has been drafting proposals and exploring avenues
for establishing an efficient organizational structure for current and
newly proposed advanced programs. It is anticipate that the new
organizational structure will be operational sometime during the
2015/16 academic year.
2a. Seven teacher candidates submitted an edTPA portfolio to Pearson
in Fall 2014. Eleven teacher candidates submitted in Spring 2015.
2b. All program faculty members have been involved in local evaluation
sessions.
2c. edTPA timelines for Fall 2015, Spring 2015, Fall 2014, and Spring
2014 were established. Seminars to support students in completing the
edTPA during student teaching were conducted.
2d. Specific courses have been identified where the embedded signature
assessments will be conducted.
3a. Seven embedded signature assessments related directly to our new
benchmark system have been drafted and an initial pilot testing has
been conducted.
3b. CORE test data has been monitored and reported throughout the
academic year.
3c. Student performance on the new Reading test has been collected and
will be reported as needed.
Page 4
4
The SOE Marketing Committee will be separated into two subcommittees: one for graduate/CTE programs and one for
undergraduate licensure programs.
a. Increased enrollment of underrepresented populations will be
a goal for both sub-committees.
b. The evaluation design for collection and reporting will be
streamlined.
5
Establish a new Technology Committee for the School of Education
carry on the work of the SOE Technology Task Force.
6
Pilot common professional courses by for the CTE related
undergraduate programs in TECED, MBE, and FCSE, create a way to
code students and a system for the evaluation of this track.
This SOE Marketing Committee has temporarily been suspended as the
new University organizational structure is drafted, approved and
implemented.
4a. Continued focus has been given to the enrollment of
underrepresented populations.
4b. Evaluation design for collection and reporting continues to be a high
priority.
A new Technology Committee was established and was unable to
effectively carry on the objectives established by the SOE Technology
Task Force. This will be a continuing goal for the next academic year.
This goal is in progress and should be met during the 2015/16 Academic
Year.
Page 5
Table 1: The following table provides links to each program’s assessment in the major report. Each report documents what each
program is learning from our assessment system.
Program
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Art Education
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/ARTED-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/ARTED-AIMReport-2013-2014.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/ARTED-AIMReport-2014-15.pdf
Early Childhood Education
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/ECE-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/ECE-AIMReport-2013-2014.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/ECE-AIMReport-2014-2015.pdf
Family and Consumer Science
Education
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/FCSE-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/FCSE-AIMReport-2013-2014.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/FCSE-AIMReport-2014-15.pdf
Marketing and Business
Education
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/MBE-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/MBE-AIMReport-2013-2014.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/MBE-AIMReport-2014-15.pdf
Math Education
N/A
N/A
N/A
Science Education
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SCIED-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SCIED-AIMReport-2013-2014.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SCIED-AIMReport-2014-15.pdf
Special Education
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SPED-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SPED-AIMReport-2013-2014.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SPED-AIMReport-2014-15.pdf
Technology Education
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/TECED-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/TECED-AIMReport-2013-2014.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/TECED-AIMReport-2014-15.pdf
Technology and Science
Education
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/TE-SCIEDAIM-Report-2012-13.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/TE-SCIEDAIM-Report-2013-2014.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/TESCIEDAIM-Report-2014-15.pdf
School Counseling
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SCOUN-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SCOUN-AIMReport-2013-2014.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SCOUN-AIMReport-2014-15.pdf
School Psychology MS &
Ed.S.
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SPSY-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SPSY-AIMReport-2013-2014.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SPSY-AIMReport-2014-15.pdf
Page 6
Progress Implementing the Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA)
Wisconsin is committed to preparing effective teachers. As a part of that commitment the School of Education is making certain that
all Stout initial license applicants are ready to teach prior to applying for a license. The Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA)
has been selected as the means for determining readiness to teach and will be required for all student teachers beginning in the fall of
2015. By the fall of 2016, a passing score on the edTPA will be required to be approved for licensure.
In preparing for this new assessment, SOE has engaged in a number of training activities and has explored creative strategies for
infusing supporting concepts within the curriculum. The following specific activities have been completed this year:
1. Leadership team members have attended edTPA sessions at state and national conferences.
2. Faculty members have presented sessions reviewing progress and sharing insights about the edTPA at state and national
conferences.
3. Faculty members have created introductory videos for student and new faculty use.
4. A seminar support system has been initiated to provide specific content and allow for dedicated time for students to create their
edTPA documents and share with other students.
5. SOE Director continues to provide state level leadership working with the UW-System grant to provide state-wide training
opportunities for private and public teacher training institutions.
6. A team of faculty members attended the edTPA state-wide workshops.
7. A faculty level edTPA Implementation Committee continues to provide leadership and support to faculty and students during
the phase-in process.
8. A Committee has been established to review and revise the Benchmark System to make the system complimentary to the
edTPA process.
9. Five faculty members have been trained and approved for national scoring of the edTPA.
Benchmark Tracking
The UW-Stout School of Education Assessment System is designed so that candidate progress in the undergraduate and graduate
programs are reviewed at various points and that data is gathered from multiple assessment measures. This process provides an
effective means of assessing unit, program specific as well as individual student progress.
Page 7
Benchmark I: Acceptance into Program/School of Education
The UW-Stout School of Education Assessment System is designed so that candidate progress is reviewed at various points.
Benchmark I is the first level of assessment. The purpose of the Benchmark I review process is to determine student readiness to
become a teacher candidate in one of the programs within the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Stout.
Note: Professional education and program-specific activities including: pre-clinical and clinical experiences; methods, curriculum, and
evaluation courses which are available only after student is accepted into teacher education via the Benchmark I review.
Students must complete the following to be cleared for Benchmark I Review:
1. Completed 40 semester credit hours at an accredited college with a 2.5 GPA (6 credits earned at UW-Stout)
2. Cumulative GPA of 2.75 at Stout.
3. Passed the National Background check - Good for 3 years
4. Passed the PPST or CORE tests (score reports must be provided to the School of Education Office of Assessment, Field
Experiences and Licensing: HERH 267 and PPST and CORE scores may be mixed together to show passing of each section)
5. Reading 175/322
Math 173/318
Writing 174/320
CORE Reading 156
CORE Writing 150
CORE Math 162
OR
Scores from one of the following three college entrance tests:
 The ACT Test: Composite Score of 23 with minimum score of 20 on English, Math, and Reading.
 The SAT Test: Composite Score of 1070 with minimum score of 450 on Math and Verbal.
 The GRE Revised General Test: Composite Score of 298 with minimum score of 150 on Verbal and 145 on Math.
6. Completed/Currently Enrolled in the required college English and speech courses; ENGL-101, ENGL-102, SPCOM-100
(minimum grade of "C" required for Benchmark; some program standards may be higher).
7. Completed/Currently Enrolled in Introduction to the major course (minimum grade of "C" required for Benchmark; some
program standards may be higher).
8. Completed/Currently Enrolled in EDUC-326 Foundations of Education course (minimum grade of "C" required for
Benchmark; some program standards may be higher).
Page 8
PRAXIS I: CORE Tests: Academic Skills Tests for Educators
Educational Testing Service Institutional Report
The PRAXIS I: CORE Tests: Academic Skills Tests for Educators is required for teacher certification by the Wisconsin Department
of Public Instruction. In fall 2014, the CORE tests have replaced the PPST. Teacher candidates are not admitted into the teacher
education program until they pass the CORE. The CORE is administered through the Educational Testing Service (ETS). ETS
provides an annual institutional academic year summary report on all students attempting CORE Tests including passing rates. The
report also compares scores of UW-Stout students to those at the state level and the national level. See Tables 2, 3 and 4 for specific
data on each test area.
This year only one exemption was granted for the CORE Mathematics test, and one for the CORE Writing test.
Page 9
CORE Reading
Table 2
UW-Stout
13/14
UW-Stout
14/15
National
14/15
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
14
NA
NA
NA
NA
106
200
122
168
158-180
53,922
200
100
173
160-188
WI Passing Score:
156
156
156
10/14
81/106
NA
71%
76%
84%
CORE Reading
Number of attempts with WI
Passing Score:
Percentage of attempts with WI
Passing Score:
*Official ETS only results report student’s highest test score. 2013-14 data is unofficial. ETS did not provide official CORE data for
this academic year. ETS no longer provides state pass rates
Table 2 continues: average percent correct (percentage of correct answers by category)
Reading Test
Category
Key Ideas and Details
Craft; Structure; Structure;
Language Skills
Integration of Knowledge and
Ideas
Points
Available
17-20
UW-Stout
National
14/15
68%
14/15
72%
12-16
66%
69%
15-18
64%
68%
Page 10
Page 11
CORE Writing
Table 3
UW-Stout
13/14
UW-Stout
14/15
National
14/15
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
13
NA
NA
NA
NA
105
182
136
164
156-168
55,605
200
100
166
158-172
WI Passing Score:
162
162
166
7/13
65/105
NA
54%
62%
66%
CORE Writing
Number of attempts with WI
Passing Score:
Percentage of attempts with WI
Passing Score:
*Official ETS only results report student’s highest test score. 2013-14 data is unofficial. ETS did not provide official CORE data for
this academic year. ETS no longer provides state pass rates
Table 3 continues: average percent correct (percentage of correct answers by category)
Writing Test
Category
Text Types; Purposes; Production
Language and Research Skills for
Writing
Points
Available
34-34
24-24
UW-Stout
14/14
59%
National
14/15
63%
63%
63%
Page 12
Page 13
CORE Mathematics
Table 4
UW-Stout
13/14
UW-Stout
14/15
National
14/15
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
15
NA
NA
NA
NA
101
200
102
156
148-170
58,241
200
100
154
136-168
WI Passing Score:
150
150
150
6/15
74/101
NA
40%
73%
59%
CORE Mathematics
Number of attempts with WI
Passing Score:
Percentage of attempts with WI
Passing Score:
*Official ETS only results report student’s highest test score. 2013-14 data is unofficial. ETS did not provide official CORE data for
this academic year. ETS no longer provides state pass rates
Table 4 continues: average percent correct (percentage of correct answers by category)
Mathematics Test
Category
Number and Quantity
Algebra and Functions
Geometry
Statistics and Probability
Points
Available
15-16
15-15
9-10
10-10
UW-Stout
National
14/14
68%
65%
57%
70%
14/15
65%
63%
51%
67%
Page 14
Page 15
CORE First Time Test Takers
Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, all teacher preparation program in the state of Wisconsin are required to report on “the passage
rate on the first attempt of students and graduates of the program on examinations administered for licensure” (Act 166, section 17).
Table 5
2013-14
CORE Test
CORE Math
CORE Writing
CORE Reading
# first time
test takers
13
11
13
# (and %)
passed
6 (46%)
5 (45%)
9 (69%)
2014-15
# first time
test takers
88
95
99
# (and %)
passed
56 (64%)
43 (45%)
69 (70%)
The Praxis Lab
The Praxis Tutor Lab employs two graduate students as Praxis Tutors. The Tutors assist undergraduate teacher education students in
their preparation for the Praxis I: CORE Academic Skills Test for Educators. Praxis Tutors assist with test registration; individual
skills development in reading, writing, and mathematics; and serve as a central CORE test resource center in order to direct students to
other on-campus or off-campus Praxis resources.
Between the academic years 2012-13 and 2013-2014, the Praxis Lab saw a steep decline in the number of visits and the number of
different students visiting this resource center. There were two primary reasons for this decline. First, the Wisconsin Department of
Public Instructions (DPI) revised their teacher licensure requirements to allow ACT scores to meet the Praxis I test requirement.
Second, the testing company “ETS” revised their Praxis I test, and through this transitional period, many students opted to hold on any
test preparation or test attempts until the test changes were fully implemented. Now that all the state policies have been fully
implemented, we anticipate that more students will begin utilizing the Praxis Lab regularly again.
While the previous years have seen slight declines in the number of students using the Praxis lab, the number of total visits and
demand for their services has remained steady. In the past, students typically met with a Praxis Tutor once or twice. However, more
recently, students are using the Praxis Lab as a space to meet regularly—sometimes on a weekly basis—over a longer period of time
to prepare for the Praxis I test.
Page 16
Table 6(a)
Praxis Lab numbers – 2014-15
Students who met Tutors having not taken a PPST test
Students seeking information about PRAXIS II
Students who changed Major after visiting the lab
Students who met Tutors having failed a PPST test
25
0
2
23
Total students who met with PRAXIS Tutors
50
Table 6(b)
Students meeting with PRAXIS Tutors after failing a PPST
test 2014-15
Met Tutor and passed next time
Met Tutor and did not pass next time
Met Tutor and have not re-taken PPST test yet
N
%
15
3
5
65%
13%
22%
Total students who met Tutors having failed a PPST test
23
100%
The ePortfolio Lab
In 2014-15 the ePortfolio Lab employed three undergraduate students as ePortfolio tutors (three in fall, two in spring). The tutors
assist teacher education students with creating and preparing their electronic portfolios for Benchmark I, II, & III. Additionally,
ePortfolio tutors make class presentations about the Chalk & Wire Portfolio System, the UW-Stout School of Education portfolio
platform.
During the 2014 fall semester there were 72 tutorial sessions provided for education students at the ePortfolio Lab.
During the 2015 spring semester there were 42 tutorial sessions provided for education students at the ePortfolio Lab
Page 17
Benchmark I Applications
Table 7
SOE
2012-13
141
2013-14
163
2014-15
156
Cleared for Benchmark I Review
101
119
103
Cleared for Benchmark I Review based on score from college entrance test
N/A
25
29
16
19
27
Denied: Low GPA
9
5
5
Denied: Insufficient credits/coursework
4
11
28
Denied: Did not receive “C” or higher in English, Speech, Intro, or Foundation of
Education courses
3
4
2
Denied: Missing background check
5
5
8
Denied: Other Reasons
6
9
N/A
Benchmark I Applications
Denied: No passing PPST/CORE score
*Individual candidates who apply multiple times during the academic year may be counted two or more times. There might also be multiple reasons for candidates not clearing for
the Benchmark I review. Some candidates might also have been cleared for BM I review based on PPST/CORE scores, even though they would have been cleared based on scores
from their college entrance test. Being cleared for Benchmark I review does not necessarily mean that a candidate completed the process.
Page 18
Benchmark I Review Results (new rubric)
The new Benchmark I rubric began in spring 2015
Table 8a
ePortfolio Review Rubric
SOE
Spring
2015
N=40
0%
100%
0%
100%
2%
98%
Foundations of Education (EDUC-326) Final
Project or Program Equivalent
Response
Deficiency
Satisfactory
Deficiency
Satisfactory
Deficiency
Satisfactory
Dispositional Review Rubric
Response
Commitment to Learning: The candidate will
demonstrate a commitment to his/her own and
his/her students’ continuous learning
Respect for Oneself and Others: The candidate
will demonstrate respect for himself/herself and
others through thoughtful and responsive
communication, showing respect and
collaboration
Commitment to Excellence: The candidate
recognizes his/her professional responsibility for
engaging in and supporting appropriate
professional practices for self and others
Deficiency
2%
Satisfactory
98%
Deficiency
2%
Satisfactory
98%
Deficiency
2%
Satisfactory
98%
Signed Statement of Values and Dispositions
Resume
Page 19
Benchmark I Review Results (old rubric)
Table 8b
Artifact Name
Signed Statement of Values and Dispositions
Resume
Philosophy Statement
Two (2) artifacts related to the subject matter the candidate will teach
SOE
Response
Incomplete
Complete
Incomplete
Complete
Incomplete
Complete
Incomplete
Complete
Spring
2012
N=74
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
Disposition Area
Response
Commitment to Learning: The candidate will demonstrate a commitment to their own and
their students continuous learning
Deficiency
0%
No Deficiency
100%
Respect for Oneself and Others: The candidate will demonstrate respect for others through
thoughtful and responsive communication, showing respect and collaboration
Deficiency
0%
No Deficiency
Deficiency
No Deficiency
100%
0%
100%
Commitment to Excellence: The candidate recognizes his/her professional responsibility for
engaging in and supporting appropriate professional practices for self and others
2012-13 2013-14
N=86
N=84
2%
0%
98%
100%
1%
0%
99%
100%
0%
1%
100%
99%
3%
6%
97%
94%
Fall
2014
N=39
0%
100%
3%
97%
0%
100%
3%
97%
1%
0%
0%
99%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
1%
99%
100%
0%
100%
100%
0%
100%
Page 20
Benchmark II: Admission into Student Teaching
Benchmark II is the second level of review of candidate’s progress in the SOE assessment system. As part of the process, faculty /staff
reviewers interview initial teacher candidates to determine whether students may proceed to the student teaching portion of their
program. The reviewers evaluate candidates’ ability to provide ePortfolio evidence of their higher level knowledge, skills, and
disposition aligned to the SOE Conceptual Framework and Standards. Candidates that successfully complete the Benchmark II review
are eligible for student teaching placement pending satisfactory completion of all required courses and evidence of passing the
PRAXIS II: Subject Assessment(s).
During the Benchmark II interview, candidates are expected to demonstrate evidence of their:
 Ability to communicate effectively.
 Ability to articulate and provide portfolio evidence of content knowledge.
 Command of the pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
 Understanding of the roles and responsibilities of a teacher.
 Proficiency in adapting instruction to meet the needs of all students.
Benchmark II Application:
Student Teacher candidates complete the Benchmark II Application two semesters prior to their student teaching term.
Benchmark II Interview:
Student Teacher candidates are eligible to interview if they have:
 Submitted a completed Benchmark II Application form.
 Earned a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75.
 Taken or registered to take the Praxis II Assessment Test.
 Completed or enrolled in Pre-Student Teaching Field Experience(s).
(Minimum grade of "C" required for Benchmark II; some program standards may be higher)
 Completed or enrolled in Education core courses.
(Minimum grade of "C" required for Benchmark II; some program standards may be higher)
Page 21
Benchmark II Prerequisite Checklist is available for students insure all requirements have been met.
 Student Teaching Placement
 Student teaching placements are coordinated for those candidates who have:
 Satisfied all Benchmark II requirements
 Passed the Benchmark II interview
 Passed the Praxis II: Subject Assessment(s)
102 undergraduate students successfully earned Benchmark II status in their majors in 2014/15.
PRAXIS II Content Test
All Wisconsin teacher education students must pass a PRAXIS II content specific test for acceptance into Benchmark II and become
eligible to student teach. No exceptions are granted by the School of Education for the PRAXIS II.
Praxis II report data is general and does not clearly differentiate among undergraduate teacher education students, graduate teacher
education students, teachers who want to add-on an additional teacher certification or the “certification only” category.
Note that the number of examinees taking a designated content test varies by content test area.
Note: The pass rate of PRAXIS II tests reported in 2014-15 was 88%.
Page 22
Business Education began new test in 2010/11, Art Education and Technology Education began new tests in 2011-2012.
Due to low n, ETS did not provide 2013/14 data on the Business Education or 2013/14 and 2014/15 data on the Marketing Education PRAXIS II tests.
Page 23
Praxis II First Time Test Takers
Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, all teacher preparation program in the state of Wisconsin are required to report on “the passage
rate on the first attempt of students and graduates of the program on examinations administered for licensure” (Act 166, section 17).
Table 9
Praxis II
Content Test
ARTED
Business Ed.
ECE
FCSE
Marketing
Ed.
Math Ed.
SCIED
SPED
TECED
Spring 2013
# first
# (and %)
time test
passed
takers
8
6 (75%)
4
4 (100%)
27
23 (85%)
5
4 (80%)
2013-14
# first
# (and
time test
%)
takers
passed
12
8 (67%)
2014-15
# first
# (and
time test
%)
takers
passed
9
7 (78%)
2
2 (100%)
7
7 (100%)
22
10
19 (86%)
9 (90%)
38
4
32 (84%)
3 (75%)
4
4 (100%)
3
3 (100%)
3
1 (33%)
2
6
9
6
2 (100%)
4 (67%)
5 (56%)
6 (100%)
3
3 (100%)
2
2 (100%)
5
17
11
3 (60%)
9 (53%)
11 (100%)
2
11
10
1 (50%)
6 (55%)
10 (100%)
Page 24
Interview Results
Table 10(a)
Benchmark II Interviews – Fall 2014
Major
Applied
Passed First
Interview
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
Math Ed.
MBE
SCIED
SPED
TECED
6
25
8
2
2
2
14
6
5
24
8
2
2
2
14
3
Passed
Second
Interview
0
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
All SOE
65
63
4
Table 10(b)
Benchmark II Interviews – Spring 2015
Major
Applied
Passed First
Interview
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
Math Ed.
MBE
SCIED
SPED
TECED
6
18
3
0
1
1
4
3
6
18
3
NA
1
1
4
1
Passed
Second
Interview
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
All SOE
36
34
1
Page 25
Table 11: Benchmark II Interview Results SOE Unit
Question
Describe your Philosophy of Education and how it has evolved
Describe what it means to be a "Reflective Practitioner"
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain you feel most
competent in
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain you have
experienced the greatest growth
Provide Portfolio evidence (signed copy of the Instructional
Technology Utilization rubric) of your competence in current
instructional technology
Response
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Not Observed
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Not Observed
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Not Observed
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Not Observed
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Not Observed
2011- 2012- 201320142008
2009
2010 2012
2013
2014
2015
N=147 N=129 N=80 N=123 N=128 N=119 N=103
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
0%
3%
36%
29%
41%
39%
39%
38%
40%
62%
69%
58%
60%
59%
62%
57%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
2%
1%
0%
1%
0%
2%
31%
22%
34%
30%
30%
24%
33%
66%
76%
64%
70%
69%
76%
65%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
2%
0%
1%
2%
0%
1%
26%
19%
31%
26%
30%
24%
27%
72%
79%
69%
73%
68%
76%
72%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
2%
2%
0%
3%
32%
26%
32%
32%
31%
31%
34%
66%
72%
68%
66%
66%
69%
63%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
NA
NA
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
NA
NA
52%
29%
26%
16%
29%
NA
NA
48%
71%
73%
84%
71%
NA
NA
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Table 11: Benchmark II Interview Results SOE Unit continued
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence that:
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Demonstrates your content knowledge
Basic
Not Observed
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Demonstrates your ability to create instructional opportunities
adapted to diverse learners
Basic
Not Observed
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Demonstrates your ability to teach effectively
Basic
Not Observed
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Demonstrates your ability to assess student learning
Basic
Not Observed
0%
11%
34%
55%
0%
18%
31%
51%
0%
10%
7%
83%
0%
17%
23%
60%
2%
14%
31%
53%
8%
8%
34%
50%
0%
3%
12%
85%
1%
17%
36%
46%
2%
27%
71%
0%
3%
40%
57%
0%
4%
25%
71%
0%
2%
41%
57%
0%
2%
30%
69%
0%
5%
35%
60%
0%
3%
34%
62%
0%
4%
40%
56%
0%
2%
34%
64%
0%
2%
43%
55%
0%
0%
44%
56%
0%
1%
45%
54%
0%
0%
25%
75%
0%
1%
43%
56%
0%
0%
42%
58%
0%
1%
35%
64%
0%
3%
45%
53%
0%
1%
41%
58%
0%
18%
50%
32%
0%
3%
31%
66%
0%
Page 27
Benchmark III: Program Completion
Benchmark III is the final review that occurs at the culmination of student teaching (clinical practice). Upon graduation most
candidates are endorsed for appropriate licensure.
98 undergraduate students graduated meeting the requirements to obtain an initial license to teach in Wisconsin.
The UW-Stout School of Education Assessment System is designed so that candidate progress is reviewed at various points.
Benchmark III is the final review that occurs at the culmination of student teaching (clinical practice). Upon completion of all degree
requirements, candidates are endorsed for appropriate licensure.
Complete the following to be cleared for Benchmark III Review:
1.
Portfolio Assessment
2.
Final student teaching (clinical practice) assessment(s) including two written observations per quarter
3.
Recommendation letter(s) from Cooperating Teacher(s)
4.
Disposition rating(s) from Cooperating Teacher(s)
5.
Instructional Technology Utilization Rubric
6.
Review of alignment summary
Student Teacher Performance Ratings
The School of Education uses Danielson’s domains and the Wisconsin Teacher Standards as components of the framework for student
teacher competency evaluations. Cooperating teachers utilize these competencies to rate student teachers on their final performance
evaluation.
Student teaching placements vary among programs. The numbers have been tabulated by averaging the scores per item per candidate
rather than on each experience.

Early Childhood Education candidates complete three student teaching placements at the preschool, kindergarten and primary
levels.

Art Education student teachers complete two nine-week student teaching placements at the elementary and secondary levels.

Family and Consumer Sciences Education, Marketing and Business Education, Science Education, and Technology Education
student teachers complete two nine-week student teaching placements at the middle school and high school levels.

Special Education candidates complete a semester long student teaching placement at either the elementary, middle or high
school level depending on their individual licensure needs.
Page 28
Table 12: Student Teacher Evaluations SOE Unit
Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient
Teachers know the subjects they are teaching
Teachers know how children grow
Teachers understand that children learn differently
Teachers know how to teach
Teachers know how to manage a classroom
Teachers communicate well
Teachers are able to plan different kinds of lessons
Teachers know how to test for student progress
Teachers are able to evaluate themselves
Teachers are connected with other teachers and the community
Teachers make effective use of instructional technologies to
enhance student learning.
2008
2009
N=135 N=152
Mean
Mean
3.71
3.80
3.61
3.73
3.68
3.76
3.61
3.78
3.54
3.71
3.61
3.71
3.64
3.80
3.65
3.65
3.69
3.80
3.68
3.64
NA
NA
SOE UNIT
201120122010 2012
2013
N=120 N=151 N=134
Mean
Mean
Mean
3.78
3.80
3.82
3.82
3.74
3.71
3.73
3.75
3.72
3.84
3.78
3.75
3.65
3.66
3.60
3.78
3.73
3.77
3.77
3.80
3.74
3.75
3.76
3.63
3.78
3.78
3.86
3.70
3.80
3.71
3.91
3.83
3.80
20132014
N=183
Mean
3.75
3.70
3.72
3.71
3.58
3.72
3.72
3.61
3.82
3.76
20142015
N=120
Mean
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.58
3.77
3.73
3.69
3.82
3.77
3.74
3.76
Page 29
Page 30
Each of the program/certification areas has been analyzed to determine patterns in student teacher competency ratings from
cooperating teachers. The highest and lowest component rating means and the Wisconsin Teacher Standards rating means for each
program for years 2012-13 through 2014-15 are displayed below.
Table 13(a): The highest teacher standard means for 2012/2013-2014/2015 are as follows:
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
9: Able to evaluate themselves
Highest mean
1: Know subjects teaching
2nd Highest Mean
6: Communicate well
3rd Highest mean
Academic
Year 20122013
3.86
3.82
3.77
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
9: Able to evaluate themselves
Highest mean
10: Connected with other teachers
2nd Highest Mean
11: Make effective use of instructional
technologies
3rd Highest mean
Academic
Year 20132014
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
3.76
9: Able to evaluate themselves
Highest mean
6: Communicate well
2nd Highest mean
3.74
10: Connected with other teachers
2nd Highest Mean
3.82
Academic
Year 20142015
3.82
3.77
3.77
Table 13(b): The lowest teacher standard means for 2012/2013-2014/2015 are as follows:
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
5: Classroom management
lowest mean
8: Know to test for student progress
2nd lowest mean
Academic
Year 20122013
3.60
3.63
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
5: Classroom management
lowest mean
8: Know to test for student progress
2nd lowest mean
Academic
Year 20132014
3.58
3.61
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
5: Classroom management
lowest mean
8: Know to test for student progress
2nd lowest mean
Academic
Year 20142015
3.58
3.69
Page 31
Interview Results
Table 14: Benchmark III Interview Results SOE Unit
Number
SOE UNIT
2011- 2012- 2013- 20142008
2009
2010 2012
2013
2014
2015
N=143 N=127 N=138 N=133 N=108 N=127 N=117
Question
Response
1
Artifacts from student teaching,
reflection ratings
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
0%
5%
39%
53%
3%
0%
2%
24%
74%
0%
0%
0%
24%
76%
0%
0%
2%
24%
74%
0%
0%
2%
23%
75%
0%
0%
2%
16%
83%
0%
0%
0%
9%
91%
0%
2
Final Student Teaching
Assessments and
Recommendations from
Cooperating Teachers
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
0%
5%
33%
62%
0%
0%
2%
24%
72%
2%
1%
1%
20%
78%
0%
0%
5%
32%
62%
0%
0%
7%
25%
68%
0%
0%
5%
19%
76%
0%
0%
1%
24%
75%
0%
Disposition ratings from student
teaching from cooperating &
University Supervisors
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
0%
3%
32%
63%
2%
0%
1%
20%
43%
36%
0%
1%
20%
76%
3%
0%
8%
23%
69%
0%
0%
6%
23%
71%
0%
0%
2%
13%
85%
0%
0%
1%
15%
85%
0%
Unsatisfactory
NA
NA
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1%
19%
77%
3%
0%
17%
82%
0%
3%
19%
79%
0%
2%
6%
92%
0%
0%
4%
96%
0%
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
0%
6%
0%
9%
0%
14%
0%
25%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
13%
81%
0%
15%
75%
1%
8%
75%
3%
5%
71%
0%
3%
96%
0%
1%
98%
0%
1%
99%
3
4
Instructional Technology
Utilization Rubric
5
Alignment Summary of artifacts
meeting all 10 Wisconsin
Teaching Standards & 4 Domains/
Components & reflections/
reflection ratings
Basic
Proficient
n/a
0%
Page 32
edTPA
The Educative Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) is an assessment that utilizes multiple measures of teaching and learning to
evaluate the performance of teacher candidates. It was developed by teachers and teacher educators at the Stanford Center for
Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE). SCALE partnered with the Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)
and Pearson to implement the edTPA on a national scale. Currently, 35 states and the District of Columbia are using the edTPA to
evaluate their teacher candidates and inform the professional practice of both teacher candidates and teacher education programs
(AACTE, 2015). According to AACTE, the edTPA is a “review of a teacher candidate’s authentic teaching materials as the
culmination of a teaching and learning process that documents and demonstrates each candidate’s ability to effectively teacher subject
matter to all students” (AACTE, 2015). The edTPA is divided into three tasks: planning, instruction, and assessment. The teacher
candidate submits materials and written commentaries to demonstrate their ability to perform each task in the context of three to five
lessons taught in the classroom. The materials submitted include lesson plans, instructional materials, planned assessments, videorecorded lessons, analysis of assessment data, and feedback to students on assessments. Fifteen rubrics are used to evaluate the
performance of the teacher candidates.
In 2012, the state of Wisconsin determined that the edTPA would be required for initial teacher licensure. Beginning in the fall of
2015, all teacher candidates in the state of Wisconsin will be required to complete an edTPA portfolio during their student teaching
experience. The 2015-2016 school year will be utilized to collect data on the performance of teacher candidates for the purposes of
establishing the passing score for the edTPA. Beginning in the fall of 2016, all teacher candidates will be required to achieve a
passing score on the edTPA to receive their initial teaching license from the state of Wisconsin.
At the University of Wisconsin-Stout, the School of Education began preparing for the implementation of the edTPA by attending
numerous state and national conferences, providing professional development for the faculty and staff in the School of Education, and
piloting the edTPA with student teachers. The piloting of the edTPA began in the spring of 2013 with one teacher candidate in Art
Education and one teacher candidate in Early Childhood Education. During the 2013-2014 school year, the edTPA was piloted with at
least one teacher candidate in all seven initial licensure programs in the School of Education. At this time, a series of student teaching
seminars were also developed to help support the teacher candidates as they completed the edTPA. During the 2014-2015 school
year, the edTPA was piloted with all teacher candidates in the seven initial licensure programs in the School of Education. Each
program selected one teacher candidate to submit their edTPA portfolio to be locally evaluated by faculty and staff in the program and
officially scored by Pearson-trained scorers. In addition, the Family and Consumer Science Education and Technology Education
programs had two additional edTPAs scored in spring 2015.
Page 33
Table 15
2014-15
edTPA Task and Rubric
Planning: Rubric 1 Planning for Understanding
Planning: Rubric 2 Planning to Support Varied Student Learning
Needs
Planning: Rubric 3 Using Knowledge of Students to Inform
Teaching and Learning
Planning: Rubric 4 Identifying and Supporting Language
Demands
Planning: Rubric 5 Planning Assessments to Monitor and Support
Student Learning
Planning Subtotal
Instruction: Rubric 6 Learning Environment
Instruction: Rubric 7 Engaging Students in Learning
Instruction: Rubric 8 Deepening Student Learning
Instruction: Rubric 9 Subject-Specific Pedagogy
Instruction: Rubric 10 Analyzing Teaching Effectiveness
Instruction Subtotal
Assessment: Rubric 11 Analysis of Student Learning
Assessment: Rubric 12 Providing Feedback to Guide Learning
Assessment: Rubric 13 Student Use of Feedback
Assessment: Rubric 14 Analyzing Students’ Language Use
Assessment: Rubric 15 Using Assessment to Inform Instruction
Assessment Subtotal
Total Score
SOE All
Programs
Average
(1-5)
WI
Average
(1-5)
National
Average
(1-5)
N=16
3.2
2.9
N=605
3.1
3.0
N=21,483
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
2.6
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.9
3.0
14.5
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.7
2.5
13.3
2.7
2.7
2.0
2.3
2.1
11.8
39.6
15.0
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
14.3
2.9
2.9
2.5
2.6
2.7
13.6
42.9
15.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.7
14.6
2.9
3.0
2.5
2.7
2.8
13.9
43.7
* Due to low N, no individual program results are listed
Page 34
The teacher candidates at UW-Stout (n= 16) have earned a mean score of 39.6 on the edTPA. This score is below state and national
averages. However, the scores on the edTPA have varied significantly by program both locally and nationally. Therefore, the mean
scores are affected by the program or licensure areas. Unfortunately, at this time, the sample sizes by program are too small to be
reported.
The UW-Stout teacher candidates scored highest in the planning task (mean = 14.5) and the lowest in the assessment task (mean =
11.8) on the edTPA, which is consistent with state and national trends. In particular, teacher candidates scored above the state and
national averages on Rubric 1 Planning for Understanding (mean = 3.2). UW-Stout teacher candidates scored lowest on Rubric 13
Student Use of Feedback, Rubric 14 Analyzing Students’ Language Use, and Rubric 15 Using Assessment to Inform Instruction.
Foundations of Reading Test (FORT)
Beginning January 2014 all graduates from the ECE, SPED, and Reading Teacher programs are required to pass the Foundations of
Reading Test to be eligible for licensure in the state of Wisconsin.
Table 16 (a)
Spring 2014
# test
# (and %)
attempts
passed
All SOE
94
72 (77%)
2014-15
# test
# (and %)
attempts
passed
124
75 (60%)
First time test takers, Table 16 (b):
Spring 2014
# first
# (and %)
time test
passed
takers
All SOE
81
63 (78%)
2014-15
# first
# (and %)
time test
passed
takers
94
62 (66%)
Page 35
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) for Exiting Student Teachers
(Ratings are on a 7 point scale with “1” indicating either strong disagreement or being very dissatisfied and “7” indicating either
strong agreement or being very satisfied)
The Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) of exiting student teachers is administered via computer at the end of student teaching
for the purpose of unit assessment. Of the 182 student teachers attempted to survey, 118 surveys were returned. This is an overall
response rate of 65%. Please note that EBI modified the factors in the 2013-2014 academic year. Historical program data can be
found in table 18.
Table 17: EBI Factor Means Highest Difference to Lowest Difference
(Rating Scale “1” disagreement/very dissatisfied –“7” strong agreement/ very satisfied)
Factor 1. Satisfaction: Quality of Instruction
Factor 2. Satisfaction: Faculty and Courses
Factor 3. Satisfaction: Classmates
Factor 4. Satisfaction: Advisor
Factor 5. Satisfaction Career Services
Factor 6. Satisfaction: Student Teaching Experience
Factor 7. Satisfaction: Diverse Experiences
Factor 8. Learning: Subject Matter, Pedagogy, Classroom Management
Factor 9. Learning: Aspects of Student Development
Factor 10. Learning: Classroom Equity and Diversity
Factor 11. Learning: Use of Technology
Factor 12. Learning: Management of Education Constituencies
Factor 13. Overall Satisfaction
Factor 14. Overall Learning
Factor 15. Overall Program Effectiveness
2013-14
2014-15
N=118/182 N=113/167
5.81
5.71
5.97
5.79
5.75
5.62
6.11
6.04
4.74
4.52
5.78
5.66
5.52
5.49
6.45
6.31
6.43
6.30
6.19
6.19
6.33
6.31
6.40
6.33
6.05
5.82
6.23
5.95
5.57
5.76
Page 36
Trend Analysis of All EBI Factors
(Rating Scale “1” disagreement/very dissatisfied –“7” strong agreement/ very satisfied)
The above graph indicates SOE teacher education candidates rate “Satisfaction: Faculty and Courses” “Satisfaction:
Classmates” and “Learning: Management of Education” as the three highest factors. Career Services is rated low, however,
the employment rate remains very high for UW-Stout Graduates.
Table 18: 2007/08-2012/13 EBI Factor Means Highest Difference to Lowest Difference
(Rating Scale “1” disagreement/very dissatisfied –“7” strong agreement/ very satisfied)
EBI Factor
Factor 1: Quality of Instruction
Factor 2: Learning Theories, Teaching Pedagogy/Techniques
Factor 3: Research Methods, Professional Development,
Societal Implications
Factor 4: Aspects of Student Development
Factor 5: Classroom Equity and Diversity
Factor 6: Management of Educational Constituencies
Factor 7: Assessment of Student Learning
Factor 8: Satisfaction with Faculty and Course
Factor 9: Administration Services
Factor 10: Support Services
Factor 11: Fellow Students in Program
Factor 12: Student Teaching Experiences
Factor 13: Career Services
Factor 14: Overall Program Effectiveness
Factor 15: Overall Learning
Factor 16: Overall Satisfaction
2007/8
4.93
5.04
2008/9
4.83
4.74
2009/10
5.09
5.22
2010/11
5.23
5.22
2011/12
5.16
5.28
2012/13
5.32
5.40
4.65
4.38
4.74
4.90
4.81
4.94
5.18
4.93
4.19
5.23
5.50
5.11
5.54
5.43
5.69
4.25
4.80
NA
NA
5.02
4.81
4.11
5.12
5.58
5.15
5.52
5.54
5.89
3.77
4.41
NA
NA
5.34
5.15
4.40
5.48
5.71
5.36
5.74
5.91
5.82
4.11
4.63
NA
NA
5.41
5.36
4.59
5.54
5.92
5.70
5.64
5.95
6.07
4.49
4.70
NA
NA
5.41
5.30
4.58
5.86
5.76
5.28
5.52
5.46
5.85
4.13
4.82
NA
NA
5.33
5.20
4.55
5.51
5.86
5.56
5.52
5.64
6.04
4.40
5.48
5.99
6.01
Page 38
Table 19: EBI SOE Specific Questions Related to Wisconsin Teacher Standards
(Rating Scale “1” disagreement/very dissatisfied to “7” strong agreement/ very satisfied)
Each EBI participating institution can add ten questions to the EBI Teacher Education Exit Assessment which are institution specific. UWStout adds ten questions closely related to the Wisconsin Teaching Standards. Those results are provided in the table below. Our questions
were updated in the 2009-2010 school year.
EBI - Institution Specific Questions
Mean Data; Scale (1-Not at all, 4-Moderately, 7-Extremely)
To what degree were you prepared to create meaningful learning experiences for
students based on your content knowledge?
To what degree were you prepared to provide instruction that fosters student learning
and intellectual, social and personal development?
To what degree were you prepared to create instructional experiences adapted for
students who learn differently?
To what degree were you prepared to use a variety of learning strategies including
the use of technology to encourage critical thinking and problem solving?
To what degree were you prepared to manage classroom behavior and create a
learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement
in learning and self-motivation?
To what degree were you prepared to use instructional technology and media to
foster active inquiry, collaboration and interaction in the classroom?
To what degree were you prepared to plan instruction based on knowledge of subject
matter, students, and the community and curriculum goals?
To what degree were you prepared to use formal and informal assessment strategies
to evaluate student progress?
To what degree were you prepared to reflect on teaching and evaluate the effects of
choices and actions on pupils, parents and others?
To what degree were you prepared to foster relationships with colleges, families and
the community to support student learning and well-being?
09/10
N=127
10/11
N=87
11/12
N=74
SOE
12/13
N=87
5.42
5.48
5.64
5.29
5.37
5.21
13/14
N=118
14/15
N=113
5.48
5.81
5.86
5.44
5.46
5.72
5.89
5.48
5.53
5.35
5.76
5.61
5.32
5.51
5.49
5.34
5.77
5.48
4.91
5.08
5.12
5.02
5.57
5.56
5.05
5.21
5.47
5.12
5.53
5.43
5.35
5.43
5.55
5.40
5.81
5.72
5.14
5.14
5.57
5.22
5.54
5.64
5.60
5.47
5.83
5.64
5.86
5.88
5.16
5.38
5.16
5.15
5.83
5.68
Page 39
Page 40
School of Education Mission and Vision
Mission
"The School of Education faculty and staff will engage in exemplary teaching, research, and service to ensure that graduates of the School
become successful professional educators."
Vision
"The School of Education faculty and staff have the vision of preparing teachers and other professional educators who are reflective
practitioners and engage in evidence-based practice."
School of Education 2015-2016 Goals
Goal 1:
The School of Education at the UW-Stout is accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). This
accreditation indicates that the School of Education has met national professional standards for the preparation of teachers. This accreditation
covers initial teacher preparation programs as well as our advanced programs leading to Department of Public Instruction certification.
The School of Education will undergo an accreditation visit in December of 2016. We are seeking accreditation under the Council for the
Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), the new national accrediting body for education programs.
CAEP standards:
1.
Content and Pedagogical Knowledge
2.
Clinical Partnerships and Practice
3.
Candidate Quality, Recruitment, and Selectivity
4.
Program Impact
5.
Provider quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement
In addition to providing data regarding each of the CAEP standards, the SOE will also address the following areas for improvement
identified in our initial site review:
1.
Review SOE program data highlighting key assessments that document the collection and analysis of data on applicant qualifications
and ongoing performance,
2.
Present the strategies employed to increase opportunities to interact with peers from diverse groups.
3.
Review the avenues open to candidates to participate in field experiences in settings with diverse populations.
Goal 2:
Continue to integrate the edTPA within the teacher preparation process.
Page 41
Goal 3:
Continue to improve the assessment process with valid and reliable measures.
Goal 4:
Pilot common professional courses by for the CTE related undergraduate programs in TECED, MBE, and FCSE, create a way to code students and a
system for the evaluation of this track.
Goal 5:
Establish a new Technology Committee for the School of Education carry on the work of the SOE Technology Task Force.
Page 42
Appendix A: Art Education
Praxis Test Code – 0134 (new test)
In the 2011-12 academic year, the Art Content Knowledge 0134 PRAXIS II test replaced the Art Content Knowledge 0133 PRAXIS II test.
The combined pen & paper/computer Art Education test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows:
Content Test from ETS
11/12
17
12/13
18
13/14
14
14/15
12
Highest Observed Score:
184
186
186
176
Lowest Observed Score:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing
Score:
142
158
150
158
135
158
142
158
12/17
16/18
11/14
11/12
71%
89%
79%
92%
Number of Examinees:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
Appendix B: Business Education
Praxis Test Code – 0101
The data below shows that Business Education candidates consistently have a close to 100% pass rate on the Business Education Test.
Combined pen & paper/computer Business Education test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows:
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
10/11
8
189
155
154
8/8
100%
11/12
14
186
150
154
13/14
93%
12/13
8
184
158
154
8/8
100%
13/14
4
NA
NA
154
NA
NA
* Due to the low number of UW-Stout completers for the 2013-14 content test, no score reports are sent from ETS.
14/15
7
195
164
154
7/7
100%
Page 43
Appendix C: Elementary Education
Praxis Test Code - 0014
Early Childhood Education candidates pass rate has increased the previous academic year. The combined pen & paper/computer Elementary
Education test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows:
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Scores:
08/09
50
191
134
147
43/50
86%
09/10
50
189
133
147
44/50
88%
10/11
50
191
134
147
44/50
88%
11/12
57
184
100
147
53/57
93%
12/13
52
183
136
147
43/52
83%
13/14
25
185
135
147
22/25
88%
14/15
41
188
142
147
39/41
95%
Appendix D: Family & Consumer Sciences Education
Praxis Test Code – 0121
The data below shows that Family Consumer Science candidates have increased the pass rate on the Family & Consumer Sciences Education
Test. Combined pen & paper/computer Family & Consumer Sciences Education test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows:
Content Test from ETS (0121)
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
08/09
18
197
151
159
15/18
83%
09/10
4
NA
NA
159
3/4
75%
10/11
13
190
144
159
12/13
92%
11/12
18
185
146
159
15/18
83%
12/13
15
183
146
159
12/15
80%
13/14
14
185
151
159
12/14
86%
14/15
7
178
163
159
7/7
100%
Page 44
Appendix E: Health Education
Praxis Test Code - 5551
In the 2013-14 academic year, the Health Education 5551 PRAXIS II test replaced the Health Education 0550/5550 PRAXIS II tests. The
Health Education PRAXIS II is only available in computer format. The UW-Stout test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows:
Content Test from ETS
13/14
14/15
5
3
Highest Observed Score:
174
NA
Lowest Observed Score:
163
NA
WI Score Needed to Pass:
151
151
Number with WI Passing Score:
5
NA
Percent with WI Passing Score:
100%
NA
Number of Examinees:
* Due to the low number of UW-Stout completers for the 2014-15 content test, no score reports are sent from ETS.
Appendix F: Marketing Education
Praxis Test Code – 0561
The new Marketing Education Praxis II test was not administered during the fall 2008 semester. ETS does not offer that test during every
testing date. The first date this test was offered during the 2008-2009 school year was in January. The combined pen & paper/computer
Marketing Education test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows:
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
08/09
19
191
145
153
17/19
89%
09/10
18
185
156
153
18/18
100%
10/11
11
191
169
153
11/11
100%
11/12
12
178
133
153
9/12
75%
12/13
10
178
140
153
6/10
60%
13/14
3
NA
NA
153
NA
NA
* Due to the low number of UW-Stout completers for the 2014-15 content test, no score reports are
sent from ETS.
14/15
4
NA
NA
153
NA
NA
Page 45
Appendix G: Middle School Subjects – Special Education
Praxis Test Code – 0146
Special Education candidates take the Middle School Subjects content test in the state of Wisconsin. The pass rate has increased since the
low of 43% in two years ago. Combined pen & paper/computer Middle School Subjects test data from the ETS institutional report is as
follows:
Content Test from ETS
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Score Needed to Pass:
Number with Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
28
181
128
146
20/28
71%
28
174
131
146
18/28
64%
24
192
130
146
20/24
83%
23
175
126
146
15/23
65%
37
176
113
146
16/37
43%
23
187
128
146
16/23
70%
16
175
132
146
13/16
81%
Appendix H: Science Education
Praxis Test Code – 0435
In the last three years, the pass rate on the PRAXIS II General Science Exam has decreased significantly. Combined pen & paper/computer
General Science test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows:
Content Test from ETS
(0435)
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
5
197
161
154
7
187
142
154
11
200
146
154
7
177
144
154
10
177
144
154
6
200
139
154
6
170
141
154
Number with WI Passing
Score:
5/5
6/7
10/11
5/7
5/10
4/6
3/6
Percent with WI Passing
Score:
100%
86%
91%
71%
50%
67%
50%
Page 46
Appendix I: Technology Education
Praxis Test Code – 0051
In the 2011-12 academic year, the Technology Education 0051 PRAXIS II test replaced the Technology Education 0050 PRAXIS II test. Data
below shows that Technology Education candidates consistently have a 100% pass rate on the Technology Education Test The combined pen
& paper/computer Art Education test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows:
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
22
200
161
159
22/22
100%
17
200
162
159
17/17
100%
12
200
167
159
12/12
100%
14
192
170
159
14/14
100%
Page 47
Appendix J: Program and Course Revision for 2014-15
Program/Course Revisions Fall 2014
Program
Change
Career and
Technical
Education and
Training
Education
CTE 312/512 Pre-Student Teaching in PK-12 CTE
Subject Area Program
Special Education
EDUC 741 Education Grant Proposal
Development
SPED 305/505 Early Childhood Inclusion of Students
with Exceptional Needs
Date of
Modification
12/04/14
Additional Information
12/04/14
Course Revision – change in
prerequisites/enrollment requirements
Course Revision – change in
prerequisites/enrollment requirements,
change in title, change in course description,
change in course content and objectives
11/20/14
New Course Proposal
Program/Course Revisions Spring 2015
Program
Change
Art Education
ARTED 308 K-12 Art Education Theory, Methods, and
Practice
Education
EDUC 336/536 Multiculturalism: Issues & Perspectives
EDUC 460/660 Teaching for Creativity and Innovation:
The Maker Culture
Date of
Additional Information
Modification
01/22/15
Course Revision – change in number of
credits, prerequisites/enrollment
requirements, course title, catalog
description, course content and course
objectives
02/11/15
Course Revision- change in catalog
description, course content , course
objectives, course evaluation, course
outline, update for race, ethnic &
global perspectives
05/21/15
New Course Proposal
Page 48
Family and
Consumer Science
Education
FCSE 201 Teaching Methods in Family and Consumer
Sciences Education
FCSE 341 Pre-student Teaching in Family and Consumer
Science Classrooms
Marketing and
Business
Education
03/26/15
03/26/15
FCSE 390 Family and Consumer Science
Curriculum and Evaluation
03/26/15
B.S. in Family and Consumer Science Education
MBE 301/501 MBE Methods and Formative Assessment
03/26/15
03/26/15
MBE 312/512 MBE Pre-Student Teaching
03/26/15
MBE 355/555 MBE Seminar
03/26/15
Course Revision – change in number of
credits, change in
prerequisites/enrollment requirements,
change in catalog description, change
in course content and course objectives
Course Revision – change in course
title, change in course description,
change in content and objectives
Course Revision – change in number of
credits, change in title, course
description, course content and course
objectives
Program Revision
Course Revision – change in number of
credits, change in
prerequisites/enrollment requirements,
change in title, catalog description,
course content and objectives
Course Revision – change in
prerequisites/enrollment requirements,
change in catalog description, change
in course content and objectives
Course Revision – change in course
number and acronym to include MBE
355/555 and FCSE 355/555, change in
course title, change in course
description and course content and
objectives
Page 49
MBE 401 Marketing Education Curriculum
03/26/15
Course Revision – change in number of
credits, change in
prerequisites/enrollment requirements,
change in catalog description and
change in course content and objectives
New Course Proposal
MBE 413/613 Advanced Business Methods
Technology
Education
03/26/15
MBE 419 Business Education Student Teaching
03/26/15
B.S. in Marketing and Business Education
TECED 206 Technology Teaching Practicum 2
03/26/15
01/22/15
Course Revision – change in number of
credits
Program Revision
New Course Proposal – to support the
content requirement for 220 licensure
Page 50