B.S. in Early Childhood Education
Assessment in Major
By Dr. Jill Klefstad, Program Director
2014-15
Submitted: October 2015
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Overview of the Program .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Interesting Facts and Figures .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Previous Goals and Evidence.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Goals for 2015-16 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test / CORE Tests ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
CORE First Time Test Takers ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
PPST Attempt/Pass Rates and First Time Test Takers ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
PPST First Time Test Takers .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
PRAXIS II: Content Test ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
PRAXIS II-ECE Content Test: First Time Test Takers.................................................................................................................................................... 12
Foundations of Reading Test (FORT) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Benchmark Reviews/Interviews ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Benchmark I Review Results Early Childhood Education ............................................................................................................................................... 13
Benchmark II Interview Results Early Childhood Education........................................................................................................................................... 16
Benchmark III Interview Results: Early Childhood Education ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Student Teaching Performance Ratings ............................................................................................................................................................................ 21
edTPA ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Educational Benchmarking Survey (EBI) (Ratings: 1-7) ................................................................................................................................................. 23
Alumni Follow-Up Survey ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies .................................................................................................................................................... 28
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program ............................................................................................................................. 28
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 1
Introduction
The University of Wisconsin-Stout School of Education (SOE) has gathered assessment data from fall semester 2003 to this current report for the
academic year 2014-15. In the School of Education, data is gathered from several sources to inform unit and program decisions. Data in this report is
used to develop Early Childhood program goals, inform curriculum changes, and enhance course delivery in order to improve early childhood teacher
education candidate’s learning and success as future teachers. This report contains data from the PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test/Core Tests,
PRAXIS II: Content Test, PPST/CORE/PRAXIS II First Time Test Takers, Foundation of Reading Test, Benchmark 1 Results including Candidate’s
Artifacts, Candidate Dispositions, Pre-Student Teaching and Student Teacher Performances, the Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI),
University Follow-up Survey as well as the most current edTPA pilot data. This report also includes goals designed by the early childhood area that
describe the way in which the assessment data will be used to set programmatic goals, improve the program, program curriculum, and delivery of
courses to ensure success of the early childhood teacher candidates.
Overview of the Program
The Early Childhood Education program continues to be the largest education program in the School of Education. There were 52 graduates in the
ECE program during 2014-2015. Three full time faculty members and four adjunct faculty members serve the needs of the ECE teacher candidates.
Teacher candidates are provided numerous opportunities for advisement and assistance in order to retain and assure successful completion of the
program. Developing open communication is critical in keeping candidates informed about the program. Friday Grams, weekly email
correspondences, and weekly office hours are available to ECE teacher candidates and serve as a primary means of delivering important
announcements and updates. Teacher candidates are strongly encouraged to attend ECE Lollapaloozas which are scheduled four hours each week on
campus. At these group meetings candidates receive advising tips, hone their leadership skills, and help build a strong ECE community.
Interesting Facts and Figures
In 2014-2015, the Early Childhood Education program consisted of a total of 254 undergraduate candidates: 98 program candidates (post Benchmark
I) and 155 pre-program candidates (pre-Benchmark I). This academic year 47 ECE candidates successfully met Benchmark I requirements, a total of
five more candidates than in 2013-2014.
Fall 2014 enrollment totals included 55 new freshman and 12 transfer students. Male candidates in ECE are considered an underrepresented population.
5.6% of the ECE student population in fall 2014 was male, an increase from 4% males the previous year.
Retention rates in the program increased slightly from (52.8%) in 2012-2013 to 53.0% in 2013-2014 despite the incoming GPA average for freshman
was lower in 2013-2014 (2.94) compared to (3.03) in 2012-2013. This slight increase could be attributed to the average ACT composite score that
remained the same (20.3) in 2013-2014 compared to (20.5) in 2014-2015 as well as the increase in student’s high school percentile rank which rose
from 57.8% in 2013-2014 to 62.5% in 2014-2015. As well, ECE faculty work very hard to identify those candidates having difficulty by filling out
Candidate of Concern forms and by identifying high risk candidates through Mapworks and the Freshman Community of Practice whereby
advisement for candidates is increased.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 2
The Student Teaching experience for ECE teacher candidate places candidates in Birth-3rd grade classrooms giving them experience with planning,
instruction and assessment at each of the following levels: Birth-4K, Kindergarten, and 1st-3rd grades. In 2014-2015, the ECE program placed and
supervised a total of 89 placements: 38 field experiences and 51 student teaching experiences. A total of fifty-two ECE candidates graduated from the
ECE program: 24 candidates in Fall 2014 and 28 candidates in Spring 2015.
Previous Goals and Evidence
2014-15 Goals
1
2
Continue to develop program requirements to align with edTPA
including:
a) Identification of embedded signature assessments in each course, b)
alignment of those assessments to the State and National Standards
and Danielson’s Domain, c) understanding edTPA rubrics used for
evaluating teacher candidates .
The edTPA was piloted with all ECE candidates in 2012-2013 school year.
Faculty will begin to analyze the data that collected to understand the
strengths and areas of improvement needed within the program in order for
teacher candidates to be successful. This fall, one ECE candidate’s work
will be submitted for national scoring and those results will be examined.
Infuse diversity into ECE program courses. Improve climate,
understanding and appreciation by infusing diversity into courses by
increasing value to individual differences (such as personality, learning
styles, life experiences, cultural affiliations, gender, and ethnicity) and
how differences can be engaged in the learning community.
Last year one of our ECE faculty was a member of the Infusing Diversity
project through NTLC. This year, another one of our faculty has joined the
group. Faculty members participate in reflective exercises that nurture
advancement in critical awareness of multicultural issues and its
educational impact upon student learning. The project will be to design
diversity-based assignments and assessment practices (fall 2014) and then
implement them in at least one of the spring 2015 courses being taught.
Faculty will share with other early childhood faculty.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Evidence towards meeting goals or rationale for abandoning:
Goal partially met
This past year, the ECE area identified which courses the embedded
signature assessments would occur. The assessments were aligned to
InTASC Standards and the edTPA rubrics.
Further work still need to be done in using the rubrics to score the
embedded assessments in the e-Portfolio system.
This goal will become a new goal for the next academic year.
Goal Met
One faculty member wrote this summary: For the Infusing Diversity
project during the year 2014-15, I assimilated the ecological paradigm with
my research to understand my personal and perceived conceptions of
diversity through a semester long assignment with candidates in my Child
Guidance course (ECE 264 section 001 and 002). I have learned that the
definition of diversity is a multi-dimensional and multi-faceted coconstruction of attitudes, beliefs, values, perceptions and judgments.
As an instructor, I have learned to reevaluate my personal values, biases
and assumptions so that I can be tolerant and accepting of differences
especially of the ones that are invisible such as intelligences, attitudes and
backgrounds. I have also gained more knowledge regarding issues that
surround diversity.
The other faculty member wrote this summary: Through the Infusing
Diversity CoP, I was able to complete a study to examine perceptions
teacher candidates maintain with regards to differences in family
Page 3
3
4
Identify courses within the ECE program that will focus more on
writing intensively using the CEHHS writing guidelines.
This goal remains a high priority for ECE faculty and in the SOE especially
due to the fact that the edTPA requires candidates to write clearly and
concisely. ECE faculty are looking at ways for ECE candidates to help one
another (peer-to-peer) with writing at daily scheduled Lollapaloozas, and to
offer workshops on Advisement Day.
This goal also supports the CEEHS goal to improve student engagement,
critical thinking, and retention through the application of evidence based
practice, increased rigor and applied learning experiences throughout the
curriculum including undergraduate and graduate student research.
Work to increase retention rates of ECE candidates.
During the Fall 2013 semester, the Program Director participated in a
Freshman Focus Initiative Study where high impact practices in the
INTRO 100 class were implemented. This fall, another ECE instructor will
participate in the second group of college instructors who will focus on
high impact practices.
The ECE Program Director also received funding for the 2014-2015 school
year and hired two male ECE candidates to continue the work begun in
2013-2014 to examine ways to retain and engage male ECE candidates.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
structures, social and cultural background and gender through reading and
discussions of multicultural books. Teacher candidates reflected in areas of
understanding impacts of diversity in teaching and gaining perspective on
what diversity is in reference to teaching. Most candidates responded with
criticism, struggling with injustices, and engaging in the perspective of the
character. Many candidates wrote about “aha moments” and experiences
related to historical perspective and hardships. This helped teacher
candidates realize the complex role of diversity and how it impacts the
teacher and students. This study and work was disseminated during a
presentation at a national conference as well as impacting future courses by
including more reading and discussions around multicultural books as part
of course assignments and assessment practices.
Goal not met
Scores on the Praxis 1 and 2 tests indicate that candidates performed the
lowest in the area of writing and Language Arts.
This goal will be revised and become a new goal.
Goal Met
Retention rates in the ECE program increased slightly from (52.8%) in 2012-2013
to 53.0% in 2013-2014. We believe that the Freshman Focus Community of
Practices using high impact practices has had an effect on our retention rates.
This goal will be revised and become a new goal
Page 4
Goals for 2015-16
2015-16 Goals
1
Work to continue to increase retention rates of ECE candidates.
Funding for the third community of practice to an ECE faculty member was granted. The practice of infusing high impact practices within the course will
be examined.
2
Increased focus on writing intensively using the CEHHS writing guidelines within each of the ECE Courses.
Praxis 1 scores were lowest in reading. The ECE faculty will identify within courses how they will infuse writing and utilize the rubric that was created
by the college. Additional assistance for writing will be explored such as the use of Cousera, workshops on writing and utilization of the writing center.
Signature Assessments
Pilot signature assessments in identified courses utilizing the scoring rubrics in the e-Portfolio system.
Test the rubrics for validity and reliability.
3
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 5
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. Also, candidates are able to 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%.
Prior to the fall 2013 semester candidates took the Pre-Professional Skills Test (PPST) that was available until the end of the 2013-14 academic year.
After 2014, candidates took the CORE Test.
64 ECE candidates attempted the CORE test in 2014-2015. This number of candidates attempting to take the CORE test was higher than in 20132104 when candidates could chose PPST or CORE. Results of the CORE test indicate that (53%) of the candidates scored highest in Reading
followed with (45%) in Math. The lowest score of (37%) in the writing portion of the test. These scores are consistent with the overall ranking scores
in the School of Education where candidates had a higher passing rate first in the area of Reading (66%) followed by Math (55%) and Writing (41%).
Teacher
Education
Program
ECE
SOE
2013-14
CORE Test
CORE Math
Math
Exemption
CORE Writing
Writing
Exemption
CORE Reading
Reading
Exemption
CORE Math
Math
Exemption
CORE Writing
Writing
Exemption
CORE Reading
Reading
Exemption
2014-15
# test
attempts
10
# (and %)
passed
2 (20%)
# test
attempts
64
# (and %)
passed
29 (45%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
3 (38%)
62
23 (37%)
1
NA
NA
NA
9
5 (56%)
59
31 (53%)
1
NA
NA
NA
15
6 (40%)
122
67 (55%)
NA
NA
1
NA
13
7 (54%)
136
56 (41%)
1
NA
1
NA
14
10 (71%)
113
75 (66%)
3
NA
NA
NA
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 6
CORE First Time Test Takers
In 2014-2015 there were 41 first time test takers. This is due in part to the emphasis directed toward encouraging candidates to register for and study
in preparation for the CORE Test and take the test early on in the program. Candidates in the Introduction to ECE course were provided with an
overview of the test, study manuals and tutorials were made available for candidate use. Information regarding hours of availability of the PRAXIS
tutors and the lab on campus was provided to candidates. This information was shared with the whole ECE community through the Friday Gram and
in advisement sessions with the candidates. Scores of first time takers show the highest percentage score in Math (56%) followed by Reading (55%)
and again, lowest in writing (46%).
Teacher
Education
Program
ECE
SOE
2013-14
CORE Test
CORE Math
CORE Writing
CORE Reading
CORE Math
CORE Writing
CORE Reading
# first time
test takers
8
7
8
13
11
13
# (and %)
passed
2 (25%)
2 (29%)
4 (50%)
6 (46%)
5 (45%)
9 (69%)
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
2014-15
# first time
test takers
41
41
47
87
92
97
# (and %)
passed
23 (56%)
19 (46%)
26 (55%)
56 (64%)
41 (45%)
68 (70%)
Page 7
PPST Attempt/Pass Rates and First Time Test Takers
Teacher
Education
Program
ECE
SOE
TOTALS
2010
PPST Test
Math
Math
Exemption
Writing
Writing
Exemption
Reading
Reading
Exemption
Math
Math
Exemption
Writing
Writing
Exemption
Reading
Reading
Exemption
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
# test
attempts
86
# (and %)
passed
64 (74%)
# test
attempts
103
# (and %)
passed
68 (66%)
# test
attempts
54
# (and %)
passed
38 (70%)
# test
attempts
25
# (and %)
passed
14 (56%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
107
58 (54%)
105
56 (53%)
80
38 (48%)
28
11 (39%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
109
57 (52%)
105
56 (53%)
74
33 (45%)
38
11 (29%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
1
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
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 8
PPST First Time Test Takers
Teacher
Education
Program
ECE
SOE
Spring 2013
PPST Test
Math
Writing
Reading
Math
Writing
Reading
# first time
test takers
29
31
28
63
65
63
# (and %)
passed
24 (83%)
16 (52%)
18 (64%)
52 (83%)
40 (62%)
40 (63%)
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
2013-14
# first time
test takers
16
14
16
56
53
56
# (and %)
passed
12 (75%)
4 (29%)
5 (31%)
48 (86%)
25 (47%)
28 (50%)
Page 9
PRAXIS II: Content Test
Candidates majoring in early childhood education must pass the Praxis II content test to be eligible for Benchmark II and to student teach. In the
State of Wisconsin, early childhood education candidates are required to take the test in the elementary category which focuses on content provided
in general education courses. There are four categories: language arts, mathematics, social studies and science.
Note: All candidates are required to pass the Praxis II prior to being admitted to student teaching as part of Benchmark II therefore the pass rate
is 100% upon Benchmark II approval.
In 2014-2015, thirty-nine ECE candidates took the PRAXIS II Content test with an 88% passing score; a 5% increase from the 2012-2013 school
year. In comparison to National Scores, ECE candidates scored 1% lower in Language Arts (75% vs. 76%), scored the same percentage in
Mathematics (73%), 2% difference in Social Studies (63% vs. 65%) and 2% higher in Science (70% vs. 68%). In comparison to scores in 2013-2014,
it shows that ECE candidates scored 4% lower in Language Arts (75% from 79%), but the percentage scores increased in all other areas:
Mathematics (70% to 73%), Science (66% to 70%) and the greatest increase in Social Studies (58% to 63%). The ECE program on this polytechnic
campus believes in hands on learning for candidates resulting in the increase in scores. The % score for Language Arts which was lower could be
attributed to the low scores of writing on Praxis 1 as well as the grammar and slang candidates use when texting and in emails.
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:
06/07
67
195
129
147
61/67
91%
07/08
68
197
132
147
48/68
71%
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
39
188
142
147
37/39
95%
Average Percent Correct (percentage of items answered correctly by category as compared to National results)
Elementary
Test Category
Points
Available
07/08
%
08/09
%
09/10 %
Language Arts
Mathematics
Social Studies
Science
29-30
29-30
26-30
30
77
71
58
67
73
66
64
65
73
66
62
70
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
UW-Stout %
10/11 (c) 11/12 (c)
%
%
74
69
58
69
73
67
58
69
12/13 (c)
%
13/14 (c)
%
14/15
%
National
14/15
%
73
67
57
70
79
70
58
66
75
73
63
70
76
73
65
68
Page 10
Percentage of Items Answered Correctly Per Category
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 11
PRAXIS II-ECE Content Test: First Time Test Takers
Beginning in the 2013-14 academic year, all teacher preparation programs in the state of Wisconsin were required to report “the passage rate on the
first attempt of students and graduates of the program on examinations administered for licensure” (Act 166, section 17). In 2013-2014 we had 22
first time test takers with 19 candidates (86%) passing. In 2014-2015, 38 candidates were first time test takers and 32 candidates passed with an 84%
rate. The Early Childhood Education program provides many opportunities for the candidates to improve their success rate through the Praxis tutor
lab, and the tutors as well as the materials that can be found on-line. Faculty are confident that our strong advisement system has been partly
responsible for candidate success.
Foundations of Reading Test (FORT)
January 2014 all ECE graduates were required to pass the Foundations of Reading Test in order to be eligible for licensure in the state of Wisconsin.
Preparations to help ECE candidates to be successful on this test and acquire licensure have been implemented in the two required reading content
courses in the program.
During the 2014-15 school year, 66 ECE candidates attempted to take the FORT test and 39(59%) passed the exam. The percentage was just slightly
lower than the all SOE passing rate of 60%. There were 49 first time test takers and 33 (67%) passed the test. That was slightly higher than SOE
passing rate for first time test takers at 66%. ECE faculty believe that this is due in part to better alignment of course content in some of the ECE
courses to the FORT test.
First time test takers:
Spring 2014
Spring 2014
2014-2015
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
ECE
53
41 (77%)
66
39 (59%)
All SOE
94
72 (77%)
124
75 (60%)
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
2014-2015
# first time
test takers
# (and %)
passed
# first time
test takers
# (and %)
passed
ECE
45
36 (80%)
49
33 (67%)
All SOE
81
63 (78%)
94
62 (66%)
Page 12
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. Sandidates 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 Review Results Early Childhood Education
Beginning Spring 2015, adjustments were made to the Benchmark I rubric.
In 2014- 2015, fifty-one of the 156 SOE candidates who applied for BM I were ECE candidates. Thirty-six ECE candidates were cleared for
Benchmark 1. Eleven of those candidates were cleared based on the score from their college entrance exam (ACT). Candidates who apply for
Benchmark I without adequate advisement sometimes fail the Benchmark. Seventeen ECE candidates were denied BM I status due to not passing
PPST/CORE test (7), low GPA (2), insufficient course work (7), or not receiving a C (1). With the previous rubric, ECE candidates were required to
submit two artifacts from general education. Despite multiple opportunities for advisement, some ECE candidates proceed to apply and are denied
acceptance because of their misunderstanding of the requirement. Advisement efforts will continue and increase before Benchmark applications are
due.
Benchmark I Applications
Benchmark I Applications
Cleared for Benchmark I Review
Cleared for Benchmark I Review based on score from college entrance
test
Denied: No passing PPST/CORE score
Denied: Low GPA
Denied: Insufficient credits/course work
Denied: Did not receive “C” or higher in English, Speech, Intro, or
Foundation of Education courses
Denied: Missing background check
Denied: Other Reasons
2012-13
61
47
ECE
2013-14
62
48
2014-15
51
36
SOE
2014-15
156
103
N/A
12
11
29
9
2
1
9
1
3
7
2
7
27
5
28
N/A
N/A
1
2
N/A
4
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
8
N/A
*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.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 13
Benchmark I Rubric Results (new rubric)
The new Benchmark I rubric began Spring 2015. Eighteen candidates applied. Candidates in ECE scored a 94% satisfactory rating. The 6%
deficiency rating was because a few candidates who applied for Benchmark 1 were unable to complete the requirements due to still being enrolled in
EDUC 326. With improved advisement regarding the new rubric, candidates will understand they can’t apply for Benchmark 1 until the course is
completed.
ePortfolio Review Rubric
ECE
Spring
2015
N=18
0%
100%
0%
100%
6%
94%
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
6%
2%
Satisfactory
94%
98%
Deficiency
6%
2%
Satisfactory
94%
98%
Deficiency
6%
2%
Satisfactory
94%
98%
Signed Statement of Values and Dispositions
Resume
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 14
Benchmark I Rubric Results (old rubric)
It is evident that the ten ECE candidates applying for Benchmark I using the old rubric in the fall of 2014
were aware of most requirements. The 7% rating in two artifacts was a result of not submitting general education artifacts as required by the ECE
program.
Artifact Name
Two (2) artifacts related to the subject matter the
candidate will teach
Response
Incomplete
Complete
Incomplete
Complete
Incomplete
Complete
Incomplete
Complete
Disposition Area
Response
Signed Statement of Values and Dispositions
Resume
Philosophy Statement
Commitment to Learning: The candidate will
Deficiency
demonstrate a commitment to their own and their
students continuous learning
No Deficiency
Respect for Oneself and Others: The candidate
Deficiency
will demonstrate respect for others through
thoughtful and responsive communication,
showing respect and collaboration
No Deficiency
Commitment to Excellence: The candidate
Deficiency
recognizes his/her professional responsibility for
engaging in and supporting appropriate
professional practices for self and others
No Deficiency
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Spring
2012
N=35
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
ECE
2012-13 2013-14
SOE
Fall
2014
N=39
0%
100%
3%
97%
0%
100%
3%
97%
N=41
5%
95%
2%
98%
0%
100%
7%
93%
N=26
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
7%
93%
Fall
2014
N=10
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
100%
98%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
2%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
98%
100%
100%
100%
Page 15
Benchmark II Interview Results Early Childhood Education
Forty-three ECE candidates participated in Benchmark II interviews during the 2014-2015 year. The rating scale includes use of the terms
unsatisfactory, emerging, basic, and n/a across the ten categories.
The ECE percentages overall, were higher when compared to candidates in SOE except in the area of demonstrating content knowledge.
When examining the percentage rate of ECE candidates who earned a Basic rating, the ECE teacher candidates consistently earned a Basic rather
than Emerging in all categories except, demonstrating content knowledge. Comparing ratings from demonstrating content knowledge from one year
to the next, candidates were rated as Emerging (36%) and Basic (64%) in 2013-14, and rated as Emerging (62%) and Basic (38%) in 2014-2015.
ECE faculty were unable to identify exactly why this rating was lower this year except for the fact that we have higher expectations for candidates to
be able to demonstrate how artifacts support their knowledge of the content. We hope to offer candidates more advisement of this process in courses
and in workshops held for Benchmark II.
Candidates received a rating of 75% or higher in the following categories: describing their Philosophy of Education, describing reflective
practitioner, describing the WI teacher standard and domain they are most competent in and have experienced the most growth, portfolio evidence
demonstrating technology, demonstrating the ability to teach effectively and to assess student learning.
.
ECE candidates scored (78%) in assessing student learning. This rating was higher than SOE (66%) and consistent with the rating from 2013-2014
(78%). While ECE faculty would like to see this rating at 100%, they believe that with the implementation of edTPA and the heightened awareness
on the part of faculty and ECE candidates of the critical role assessment plays in student learning that this rate will continue to increase. Continued
emphasis on assisting students with understanding assessment and articulating the process is mindfully being implemented into each course.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 16
Benchmark II Interview Results
2008
2009
ECE
2011- 20122010 2012 2013
N=56 N=45 N=37 N=42
Response
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
0%
Describe your Philosophy of Education and how it has
Emerging
38% 20% 36% 17%
evolved.
Basic
62% 80% 64% 83%
n/a
0%
0%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory
0%
2%
0%
0%
Emerging
39% 22% 27% 10%
Describe what it means to be a "Reflective Practitioner."
Basic
61% 76% 73% 90%
n/a
0%
0%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
0%
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain you feel
Emerging
18% 16% 27% 12%
most competent in.
Basic
82% 84% 73% 88%
n/a
0%
0%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
0%
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain you have
Emerging
21% 16% 15% 17%
experienced the greatest growth.
Basic
79% 84% 85% 83%
n/a
0%
0%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory
N/A
N/A
0%
0%
Describe and provide portfolio evidence (signed copy of
Emerging
N/A
N/A
73% 10%
the Instructional Technology Utilization Rubric) of your
Basic
N/A
N/A
27% 90%
competence in current instructional technology.
n/a
N/A
N/A
0%
0%
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence that:
Question
Demonstrates your content knowledge.
Demonstrates your ability to create instructional
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
0%
2%
11%
87%
0%
0%
0%
4%
0%
20% 100%
76%
0%
16%
0%
0%
22%
78%
0%
3%
SOE
20142015
20132014
20142015
N=51
0%
25%
75%
0%
0%
16%
84%
0%
0%
18%
82%
0%
0%
12%
88%
0%
0%
16%
84%
0%
N=36
0%
35%
65%
0%
0%
14%
86%
0%
0%
14%
86%
0%
0%
24%
76%
0%
3%
3%
95%
0%
N=43 N=103
0%
3%
0%
40%
14%
57%
86%
0%
2%
2%
21%
33%
77%
65%
0%
0%
0%
1%
23%
27%
77%
72%
0%
0%
2%
3%
21%
34%
77%
63%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
29%
98%
71%
0%
0%
0%
24%
76%
0%
0%
0%
36%
64%
0%
3%
0%
62%
38%
0%
0%
3%
45%
53%
0%
1%
Page 17
opportunities adapted to diverse learners.
Demonstrates your ability to teach effectively.
Demonstrates your ability to assess student learning.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
16%
32%
52%
0%
5%
0%
95%
0%
16%
23%
61%
7%
0%
77%
0%
0%
11%
89%
2%
13%
40%
45%
53%
47%
0%
0%
17%
83%
0%
0%
26%
74%
0%
14%
84%
0%
0%
13%
88%
0%
4%
11%
85%
0%
32%
68%
0%
0%
18%
82%
0%
0%
11%
89%
0%
29%
68%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
4%
19%
78%
0%
37%
63%
0%
0%
25%
75%
0%
3%
19%
78%
0%
41%
58%
0%
18%
50%
32%
0%
3%
31%
66%
0%
Page 18
Benchmark III Interview Results: Early Childhood Education
Benchmark III results reflect the ongoing success of the ECE program. By the time candidates reach this level in the program, they are considered
proficient. The 84% passing rate on the Praxis II Content test is a strong predictor of teacher candidate’s success in student teaching and in
Benchmark III.
When examining the rubric results candidates earned higher Proficiency ratings than Basic ratings. However, comparing ratings from 2013-2014, the
percentages decreased significantly in the following categories: Final Student Teaching Assessments and Recommendations from the cooperating
teacher (from 89% to 69%), disposition ratings from student teaching from cooperating teacher and supervisor (from 93% to 86%). With the
demands and stress placed on student teachers over the edTPA, faculty feel that this may contribute to the lower ratings. We hope as candidates
become more familiar with edTPA as it is infused in courses, the impact on students in their placements will be minimal.
Slight decrease in ratings from the artifacts and reflection ratings and instructional technology utilization rubrics indicates the need for ECE faculty to
discuss expectations of candidates to ensure that they are consistent.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 19
Benchmark III Rubric Results
2008
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.
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
2009
2010
N=57 N=41 N=51
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
0%
46% 20%
8%
51% 75% 92%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
5%
3%
0%
32% 17%
8%
63% 80% 88%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
3%
2%
35% 22% 12%
60% 61% 78%
3% 14%
8%
NA
NA
0%
NA
NA
0%
NA
NA 16%
NA
NA 80%
NA
NA
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3% 18%
11%
4%
4%
89% 90% 71%
0%
3%
7%
ECE
2011- 20122012 2013
20132014
20142015
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=45
0%
0%
2%
98%
0%
0%
0%
11%
89%
0%
0%
0%
7%
93%
0%
0%
0%
2%
98%
0%
0%
2%
0%
98%
0%
N=49 N=117
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
9%
96%
91%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
31%
24%
69%
75%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
1%
12%
15%
86%
85%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
4%
94%
96%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
100%
99%
0%
0%
N=31
0%
0%
3%
97%
0%
0%
6%
10%
84%
0%
0%
10%
16%
84%
0%
0%
0%
10%
90%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
SOE
20142015
*Includes Early Childhood: Special Education Cross-Categorical Data
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 20
Student Teaching Performance Ratings
Cooperating teachers rated teacher candidates on Wisconsin Teacher Standards at the end of each student teaching placement. The data below is
calculated by averaging each teacher candidate’s final student teaching performance ratings to come up with one final overall score for each teacher
candidate. Means are calculated on a 4-point scale where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and 4=proficient.
Data from 2014-2015 obtained from the Student Teacher Evaluations by cooperating teachers show that the mean scores of ECE teacher candidates
increased slightly in each area when comparing scores from 2013-2014. This is in stark contrast from last year where the mean scores decreased in
every area compared to the previous years scores. Also, in comparison to the mean scores in SOE, ECE candidates consistently scored slightly higher
in all areas except in “teachers know how to test for student progress” (SOE=3.69 and ECE 3.63). The greatest difference in mean scores was found
in the category, “teachers know how to manage a classroom” (SOE= 3.58 and ECE 3.64). The faculty felt that ECE candidates receive more
experience in areas of management in the courses where there are field placements and especially in the Block experience. Strategies to assess
children’s learning and manage a classroom are two areas which ECE faculty continues to focus on with teacher candidates.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 21
Student Teacher Evaluations Early Childhood Education
Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient
*Includes Early Childhood: Special Education Cross-Categorical Candidate and pre student teaching candidates.
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
N=56*
Mean
3.73
3.72
3.69
3.63
3.66
3.61
3.73
3.60
3.69
3.73
2009
N=66*
Mean
3.81
3.87
3.82
3.80
3.80
3.79
3.88
3.75
3.88
3.79
2010
N=51*
Mean
3.83
3.83
3.81
3.81
3.73
3.84
3.76
3.73
3.83
3.84
ECE
20112012
N=49*
Mean
3.73
3.77
3.77
3.72
3.64
3.72
3.80
3.77
3.74
3.85
NA
NA
3.86
3.81
20122013
N=57*
Mean
3.93
3.91
3.91
3.93
3.82
3.93
3.95
3.77
3.93
3.95
20132014
N=100
Mean
3.70
3.67
3.68
3.68
3.54
3.67
3.70
3.53
3.82
3.72
20142015
N=52
Mean
3.76
3.77
3.78
3.76
3.64
3.77
3.78
3.63
3.88
3.89
SOE
20142015
N=120
Mean
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.58
3.77
3.73
3.69
3.82
3.77
3.89
3.67
3.79
3.76
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.
There is no data at this point due to the low number of candidates who piloted the edTPA.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 22
Educational Benchmarking Survey (EBI) (Ratings: 1-7)
The Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) of exiting teacher candidates is administered via computer at the end of student teaching (final
experience) 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 2014-15 academic year. Historical program data can be found in previous years’ AIM Reports.
In the 2013-14 EBI-Institution report, scores in 13 of the 15 categories ranged above 5.5. However, scores for Factor 7, Satisfaction: Diverse
Experiences were slightly below 5.5 and Factor 5: Satisfaction Career Services was below 5.0). Greatest increase seen in Factor 15: Overall
Program Effectiveness.
The following ratings on questions showing a score of 6.0 or higher include:
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
The area, which showed the largest decrease, was Factor 14: Overall Learning. Other areas that decreased from last year include
Factor 2: Satisfaction: Faculty and Courses
Factor 3: Satisfaction: Classmates
Factor 4: Satisfaction: Advisor
Factor 6 Satisfaction: Student Teaching Experience
Factor 13: Overall Satisfaction
ECE faculty note that teacher candidates have been consumed with the edTPA process and understanding the specific components. With the
emphasis on the edTPA, candidates may have felt more stressed to be successful in their student teaching. Also, because these candidates were first
to pilot the edTPA, they were directly involved with the implementation process occurring throughout the program.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 23
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 24
EBI - Institution Specific Questions
Compared to 2013-14, overall scores decreased significantly in each category. Only a slight decrease was found in the statements: prepared to create
meaningful learning experiences for students based on your content knowledge, prepared to provide instruction that fosters student learning and
intellectual, social and personal development and prepared to use formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate student progress.
The greatest decrease was found in the following statements: prepared to use a variety of learning strategies including the use of technology to
encourage critical thinking and problem solving, prepared to reflect on teaching and evaluate the effects of choices and actions on pupils, parents and
others, and prepared to foster relationships with colleges, families and the community to support student learning and well-being. Due to the nature
of the ECE placements and the limited time in each placement, candidates do not have opportunities to work directly with families and the
community. Also, with the implementation of the edTPA, it is often difficult for candidates to reflect on learning as a whole in relation to critical
thinking. Perhaps as the edTPA components are infused in the program courses candidates will become more comfortable with the process.
The only area where ECE candidates scored slightly higher than SOE candidates was in the area of prepared to create instructional experiences
adapted for students who learn differently. We believe this is in part due to the edTPA and the focus in early childhood education to provide
experiences for all students.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 25
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=43
10/11
N=28
ECE
11/12
12/13
N=26
N=32
13/14
N=66
14/15
N=58
SOE
14/15
N=113
5.59
5.68
5.62
5.44
5.87
5.80
5.86
5.54
5.57
5.60
5.34
5.79
5.78
5.89
5.56
5.61
5.53
5.35
5.94
5.67
5.61
5.34
5.36
5.44
4.94
5.78
5.37
5.48
5.41
5.36
5.08
4.62
5.71
5.52
5.56
4.82
5.11
5.16
4.61
5.45
5.30
5.43
5.60
5.50
5.64
5.06
5.86
5.60
5.72
5.05
4.93
5.58
4.97
5.45
5.42
5.64
6.06
5.71
6.12
5.44
5.98
5.67
5.88
5.70
5.68
5.28
5.03
6.00
5.51
5.68
*Questions were updated beginning in the 2009-2010 school year
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 26
Alumni Follow-Up Survey
Graduates of teacher education programs are sent a one and five year follow up survey. UW-Stout surveys graduates every two years. Data was
examined from 2012 ECE graduates with a response rate of 41%. This was a higher response rate from candidates compared to 2010 with only a
27% response rate.
On a scale of 1-5, 72% of the candidates rated the overall effectiveness of the program as a 4 and 5. Other responses were analyzed using a 5.00
scale. Candidates responded they would attend UW-Stout again (3.80) and would enroll in the same program (3.87). Ratings from candidates of a
4.00 or higher included responses to questions about the content of the discipline (4.20), creating meaningful experiences based on content
knowledge (4.27), providing meaningful instruction that supports student learning (4.13) and for students who learn differently (4.00), the use of
strategies which promote critical thinking and problem solving (4.00) and an environment which encourages active engagement and self-motivation
(4.07).
Analysis of this data shows that candidates were pleased with their academic preparation and are confident in being able to teach young children.
Comparison by Program in the 2012 Study (2008 and 2012 graduates):
When comparing results by undergraduate program, many statistical differences were found. Table 5 focuses on differences by program on three of
the overarching questions with asterisks by means that were significant. It is clear that alumni from the ECE program were quite sure they would
enroll in the same program if they had to do it over again.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 27
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies
Data was communicated to faculty members through informal and formal means. Program faculty met during scheduled discipline area work group
meetings (DAWG) designed to support ongoing program improvement. The early childhood education faculty and staff met on a regular basis for the
purpose of improving instruction, reviewing course policies and to make recommendations to the program director related to program revisions. In
addition, the Assessment in the Major findings was shared with the program’s advisory committee, with discussion occurring at the fall meeting.
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program
The findings of the AIM process and report were analyzed and connected with specific program elements (courses, projects, assignments,
experiences) that could be seen as direct and indirect contributors to the current and future desired outcomes. Utilizing feedback from program
faculty and staff, cooperating teachers, candidates and advisory board members promotes continuous improvement in the program.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 28