B.S. in Art Education
Assessment in the Major Report
By Dr. Tami Rae Weiss, Program Director
2014-15
Submitted: October 2015
Table of Contents
Overview of the Assessment System .......................................................................................................................................................................2
Overview of the Program .........................................................................................................................................................................................2
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test/CORE Tests ............................................................................................................................................3
PRAXIS II: Content Test Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................6
PPST/CORE/PRAXIS II First Time Test Takers ....................................................................................................................................................7
PRAXIS II ................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
Benchmark Reviews/Interviews ..............................................................................................................................................................................8
Benchmark II Interview Results ............................................................................................................................................................................10
edTPA ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................14
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) .........................................................................................................................................................14
Alumni Follow-Up Survey ....................................................................................................................................................................................17
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies .........................................................................................................................................17
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program ..................................................................................................................17
Previous Goals and Evidence.................................................................................................................................................................................18
Goals for 2015-16 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................19
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 1
Overview of the Assessment System
The University of Wisconsin-Stout School of Education (SOE) has gathered assessment data from fall semester 2003 through spring,
2014. In the School of Education, data is generated from several sources to inform unit and program decisions. Data in this report is used
to develop program goals, inform curricular changes, and enhance course delivery to improve teacher education candidate learning. This
report contains data from the PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test or CORE (Core Academic Skills for Educators Test, PRAXIS II:
Content Test, Benchmark Reviews, Teacher Candidate Evaluations, the Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI), and Graduate
Follow-Up Surveys. This report also describes how assessment data is used to set programmatic goals, improve the program, inform
program curriculum, and deliver courses.
Overview of the Program
In 2014, the Art Education program, including both program and pre-program candidates, consisted of 82 undergraduate candidates, 76
females and 6 males. This was a decrease from the previous year’s 93 candidates. Minority enrollment included 3 candidates (a decrease
from 4 candidates in the previous year); new freshmen totaled 18 candidates (a decrease from 19 candidates the prior year); and transfer
students increased to 5 candidates from the previous year’s 2 transfer students. 6 candidates were a part of the honors program, and show
rates for freshmen and transfer students increased from the previous year from 62.5% (new freshmen) to 69.3% and 81.8% to 100% (new
transfers). Retention rates rose from 60% in 2012-13 to
63.2% in 2013-14. This is lower (appx. 15% lower)
than the one-year retention rates university-wide, which
were 78.9% for 2013-14.
The most recent record of average salaries (2011-12)
were $28,000, with a high salary of $32,000 and a low
salary at $24,000; however, from more recent surveys
(2014) completed by 2008 and 2012 graduates who are
currently teaching, respondents reported a range of
$34,000-$48,000, with 2012 graduates (starting
teachers) earning an average of $34,500 (note: There
was a 33% response rate out of 9 candidates surveyed in
2012).
The Art Education program had 21 graduates in 201314, a significant increase from the 15 graduates in 201213. Art Education still reports a 100% employment
rating. 2012-13 was the final year of the “old” 135Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 2
credit program, and the program revision was approved to total 120 credits in a 4-year, 8 semester degree plan, including student
teaching. 2014-15 reported Art Education candidates taking an average of 1100 credit hours total, decreasing each year (from 1261 in
13-14; 1298 in 12-13; 1539 in 11-12; and 1784 in 10-11). Data from 2013-14 for Student FTE, indicating an all-time low of 73.30
(down from 84.07 in 13-14; 86.53 in 12-13; 102.60 in 11-12; and 118.93 in 10-11).
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test/CORE Tests
All education majors must pass all three sections of the PRAXIS I: Core Academic Skills for Educators (CORE). The three sections
consist of reading, writing and mathematics. Prior to the fall 2013 semester, candidates would take the Pre-Professional Skills Test
(PPST) which was available until the end of the 2013-14 academic year. Also, candidates can meet their Benchmark I requirements
through scores on their college entrance exam. Note that the pass rates in the table reflect attempts by all candidates prior to being
formally accepted into the School of Education, all candidates are required to pass the CORE as part of Benchmark I, therefore
the pass rate of candidates accepted is 100%.
2014-15 CORE (previously PPST) percentages for passing scores decreased in the area of Math from 100% to 57%, and in Writing from
100% to 30%. Reading remained at a 100% passing rate. The number of candidates taking the test in 2014-15 increased to 6 from 2
candidates the year prior. For the Math test, Art Education candidates ranked higher, compared to the School of Education as a whole
(57% compared to 55%). For writing, AE candidates earned below the School Of Education (30% compared to 41%). 100% for Reading
earned well above the School of Education’s 66% passing rate for Reading. The CORE test was a new test for candidates, replacing the
PPST exam entirely.
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 3
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test
Teacher
Education
Program
ARTED
ARTED
SOE
TOTALS
2010
PPST Test
2011-12
# (and %)
passed
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
# test
attempts
22 (79%)
21
12 (57%)
14
11 (79%)
9
# (and
%)
passed
8 (89%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
38
20 (53%)
27
12 (44%)
21
13(62%)
15
6 (40%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
29
23 (79%)
15
12 80%)
15
11 (73%)
17
9 (53%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
198
150 (76%)
210
142 (68%)
114
86 (75%)
70
53 (76%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
213
141 (66%)
287
138 (48%)
175
95 (54%)
104
46 (44%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
1
NA
243
138 (57%)
240
135 (56%)
157
86 (55%)
109
48 (44%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
3
NA
# (and %)
passed
28
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
2013-14
# test
attempts
# test
attempts
Math
Math
Exemption
Writing
Writing
Exemption
Reading
Reading
Exemption
Math
Math
Exemption
Writing
Writing
Exemption
Reading
Reading
Exemption
2012-13
Page 4
CORE Attempts and Pass Rates
Teacher
Education
Program
2013-14
CORE Test
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
2
2 (100%)
7
4 (57%)
NA
2
NA
2 (100%)
NA
10
NA
3 (30%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
2 (100%)
6
6 (100%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
15
NA
13
6 (40%)
NA
7 (54%)
122
1
136
67 (55%)
NA
56 (41%)
1
NA
1
NA
14
10 (71%)
113
75 (66%)
3
NA
NA
NA
CORE Math
ARTED
SOE
2014-15
Math Exemption
CORE Writing
Writing
Exemption
CORE Reading
Reading
Exemption
CORE Math
Math Exemption
CORE Writing
Writing
Exemption
CORE Reading
Reading
Exemption
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 5
PRAXIS II: Content Test Summary
Note that all candidates are required to pass the Praxis II to be admitted to student teaching as part of Benchmark II. As such, the pass rate
is 100% upon Benchmark II approval. Further, ARTED candidates are required to successfully pass the Art Content Knowledge 0134
PRAXIS II exam. For the 2011-12 academic year, this test replaced the Art Content Knowledge 0133 PRAXIS II test.
For the Praxis II exam in 2014-15, UW Stout’s scores in Art Education rose to an all-time high at 90% of candidates earning passing
scores. The average percent correct for the “Art Making” section rose to 73% from 71% the year prior, slightly above the national
percentage for this category. The average percent correct for the “Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Art” section rose to 66% from
the prior year’s 65%. These percentages are consistent with the national averages.
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
17
184
142
12/13
18
186
150
13/14
14
186
135
14/15
10
176
142
158
158
158
158
12/17
16/18
11/14
9/10
71%
89%
79%
90%
Average Percent Correct (average number of items answered correctly by UW-Stout’s Art Education candidates)
UW-Stout %
National %
Art Ed Test
Points
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
14/15
Category
Available
%
(c)
(c)
%
%
%
%
Art Making
68-70
70%
71%
71%
73%
72%
Historical and
Theoretical
28-31
67%
61%
65%
66%
67%
Foundations of Art
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 6
PPST/CORE/PRAXIS II First Time Test Takers
Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, all teacher preparation programs in the state of Wisconsin were required to report on “the passing
rate on the first attempt of candidates and graduates of the program on examinations administered for licensure” (Act 166, section 17).
In 2014-15, the passing rates for Art Education candidates on their first attempt of the CORE test were 50% for Math, 25% for Writing,
and 100% for Reading, only higher in the Reading area than the School of Education’s results. The previous year (2013-14), all art
education candidates earned 100% in all three tests. For the Praxis II test, first time test takers had a 78% pass rate compared to 67%
from the previous year (bottom chart). PPST (below left) and CORE (below right).
PPST (first time test takers)
CORE (first time test takers)
Teacher
Education
Program
ARTED
SOE
Spring 2013
PPST
Test
# first
time test
takers
9
9
9
63
65
63
Math
Writing
Reading
Math
Writing
Reading
2013-14
# (and %)
passed
8 (89%)
6 (67%)
7 (78%)
52 (83%)
40 (62%)
40 (63%)
# first
time test
takers
7
7
7
56
53
56
# (and
%)
passed
7 (100%)
4 (57%)
3 (43%)
48 (86%)
25 (47%)
28 (50%)
Teacher
Education
Program
ARTED
SOE
2013-14
CORE Test
CORE Math
CORE Writing
CORE Reading
CORE Math
CORE Writing
CORE Reading
# first time
test takers
2
2
2
13
11
13
# (and %)
passed
2 (100%)
2 (100%)
2 (100%)
6 (46%)
5 (45%)
9 (69%)
2014-15
# first time
test takers
6
8
6
87
92
97
# (and %)
passed
3 (50%)
2 (25%)
6 (100%)
56 (64%)
41 (45%)
68 (70%)
PRAXIS II
Spring 2013
ARTED
Content
Test
2013-14
2014-15
# first time
test takers
# (and %)
passed
# first time
test takers
# (and %)
passed
# first time
test takers
# (and %)
passed
8
6 (75%)
12
8 (67%)
9
7 (78%)
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 7
Benchmark Reviews/Interviews
The School of Education Assessment System is designed to review candidates’ progress at three intervals during the program. Candidates
are considered pre-education majors until the candidate has passed the Benchmark I review. Benchmark I review determines a
candidate’s readiness to become a teacher candidate in the Early Childhood program. Candidates are reviewed again during the
Benchmark II interview to determine whether they are equipped to proceed to the student teaching portion of the program. Benchmark III
is completed at the end of student teaching and before a candidate is recommended for licensure.
Benchmark I Applications
Beginning Spring 2015, adjustments were made to the Benchmark I rubric. For the Benchmark I review in 2014-15, all Pre-Art
Education candidates cleared for review (N=17) passed with completed artifacts and no deficiencies in disposition. 8 students were
cleared for Benchmark I Review based on their ACT scores, as compared to one candidate in 2013-14. Two candidates were denied for
review based upon no passing PPST/CORE scores, and 1 candidate was denied for missing the background check.
Benchmark I Applications
2012-13
ARTED
2013-14
2014-15
SOE
2014-15
Benchmark I Applications
15
15
21
156
Cleared for Benchmark I Review
12
13
17
103
Cleared for Benchmark I Review based on score from college entrance test
N/A
1
8
29
Denied: No passing PPST/CORE score
N/A
2
2
27
Denied: Low GPA
1
N/A
N/A
5
Denied: Insufficient credits/coursework
1
N/A
2
28
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
1
N/A
1
8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Denied: Did not receive “C” or higher in English, Speech, Intro, or Foundation of Education
courses
Denied: Missing background check
Denied: Other Reasons
*Individual candidates who apply multiple times per academic year are counted twice or more. There might also be multiple reasons for candidates not clearing for
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 went through with it.
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 8
ARTED
Spring 2015
Benchmark I Rubric Results (new rubric)
ePortfolio Review Rubric
Signed Statement of Values and Dispositions
Resume
Foundations of Education (EDUC-326) Final Project or Program Equivalent
Dispositional Review Rubric
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
Spring
2012
Benchmark I Rubric Results (old rubric)
Artifact Name
Signed Statement of Values and Dispositions
Resume
Philosophy Statement
Two (2) artifacts related to the subject matter the candidate will teach
Response
Incomplete
Complete
Incomplete
Complete
Incomplete
Complete
Incomplete
Complete
Disposition Area
Response
Commitment to Learning: The candidate will demonstrate a commitment to
their own and their students continuous learning
Deficiency
Respect for Oneself and Others: The candidate will demonstrate respect for
others through thoughtful and responsive communication, showing respect and
collaboration
Commitment to Excellence: The candidate recognizes his/her professional
responsibility for appropriate professional practices for self and others
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Response
Deficiency
Satisfactory
Deficiency
Satisfactory
Deficiency
Satisfactory
Response
Deficiency
Satisfactory
Deficiency
Satisfactory
Deficiency
Satisfactory
No Deficiency
Deficiency
No Deficiency
Deficiency
No Deficiency
SOE
Spring 2015
N=9
0%
100%
0%
100%
%
100%
N=40
0%
100%
0%
100%
2%
98%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
2%
98%
2%
98%
2%
98%
ARTED
2012-13
2013-14
Fall
2014
SOE
Fall
2014
N=5
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
N=13
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
N=9
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
N=6
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
N=39
0%
100%
3%
97%
0%
100%
3%
97%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
100%
0%
100%
100%
0%
100%
100%
0%
100%
100%
0%
100%
Page 9
Benchmark II Interviews
Similar to prior years for Benchmark II, in 2014-15 Art Education candidates earned the highest ratings in “Describe the WI Teacher
Standard and Domain you have experienced the greatest growth.” Most candidates spoke to their strengths in their content, showing
evidence in digital art portfolios that represented the gamut of art media that they will be teaching in the K-12 system. Teacher candidates
also spoke to their increased ability to write lessons, showing evidence of lesson plans, unit plans, and curriculum maps. Teacher
candidates also started to show videos of teaching, as evidence of “effective teaching,” from their edTPA experiences in ARTED 208 and
308. Further, the addition of blogging to the practicum courses provided much evidence of reflective practice for candidates. “Basic”
scores for Art Education candidates were significantly lower than the School of Education as a whole; however, evaluators and
requirements among SOE programs may vary. No Art Education candidates earned “Unsatisfactory” ratings in 2014-15 (thus, all passed
their first attempts).
ARTED
Benchmark II Interview Results
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.
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Response
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
2008
N=9
11%
0%
89%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
11%
89%
0%
0%
0%
89%
11%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2009
N=9
0%
22%
78%
0%
0%
11%
89%
0%
0%
22%
78%
0%
0%
33%
67%
0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SOE
201120122013201420142010 2012
2013
2014
2015
2015
N=23
N=16
N=16
N=14
N=11
N=103
0%
0%
6%
0%
9%
3%
57%
44%
56%
86%
91%
40%
43%
56%
38%
14%
0%
57%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
26%
38%
50%
57%
55%
33%
74%
63%
50%
43%
45%
65%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
9%
1%
22%
31%
38%
36%
36%
27%
78%
69%
56%
64%
55%
72%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
9%
3%
22%
44%
50%
93%
64%
34%
78%
56%
44%
7%
27%
63%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
65%
50%
56%
50%
100%
29%
35%
50%
44%
50%
0%
71%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Page 10
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence that:
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
0%
Emerging
0%
11%
21%
43%
Demonstrates your content knowledge.
Basic
89%
44%
79%
57%
n/a
11%
56%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
18%
Demonstrates your ability to create
Emerging
0%
12%
27%
45%
instructional opportunities adapted to diverse
Basic
44%
44%
73%
36%
learners.
n/a
56%
44%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
25%
Emerging
0%
0%
25%
75%
Demonstrates your ability to teach effectively.
Basic
11%
11%
75%
0%
n/a
89%
89%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
9%
Emerging
0%
44%
47%
64%
Demonstrates your ability to assess student
learning.
Basic
56%
44%
53%
27%
n/a
44%
12%
0%
0%
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
63%
38%
0%
0%
71%
29%
0%
11%
89%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
85%
15%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
88%
13%
0%
11%
67%
22%
0%
0%
75%
25%
0%
3%
45%
53%
0%
1%
41%
58%
0%
18%
50%
32%
0%
3%
31%
66%
0%
Page 11
Benchmark III
Benchmark III data for 2013-14 indicates high “Proficiency” scores overall, and comparative (slightly higher) marks to that of the School
of Education. Two areas earned 100% “Proficient” responses: the “Instructional Technology Rubric” and “Alignment Summary.” There
were no “Unsatisfactory” ratings, and therefore, there was a 100% passing rate for Art Education candidates.
Benchmark III Results
Question
Artifacts from student teaching, reflection ratings.
Final Student Teaching Assessments and
Recommendations from Cooperating Teachers.
Disposition ratings from student teaching from
cooperating & University Supervisors.
Instructional Technology Utilization Rubric.
Alignment Summary of artifacts meeting all 10
Wisconsin Teaching Standards & 4 Domains/
Components & reflections/ reflection ratings.
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Response
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
2008
N=9
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
2009
N=9
0%
0%
22%
78%
0%
0%
0%
44%
56%
0%
0%
0%
44%
0%
56%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0%
0%
78%
22%
0%
2010
N=12
0%
0%
42%
58%
0%
0%
0%
8%
92%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
17%
83%
0%
0%
0%
8%
92%
0%
ARTED
2011- 20122012
2013
N=32
0%
0%
6%
94%
0%
0%
6%
25%
69%
0%
0%
9%
19%
72%
0%
0%
0%
9%
91%
0%
0%
16%
0%
84%
0%
N=11
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
18%
82%
0%
0%
0%
27%
73%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
20132014
N=15
0%
0%
13%
87%
0%
0%
7%
13%
80%
0%
0%
0%
13%
87%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
20142015
N=10
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
10%
90%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
SOE
20142015
N=117
0%
0%
9%
91%
0%
0%
1%
24%
75%
0%
0%
1%
15%
85%
0%
0%
0%
4%
96%
0%
0%
0%
1%
99%
0%
Page 12
Teacher Candidate (Student Teacher) Evaluations in Art Education
Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient
ARTED
2011201220132008
2009
2010 2012
2013
2014
N=8
N=9
N=9
N=22
N=11
N=17
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
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.
20142015
N=10
Mean
SOE
20142015
N=120
Mean
3.88
3.68
3.89
3.72
3.86
3.56
3.93
3.77
3.91
3.36
3.91
3.82
3.85
3.85
3.75
3.75
3.83
3.67
3.63
3.77
3.84
3.88
3.65
3.73
3.61
3.75
3.50
3.61
3.76
3.86
3.70
3.84
3.64
3.64
3.36
3.72
3.88
3.85
3.76
3.91
3.85
3.88
3.83
3.90
3.75
3.75
3.58
3.77
3.73
3.88
3.72
3.87
3.64
3.85
3.83
3.73
3.63
3.77
3.67
3.82
3.72
3.61
3.82
3.82
3.36
3.91
3.79
3.94
3.83
3.85
3.69
3.82
3.80
3.78
3.50
3.71
3.64
3.82
3.78
3.77
NA
NA
3.83
3.83
3.91
3.94
3.90
3.76
Teacher Candidate (Student Teacher) Evaluations in Art Education are completed by Cooperating Teachers with whom the Art
Education candidates are placed during student teaching. These evaluations are calculated 4 times per semester per student- twice by each
Cooperating Teacher; and they are an indication of how our program and candidates are succeeding, as scored by actual art teaching
professionals in the field.
Teacher candidate evaluations in 2014-15 indicate that the Art Education teacher candidates achieved at “Proficiency” on ALL items
assessing each of the ten Wisconsin Teacher Standards, scoring higher in every standard compared to the School of Education as a
whole, and in close comparison to the 2013-14 Art Education program ratings. Art Education candidates made marked improvement in
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 13
their rating for “Teachers know how to manage a classroom”, and fell slightly in the rating for “Teachers are able to evaluate
themselves.”
edTPA
The Teacher Performance Assessment or edTPA is an assessment process completed during student teaching. It is designed by educators
to answer the essential question: "Is a new teacher ready for the job?" The edTPA includes a review of teaching strategies such as lesson
plans, video clips of teaching, and assessment strategies used in teaching. The edTPA will measure the new teacher's ability to effectively
teach to all students. Starting in the 2015-16 academic year, all Wisconsin teacher candidates are required to complete the edTPA.
Passing the edTPA will be a requirement for a Wisconsin teacher license staring in 2016-17.
ARTED edTPA Pilot:
The teacher candidates in fall, 2014 and spring, 2015 for the Art Education program found much success in terms of performance on the
edTPA tasks as compared with state and national scores, and these candidates were among the highest of the School of Education scores.
The Art Education candidates found the most success with the PLANNING task, and in the areas of “engaging students in learning” and
“subject-specific pedagogy” as part of the INSTRUCTION task. Continued growth may be needed in the “Student use of feedback”
category within the ASSESSMENT task.
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI)
The Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) of exiting teacher candidates is administered via computer at the end of student teaching
for the purpose of unit assessment. EBI data cannot be published in public domains and is available for internal use only. Please note that
EBI modified the factors in the 2013-14 academic year. Historical program data can be found in previous AIM Reports.
For Educational Benchmarking Inventory, 2014-15 ratings showed plateauing scores in Art Education for the first time in approximately
five years, with scores leveling at the 5.5-6.5 scores. The past year indicated scores at an all-time high, achieving most scores over a 6.0
out of 7.0. This year (14-15) found more areas of decline, including “Overall program effectiveness,” “Aspects of student growth,”
“Satisfaction of advisor,” “Quality of Instruction,” and “Student Teaching Experience.” A couple of changes that may have impacted
these scores include the addition of the edTPA requirement and a change in University Supervisor for student teaching. Overall,
candidates indicate high satisfaction in the program across the board. See next page.
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 14
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 15
EBI - Institution Specific
For the Institution Specific Questions, there were not enough ARTED responses for the 2014-15 year. Art Education scores in 2013-14
were close to 6.0 across the board; and Art Education scores continued to average higher than the School of Education as a whole. The
highest score 6.11 was rated for the question, “To what degree were you prepared to create meaningful learning experiences for students
based on your content knowledge?” Alternately, the question, “To what degree were you prepared to reflect on teaching and evaluate the
effects of choices and actions on pupils, parents and others?” had the biggest decrease, from 6.57 to 5.86; and the lowest score was in
response to the question, “To what degree were you prepared to use formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate student
progress?” earning 5.57, still a higher score than the School of Education’s average. Overall, scores for Art Education candidates have
showed marked improvement over the years since 2009-10.
09/10
EBI - Institution Specific Questions
10/11
ARTED
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
N=8
SOE
14/15
Mean Data; Scale (1-Not at all, 4-Moderately, 7-Extremely)
N=8
N=10
N=6
N=7
N=10
N=113
To what degree were you prepared to create meaningful learning experiences for
students based on your content knowledge?
5.75
5.50
6.67
6.43
6.11
N/A
5.86
To what degree were you prepared to provide instruction that fosters student learning
and intellectual, social and personal development?
4.75
5.10
6.17
6.14
5.75
N/A
5.89
To what degree were you prepared to create instructional experiences adapted for
students who learn differently?
4.75
5.40
5.83
6.00
5.62
N/A
5.61
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?
5.00
5.20
5.33
6.29
5.88
N/A
5.48
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?
4.62
4.40
5.00
5.43
5.62
N/A
5.56
To what degree were you prepared to use instructional technology and media to
foster active inquiry, collaboration and interaction in the classroom?
4.38
5.10
5.83
5.43
5.75
N/A
5.43
To what degree were you prepared to plan instruction based on knowledge of subject
matter, students, and the community and curriculum goals?
5.25
5.10
6.33
6.57
6.00
N/A
5.72
To what degree were you prepared to use formal and informal assessment strategies
to evaluate student progress?
4.43
4.30
5.83
5.86
5.57
N/A
5.64
To what degree were you prepared to reflect on teaching and evaluate the effects of
choices and actions on pupils, parents and others?
5.12
5.50
6.17
6.57
5.86
N/A
5.88
To what degree were you prepared to foster relationships with colleges, families and
the community to support student learning and well-being?
5.00
4.70
5.00
5.43
5.71
N/A
5.68
*We updated our questions beginning in the 2009-2010 school year. Not enough ARTED responses for Institution Specific Questions were collected for
the 2014-15 year.
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 16
Alumni Follow-Up Survey
UW-Stout surveys graduates every two years. The next survey will be sent in 2014 for graduates in 2012 and 2008. The executive
summary and full report from the Alumni Follow-Up Study are online.
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies
Data will be communicated to faculty members through informal and formal means. Program faculty meet during scheduled discipline area
work group meetings (DAWG) designed to support ongoing program improvement. In addition, the AIM findings will be shared with the
Program Advisory Committee and across program vested publics including technical content instructors. Action plans resulting in desired
change will result from these advisory groups and stakeholders.
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program
The findings of the AIM process and report are analyzed and connected with specific program elements (courses, projects, assignments,
experiences) that are seen as direct and indirect contributors to the current and future desired outcomes.
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 17
Previous Goals and Evidence
2014-15 Goals
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
A course revision of ARTED 308 in Art Education.
Additional writing assignments will be required throughout the curriculum to
enhance candidates’ skills in this area. (Continued from last year) Increase
candidate participation in writing opportunities and mentorship for writing
improvement in coursework and increased passing rate for the PPST.
Additional engagement foci within ARTED courses, continuing research on High
Impact Practices. Continue to infuse the Freshman Community of Practice into
ARTED 108, utilizing the mentoring system and focusing on service learning and
collaboration.
Utilize the recruitment plan drafted for the major with the goal of increasing the
number of candidates (and retaining them) in the major. Ambassadors will continue
to present to area schools. Website will be edited to be more attractive and userfriendly. Increased number and quality of marketing strategies. Perhaps PD will have
more of a physical presence in the Art building (office).
The Program Director will seek to improve retention and grow the art education
program by implementing a Professional Learning Community through the first 2
years of the program, including ART 100 or ART 101 and a Gen. Ed (Speech).
The Program Director will work with the Student Chapter of NAEA to collaborate
with the larger community and grow CAC, and possibly other service learning
projects.
Infuse candidate research opportunities into courses, specifically ARTED 208 and
308.
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Evidence towards meeting goals or rationale for
abandoning:
COMPLETED; Course revision approved.
CORE passing rates for Writing (and Math)
continue to be an issue, despite added writing
assignments in all ARTED courses.
ABANDON goal for a new one.
COMPLETED. Mentor system being used, and
HIPs being implemented. Research paper written.
CONTINUE GOAL.
ABANDONED. Learning communities
abandoned university wide.
CONTINUE GOAL.
CONTINUE GOAL
Page 18
Goals for 2015-16
2015-16 Goals
1
2
3
4
5
6
CONTINUE GOALS # 4, 7, AND 8 ABOVE
Infuse more instruction and experience with assessment, as part of edTPA feedback.
Be more present and supportive as an advisor, especially during student teaching, to bring back high advisor satisfaction ratings.
Connect with candidates about CORE and Benchmark I support, assistance, and encouragement
Use AIM’s PAINT program to offer deepened practicum experiences and increased satisfaction and retention.
Infuse mindfulness as a means of increasing teacher candidate well-being and happiness, as well as classroom management strategies.
Art Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 19