B.S. in Family and Consumer
Sciences Education
Assessment in the Major Report
By Dr. Diane Klemme, Program Director
2014-15
Submitted: October, 2015
Table of Contents
Overview of the Assessment System .......................................................................................................................................................................1
Overview of the Program .........................................................................................................................................................................................1
CORE/PRAXIS I Tests ............................................................................................................................................................................................2
PRAXIS II: Content Test Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................4
PPST/CORE/PRAXIS II First Time Test Takers ....................................................................................................................................................7
Benchmark Process ..................................................................................................................................................................................................9
edTPA ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................16
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) .........................................................................................................................................................17
Alumni Follow-Up Survey (no new surveys – this is last years’ information) .....................................................................................................20
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies .........................................................................................................................................20
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program ..................................................................................................................20
Previous Goals and Evidence.................................................................................................................................................................................21
Improvement Goals for 2015-2016 ........................................................................................................................................................................22
Appendix A – Program Revision ...........................................................................................................................................................................22
Appendix B - Embedded Signature Assessments ..................................................................................................................................................27
Appendix C- Advisory Council Meeting Minutes .................................................................................................................................................28
Overview of the Assessment System
The University of Wisconsin-Stout School of Education (SOE) has gathered assessment data from fall semester 2003 through May 2015. In the
School of Education, data are gathered from several sources to inform unit and program decisions. Data in this report are used to develop program
goals, inform curriculum changes, and enhance course delivery in order to improve teacher education candidate learning. This report contains data
from the PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test, the Educational Core Academic Skills for Educators (CORE), PRAXIS II: Content Test,
Benchmark Interviews, Student Teacher Performances, Benchmarking Inventory (EBI), and Alumni Follow-Up Surveys. This report also describes
how assessment data are used to set programmatic goals, improve the program, program curriculum, and delivery of courses.
Overview of the Program
In 2014-15, the Family & Consumer Sciences Education program consisted of 37 undergraduate candidates; 14 candidates accepted into the School
of Education, and 23 pre-Program candidates. Of the 37 candidates, three were male, one was a minority candidate, and three candidates were in the
new distance delivery program.
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 1
Graduates of the FCSE Program included the following:
December 2014 Graduates
Katie Koehler
Cheryl Brueggen
Spring 2015 Graduates
Rebecca (Becky) Anderson
Bailey (John) Anderson* nonteaching cert
Alyssa Bytnar
Sarah Groskreutz
Kaylee Howe
Molly Hundt
Katie Ladsten
Lindsey Peterson
Courtney Samplawski
CORE/PRAXIS I Tests
Beginning this fall, all education majors are now required to pass all three sections of the Core Academic Skills for Educators (CORE) unless they
meet one of the following criteria; so the program’s academically strong candidates do not take the CORE exam.

The ACT Test: Composite Score of 23 with minimum score of 20 on English, Math, and Reading. Note: Scores must be dated within the past
five years at the time of application to teacher education.
 The SAT Test: Composite Score of 1070 with minimum score of 450 on Math and Verbal. Note: Scores must be dated within the past five
years at the time of application to teacher education.
 The GRE Revised General Test: Composite Score of 298 with minimum score of 150 on Verbal and 145 on Math. Note: Scores must be
dated within the past five years at the time of application to teacher education.
The CORE consists of three sections; reading, writing and mathematics and passing scores in Wisconsin are:
CORE Reading 156
CORE Math
150
CORE Writing 162
The School of Education provides support for these exams including: tutors, practice tests and test preparation. Information regarding services can
be found at: http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/current/praxisi.cfm.
Note that the pass rates in the tables reflect all 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%.
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 2
Teacher
Education
Program
PPST Test
Math
Math
Exemption
Writing
Writing
Exemption
Reading
Reading
Exemption
Math
Math
Exemption
Writing
Writing
Exemption
Reading
Reading
Exemption
FCSE
SOE
# test
attempts
14
2010
# (and %)
passed
12 (86%)
2011-12
# test
# (and %)
attempts
passed
15
12 (80%)
2012-13
# test
# (and %)
attempts
passed
9
6 (67%)
2013-14
# test
# (and %)
attempts
passed
7
4 (57%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
12 (63%)
22
12 (55%)
9
6 (67%)
5
4 (80%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
11 (55%)
17
11 (65%)
8
2 (25%)
10
7 (70%)
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
CORE Attempts and Pass Rates
2013-14
Teacher Education
Program
FCSE
SOE
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
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
# test attempts
2
NA
3
NA
2
1
15
NA
13
1
14
3
2014-15
# (and %)
passed
1 (50%)
NA
2 (67%)
NA
2 (100%)
NA
6 (40%)
NA
7 (54%)
NA
10 (71%)
NA
# test attempts
10
1
5
NA
5
NA
122
1
136
1
113
NA
# (and %)
passed
4 (40%)
NA
4 (80%)
NA
5 (100%)
NA
67 (55%)
NA
56 (41%)
NA
75 (66%)
NA
The “attempts” number may
represent multiple attempts by
individual(s) so one is hesitate about
drawing confident conclusions from
the data. However, the CORE math
test seems the most problematic.
The FCSE students attempts are
small so little comparison can be
drawn from the data.
Page 3
PRAXIS II: Content Test Summary
The PRAXIS II FCSE content exam was revised in September 2009 (test 121) and again in 2014 (test 122). However, the Wisconsin Department of
Public Instruction asked programs to continue having candidates take the (121) exam until August 2015. All exams are now computer based and this
year everyone will take the 122 test; 1 candidate did take the 122 in the 2014-2015. All candidates are required to pass the Praxis II to be admitted to
student teaching as part of Benchmark II so the pass rate is 100% upon Benchmark II approval.
The FCSE 2014/15 data indicates that pass rate is 100% but this is not accurate based on the second chart. I explored this discrepancy with Frode
Larson, SOE E-portfolio/assessment specialist, and he noted that ETS only takes the highest score of each individual – so that is why there is this
discrepancy. So the one hundred percent passing score is not accurate – it should be 86% - same as last year. UW Stout’s overall content scores are
comparable to the national data with the exception of the lower percentage in the housing. I do know a few candidates took the exam prior to and
during enrollment in the housing class so that may have influenced the score in this content area.
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:
Spring 2013
# first
# (and %)
time test
passed
takers
FCSE
Content
Test
5
4 (80%)
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
08/09
18
197
151
159
15/18
83%
09/10
4
NA
NA
159
3/4
75%
2013-14
# first
# (and %)
time test
passed
takers
10
9 (90%)
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%
2014-15
# first
# (and %)
time test
passed
takers
4
3 (75%)
Page 4
Average Percent Correct (as compared to national results)
FCSE Test
Category
(0121)
The Family
Human
Development
Management
Nutrition/Food
Clothing/Textiles
Housing
FCS Education
Career
&Community
UW-Stout
11/12 12/13
%
(c)
%
74
73
13/14
(c)
%
83
14/15
%
National
14/15
%
77
76
71
63
67
70
71
78
75
67
72
71
78
74
74
73
82
82
76
77
72
73
70
69
61
74
74
75
66
72
73
72
66
69
72
74
Points
Available
08/09
%
10/11
%
14-18
79
77
16-19
70
73
71
17-18
16-18
7
9-10
20-22
64
71
71
62
72
70
68
68
74
76
9-11
60
69
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 5
*2009-2010 were skipped due to low numbers of test takers. Scores are not reported if the N<5.
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 6
PPST/CORE/PRAXIS II First Time Test Takers
Beginning in the 2013-14 academic 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).
Numbers of FCSE candidates taking the PRAXIS I/ CORE are too small to draw conclusions. A cursory glance seems to suggest the FCSE
candidates do better on the CORE writing and reading sections in comparison to all SOE takers. However, the CORE math section is lower for
FCSE candidates than other SOE candidates.
.
Teacher
Education
Program
FCSE
SOE
Teacher
Education
Program
FCSE
SOE
Spring 2013
PPST Test
Math
Writing
Reading
Math
Writing
Reading
# first time
test takers
5
4
5
63
65
63
2013-14
# (and %)
passed
5 (100%)
3 (75%)
1 (20%)
52 (83%)
40 (62%)
40 (63%)
# first time
test takers
5
4
5
56
53
56
2013-14
CORE Test
CORE Math
CORE Writing
CORE Reading
CORE Math
CORE Writing
CORE Reading
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
# first time
test takers
2
2
2
13
11
13
# (and %)
passed
1 (50%)
1 (50%)
2 (100%)
6 (46%)
5 (45%)
9 (69%)
# (and %)
passed
3 (60%)
3 (75%)
4 (80%)
48 (86%)
25 (47%)
28 (50%)
2014-15
# first time
test takers
6
5
5
87
92
97
# (and %)
passed
2 (33%)
4 (80%)
5 (100%)
56 (64%)
41 (45%)
68 (70%)
Page 7
Spring 2013
# first
# (and %)
time test
passed
takers
FCSE
Content
Test
5
4 (80%)
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
2013-14
# first
# (and %)
time test
passed
takers
10
9 (90%)
2014-15
# first
# (and %)
time test
passed
takers
4
3 (75%)
Page 8
Benchmark Process
The School of Education Assessment System has been designed to review candidate progress at three intervals during the program. Candidates are
considered pre-education majors until the candidate has passed Benchmark I. Benchmark I determines a candidate’s readiness to become a teacher
candidate. Beginning Spring 2015, adjustments were made to the Benchmark I rubric. Candidates are reviewed again at Benchmark II to determine
whether they are prepared to proceed to the student teaching. Benchmark III is completed at the end of student teaching and before a candidate is
recommended for licensure.
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
201213
6
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
FCSE
201314
16
12
2
2
N/A
N/A
201415
9
4
1
2
N/A
3
SOE
201415
156
103
29
27
5
28
N/A
N/A
1
2
2
N/A
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 opted to proceed through the review process. Sometimes candidates apply
early in the program but then decide to through the process later, after completing additional classes.
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 9
Benchmark I Rubric Results (new rubric)
ePortfolio Review Rubric
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
Signed Statement of Values and Dispositions
Resume
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Satisfactory
Deficiency
Satisfactory
Deficiency
Satisfactory
FCSE
Spring
2015
N=2
0%
100%
0%
100%
%
100%
SOE
Spring
2015
N=40
0%
100%
0%
100%
2%
98%
0%
2%
100%
98%
0%
2%
100%
98%
0%
2%
100%
98%
Page 10
Benchmark I Review 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
Deficiency
demonstrate a commitment to their own and their
student’s 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
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Spring
2012
N=8
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
FCSE
2012-13 2013-14
SOE
Fall
2014
N=39
0%
100%
3%
97%
0%
100%
3%
97%
N=3
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
N=12
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
Fall
2014
N=2
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Page 11
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.
FCSE 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 2009 2010
N=14 N=11 N=4
0%
0%
0%
43% 45% 50%
57% 55% 50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 25%
21% 31%
0%
79% 69% 75%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
14%
9% 75%
86% 91% 25%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
36% 36% 75%
64% 64% 25%
0%
0%
0%
NA
NA
0
NA
NA 100%
NA
NA
0%
NA
NA
0%
FCSE
SOE
2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 20142012 2013
2014
2015
2015
N=12 N=11
N=8
N=10 N=103
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
42%
64%
38%
90%
40%
58%
36%
63%
10%
57%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
25%
55%
50%
40%
33%
75%
45%
50%
60%
65%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
33%
36%
25%
50%
27%
67%
64%
75%
50%
72%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
42%
55%
25%
40%
34%
58%
45%
75%
60%
63%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
75%
91%
75%
90%
29%
25%
9%
25%
10%
71%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Page 12
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence that:
Demonstrates your content knowledge.
Demonstrates your ability to create
instructional opportunities adapted to diverse
learners.
Demonstrates your ability to teach effectively.
Demonstrates your ability to assess student
learning.
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
0%
14%
43%
43%
0%
7%
29%
64%
0%
0%
7%
93%
0%
0%
7%
93%
0%
0%
9% 50%
9% 50%
82%
0%
0%
0%
9% 100%
18%
0%
73%
0%
0%
0%
0% 100%
18%
0%
82%
0%
0%
0%
27% 50%
9% 50%
64%
0%
0%
20%
60%
0%
0%
60%
40%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
64%
36%
0%
0%
67%
33%
0%
0%
78%
22%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
64%
36%
0%
0%
25%
75%
0%
0%
33%
67%
0%
NA
NA
NA
NA
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
30%
70%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
NA
NA
NA
NA
0%
50%
50%
0%
3%
45%
53%
0%
1%
41%
58%
0%
18%
50%
32%
0%
3%
31%
66%
0%
As a program director I participate in the interviews and FCSE candidates’ interviewing skills could be improved. I will continue efforts in the FCSE
101 class to provide additional interviewing practice and discussion.
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 13
Benchmark III Interview 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 & four
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
2008 2009 2010
N=12 N=13 N=5
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
42% 23% 80%
58% 77% 20%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
0%
17% 38% 60%
83% 54% 40%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
17%
0% 20%
83% 54% 80%
0% 46%
0%
NA
NA
0%
NA
NA
0%
NA
NA 40%
NA
NA 60%
NA
NA
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 38% 20%
17%
0%
0%
83% 62% 80%
0%
0%
0%
FCSE
SOE
2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 20142012
2013
2014
2015
2015
N=6
N=15
N=9
N=10 N=117
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
17%
27%
11%
0%
9%
83%
73%
89% 100%
91%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
1%
0%
40%
44%
50%
24%
100%
53%
56%
50%
75%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
20%
22%
40%
15%
100%
80%
78%
60%
85%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
27%
33%
10%
4%
100%
73%
67%
90%
96%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
13%
0%
0%
1%
100%
80% 100% 100%
99%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
FCSE teacher candidates generally have basic or proficient on most items. 2014-15 (n=9) results identified improvement on the technology rubric
and artifacts but slightly lower percentages on final assessment and disposition ratings.
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 14
Student Teacher Evaluations
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.
FCSE
201120122012
2013
N=6
N=15
Mean
Mean
3.75
3.60
3.58
3.60
20132014
N=8
Mean
3.58
3.63
20142015
N=10
Mean
3.55
3.50
SOE
20142015
N=120
Mean
3.75
3.75
3.60
3.40
3.47
3.53
3.71
3.67
3.29
3.42
3.50
3.55
3.05
3.35
3.75
3.75
3.58
3.77
3.75
3.67
3.67
3.40
3.73
3.40
3.70
3.67
3.50
3.40
3.80
3.67
3.63
3.60
3.40
3.69
3.82
3.46
3.40
3.83
3.20
3.54
3.20
3.77
NA
4.00
3.75
3.73
3.67
3.50
3.76
2008
N=10
Mean
3.90
3.86
2009
N=13
Mean
3.66
3.73
2010
N=6
Mean
3.70
3.90
3.86
3.62
3.46
3.67
3.69
3.59
3.45
3.62
3.50
3.80
3.30
3.60
3.75
3.75
3.58
3.58
3.67
3.77
3.60
3.83
3.73
3.68
3.74
3.71
NA
I’m somewhat disappointed with the lower ratings but not necessarily surprised. Several teacher candidates’ supervisors commented that the student
teacher assessment (edTPA) shifted the teacher candidates’ focus and that seems to be reflected in these scores. My challenge is to make the edTPA
less of a focus and convey the importance of have a well-rounded experience that focuses on the 10 teaching standards.
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 15
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.
In 2014-15, the FCSE program had four candidates submit their edTPA for national review. No data was generated because of the low number of
candidates and because there is no passing score identified for WI it is somewhat difficult to determine how successful the candidates were.
However three of the four candidates had passing scores over 41; national passing rates range from 35 in Georgia, Illinois and Washington to 41 in
California, Iowa and New York.
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 16
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI)
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 2013-14 academic year. Historical program data can be found in previous year’s AIM Reports.
The 2014-15 data sample was nine out a possible 10. Overall candidates seems to be satisfied with their experience at UW-Stout; Factor 5.
“Satisfaction with career services” was the only factor that received a rating below 6 (7 point scale). The institution specific questions addressed by
the FCSE candidates generated higher overall higher averages than the overall SOE scores. The two areas that generated the lowest scores included
utilizing technology and classroom management.
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 17
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 18
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 selfmotivation?
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?
FCSE
11/12 12/13
N=4
N=11
13/14
N=4
14/15
N=9
SOE
14/15
N=113
5.36
na
6.25
5.86
na
5.36
na
6.38
5.89
na
na
5.27
na
6.12
5.61
5.70
na
na
5.45
na
6.00
5.48
4.40
na
na
4.45
na
5.75
5.56
5.60
na
na
5.27
na
5.50
5.43
5.10
na
na
5.30
na
6.00
5.72
5.20
na
na
4.91
na
6.00
5.64
5.10
na
na
5.64
na
6.62
5.88
5.10
na
na
4.73
na
6.38
5.68
09/10
N=10
10/11
N=0
5.20
na
na
5.10
na
4.90
*We updated our questions beginning in the 2009-2010 school year.
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 19
Alumni Follow-Up Survey (no new surveys – this is last years’ information)
The Alumni follow-up surveys are at one-year and five-year intervals and implemented every two years. The 2013 surveys were sent to graduates from
2012 and 2008. The sample numbers are typically not large and the employer data typically includes very few responses. FCSE response rate for the
five-year (2008) included six individuals, the one-year (2012) has four respondents. No employers responded. The small sample size limits drawing
confident conclusions from the surveys.
Of the six alumni from 2008, 4 are full time teachers, 1 extension education and 1 did not respond; the majority would re-attend UW-Stout and select
the same major. Low responses and a candidate comment suggested the general education did not meet candidate’s expectations. A recent program
revision included food science as part of the general education requirement in the hope to make the coursework align more with program content.
One respondent wrote in the additional comment section “Awesome school and program! Instructors and staff were helpful and you could really tell
really cared about their students.”
Of the four 2012 respondents (3 full time teachers and 1 long term substitute), all would definitely select the same program. One respondent wrote in
the additional comment section “Great experience and great school! I try and promote it as much as possible.”
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies
Data will be communicated to faculty members through informal and formal means. The AIM findings will be shared with the Program Advisory
Committee and across programs including technical content chairs and instructors. Action plans resulting in desired change will result from 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.
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 20
Previous Goals and Evidence
1
2014-15 Goals
Monitor and revise distance delivery option.
2
Increase enrollment in FCSE program.
3
Continue preparing candidates for the edTPA.
4
Enjoy my spring sabbatical.
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Evidence towards meeting goals or rationale for abandoning:
The distance delivery option has had a slow start-up but now seeing more
inquiries and a slight increase in enrollment. Some work has been done on
the web site to better explain the program but I continue to receive many
requests from individuals across the country wanting to enroll. The
program is intended for candidates in WI & MN due to the Department of
Public Instruction supervision requirements. A student worker was hired to
assist with providing information about technical colleges offering and
monitoring candidate progress This goal is being continued.
The FCSE program continues to have stagnant enrollment. To address the
low number of candidates in classes a program revision (Appendix A) was
done in collaboration with the marketing and business program to offer a
joint teaching methods, pre-student teaching, curriculum and assessment,
and classroom management courses. The FCSE candidates consistently
rate classroom management as an area they would like more information.
Hopefully this course will address this need. Will continue this goal.
The School of Education adopted an embedded signature assessment
requirements (Appendix B) to assist candidates with the tasks required in
the edTPA. Candidates will create an artifact in designated classes for their
eportfolio review. Candidates are required to obtain a specific score on
each assessment in order to move through the SOE Benchmark process.
This academic year all teacher candidates will be required to submit an
edTPA. Student teaching seminars will continue to assist candidates with
the process. Will continue this goal.
My monograph is with the editor and hoping to complete edits this fall.
I did have the opportunity to do some travel. Goal will be abandoned..
Page 21
Improvement Goals for 2015-2016
1
2
3
2015-16 Goals
Action to be taken
Monitor distance delivery
program and on-campus
program revisions
Continue efforts to increase
enrollment
Review and revise distance delivery program information to provide clarity.
Review the new on-campus program to see if it meeting the needs of candidates.
Continue work with edTPA
Review the scores from the embedded signature assessments to determine gaps.
Continue work at student teaching seminars and review national scores for areas that need improvement.
Last spring I did not do recruiting at the WI and MN FCCLA state conferences and I need to do this to
increase the visibility of the program. I also need to revise my Hobson email blasts.
Appendix A – Program Revision
Title: Family and Consumer Sciences Education Program Revision
Proposed Implementation/Catalog Year: Fall 2015
Existing Program (120 credits)
Proposed Action
I. General Education (45 credits)
A. Communication Skills (9 credits)
SPCOM 100 Fundamentals of Speech (3)
No change
ENGL 101 Freshmen English: Comp (3)
No change
ENGL 102 Freshmen: English Reading (3)
No change
OR
ENGL 111 Freshman English: Honors (3)
No change
ENGL 112 Freshman English: Honors (3)
No change
Revised Program (120 credits)
I. General Education (40 credits)
A. Communication Skills (9 credits)
*SPCOM 100 Fundamentals of Speech (3)
*ENGL 101 Freshmen English: Comp (3)
*ENGL 102 Freshmen: English Reading (3)
OR
*ENGL 111 Freshman English: Honors (3)
*ENGL 112 Freshman English: Honors (3)
B. Analytic Reasoning and Natural
Sciences (11 credits)
XXX-XXX Any approved analytic reasoning
course
B. Analytic Reasoning and Natural
Sciences (10 credits)
XXX-XXX Any approved analytic reasoning
course.
BIO 132 Human Biology (4) life science w/lab
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
No change
No change
BIO 132 Human Biology (4)
Page 22
FN 123 Science of Food (2) physical science
C. Arts and Humanities (6 credits) see
note^
Need courses in 3 or more areas
LIT- xxx any lit course (1-3)
XXX-XXX Any Fine Arts Course (1-3)
XXX-XXX Any Humanities Course (1-3)
^HIST 210 Modern World (GLP) or ANTH
220 Cultural Anthropology (GLP) to meet
teaching license requirements
D. Social and Behavioral Sciences (6
credits)
No change
FN 123 Science of Food (2)
C. Arts and Humanities (6 credits) see
note^
No change
No change
No change
Any approved lit course (1-3 credits )
XXX-XXX Any Fine Arts Course (1-3)
XXX-XXX Any Humanities Course (1-3)
HIST 210 Modern World (GLP) or ANTH 220
Cultural Anthropology (GLP) to meet teaching
license requirements
D. Social and Behavior Sciences (6 credits)
ECON 201 General Economics (3)
OR ECON 210 Principles of Economics (3)
No change
No change
PSYC 110 General Psychology (3)
No change
ECON 201 General Economics (3) (GLP)
OR ECON 210 Principles of Economics (3)
(GLP)
PSYC 110 General Psychology (3)
No change
E. Contemporary Issues (3 credits ) see
note^^
Any contemporary issues course (3 credits)
E. Contemporary Issues (3 credits)see
note^^
Any contemporary issues course (3 credits)
F. Social Responsibility and Ethical
Reasoning (3 credits)see note^^
Any approved social responsibility and ethical
reasoning course
^^EDUC 330/530 Multiculturalism: Dialogue
and Field Experience will count in either the E
or F category. Required for program (RESA 3
credits)
G. Selectives (3 credits)
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
No change
F. Social Responsibility and Ethical
Reasoning (3 credits)
Any approved social responsibility and ethical
reasoning course
^^EDUC 330/530 Multiculturalism: Dialogue
and Field Experience will count in either the E
or F category. Required for program (RSBA 3
credits)
G. Selectives 3 credits
Page 23
Any course from categories A (foreign
language only)B, C, D, E, F to meet the 40
credit requirement
II. Content Core (38 credits)
APRL 140 Textiles (3)
APRL 166 Apparel Construction (3)
FN 102 Nutrition of Health Living (2)
FN 105 Food Service Sanitation (1)
FN 214 Art and Science of Food (3)
FCSE 385 Family Housing (3)
FCSE 380 Consumer Economics (3)
(prereq Econ 201 or 210)
HDFS 124 Human Development: EC (3)
HDFS 215 Dynamics of Family (3)
HDFS 313 Parent Education Involvement (2)
HDFS 365 Family Resource Management (3)
Selectives (9 credits)
Any course in APRL, FN, HDFS or HlthEd
III.
FCSE and Professional Education
(42 credits)
*FCSE 101 Intro to FCSE (2) or CTE Core
Distance Delivery Program (see below)
*FCSE 201 Teaching Methods in FCSE (3)
OR
*CTE 405 Methods of Teaching in CTE (3)
*EDUC 326 Foundation of Education (2) or
CTE Core Distance Delivery Program CTE
core
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Any course from categories A (foreign language
only), B, C, D, E, F to meet the 40 credit
requirement
CHANGE – credits in selectives
reduced due to course credit
revision in Professional Ed core
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
CHANGE - reduce credits
CHANGE – course credits changes
require a change in credits
No change
No change – will be dual listed with
MBE program
No change
II.
Content Core (35-36 credits)
APRL 140 Textiles (3)
APRL 166 Apparel Construction (3)
FN 102 Nutrition of Health Living (2)
FN 105 Food Service Sanitation (1)
FN 214 Art and Science of Food (3)
FCSE 385 Family Housing (3)
FCSE 380 Consumer Economics (3)
(prereq Econ 201 or 210)
HDFS 124 Human Development: EC (3)
HDFS 215 Dynamics of Family (3) (RESB 3
credits)
HDFS 313 Parent Education Involvement (2)
HDFS 365 Family Resource Management (3)
Selectives (6-7 credits)
Any course in APRL, FN, HDFS or HlthEd
III.FCSE and Professional Education
(44-45 credits)
FCSE 101 Intro to FCSE (2) or CTE Core
Distance Delivery Program(see below)
*FCSE 201 Teaching Methods in FCSE (3)
OR
*CTE 405 Methods of Teaching in CTE (3)
*EDUC 326 Foundations of Education (2) or
CTE Core Distance Delivery Program CTE core
Page 24
*EDUC 303 Educational Psychology (3)
No change
*EDUC 303 Educational Psychology (3)
*#EDUC 415 Classroom Management (2)
Change ADD MBE 355 (3 credits)
(dual listed as FCSE 355) for oncampus program MBE going
through course revision
*#EDUC 415 Classroom Management (2)
Core Distance Delivery Program CTE core
OR
*FCSE 355 (3) (Title change with revisionSeminar: Emerging Practices and Classroom
Management)
*SPED 430 Inclusion (3)
*CTE 302 Principles of Career & Tech Ed (23)
*CTE 360 Coop Occupational Ed Programs (23)
*#RDGED 382 Content Area Reading (prereq
EDUC 303) (2)
*#FCSE 341 Pre-student Teaching in FCSE
classrooms (1)
*#FCSE 390 Curriculum and Evaluation (4)
OR
*#CTE 438 Course Construction in CTE (3)
AND
*#CTE 440 Instructional Evaluation in CTE (3)
No change
No change
*SPED 430 Inclusion (3)
*CTE 302 Principles of Career & Tech Ed (2-3)
Change course changed to 3 credits
*CTE 360 Coop Occupational Ed Programs (3)
No change
*#RDGED 382 Content Area Reading (2)
Prereq EDUC 303)
*#FCSE 341 FCSE Pre-student Teaching (1)
*#FCSE 448 Student Teaching in FCSE (16)
No change
No change – will be dual listed with
MBE program
Change FCSE 390 Curriculum and
Add CTE 440 (2 credit option) will
be dual listed with MBE program
*#FCSE 390 Curriculum (2) AND CTE 440
Instructional Evaluation(2 credit option)
OR
*#CTE 438 Course Construction in CTE (3) AND
*#CTE 440 Instructional Evaluation in CTE (3)
#FCSE 448 Student Teaching in FCSE (16)
*must have a C or better in the course
#must be accepted into the School of Education
CTE CORE distance delivery classes/credit
*CTE 302
3 credit option
*CTE 360
3 credit option
*CTE 405
3 credits
*#CTE 438 3 credits
*#CTE 440 3 credits
*#EDUC 415 2 credits
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 25
Total
17 credits
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 26
Appendix B - Embedded Signature Assessments
Embedded Signature Assessments
Context for Learning: Multiculturalism
(InTASC Standard 2 & 10; edTPA Rubric 2, 3; Planning and Preparation): Provide
information about a teaching context so that another educator can understand the
setting, learners, and resources for planning purposes. Demonstrate the ability to
support varied student learning needs.
Context for Learning: Inclusion
(InTASC Standard 1 & 2; edTPA Rubric 2, 3; Planning and Preparation): Provide
information about a teaching context so that another educator can understand the
setting, learners, and resources for planning purposes. Demonstrate the ability to
support varied student learning needs.
Identifying and Supporting Language Demands
(InTASC Standard 4; edTPA Rubric 4; Planning and Preparation): Plan for and
reflect on academic language development and appropriate supports.
Planning for Learning and Assessment
(InTASC Standards 5 & 7; edTPA Rubrics 1-5; Planning and Preparation): Provide
an example where you’re planning provides clear learning objectives and aligned
instructional supports and assessments.
Learning Environment
(InTASC Standard 3; edTPA Rubric 7; Classroom Environment): Demonstrate how
you will create a positive environment that supports student learning.
Engaging Students in Learning
(InTASC Standards 8 & 9; edTPA Rubrics 6-10; Instruction): Demonstrate your
ability to engage learners and deepen understanding.
Using Assessment to Improve Learning
(InTASC Standards 6 & 9; edTPA Rubrics 11-15; Professional Responsibilities):
Provide evidence that you use assessment to evaluate student performance and
make instructional decisions that improve student learning.
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Course(s)
EDUC-330 SP & FA Multiculturalism
Virginia Lea
SPED-430/630 SP & FA Inclusion
Lama Bergstrand-Othman
Vicki Dowell
Ruth Nyland
Reading-382/582 SP & FA
Kimberly Martinez
Alan Block
Reading-414/614 SP & FA
Kimberly Martinez
ARTED-208 SP only TBD
ECE-415 SP & FA Melody Brennan
CTE-405 (Distance Ed: MBE, TE,FCSE) SP only TBD
FCSE-201 / MBE-301 FA only Halama
MathED-365 Winterm TBD
SPED-430 SP & FA Lama Bergstrand-Othman
STMED-460 FA only Kenneth Welty
ECE-426 SP & FA Melody Brennan
EDUC-415 (ARTED, SPED) SP & FA Lama Bergstrand-Othman
MBE/FCSE-355 SP only Debbie Stanislawski
STMED-390 FA only Kevin Mason
ARTED-308 FA only Ann Oberding
ECE-411 SP & FA Jill Klefstad
CTE-405 (Distance Ed: MBE, TE,FCSE) SP only TBD
FCSE-201 / MBE-301 FA only Halama
MathED-365 Keith Wojciechowsk
SPED-440 SP only TBD
STMED-460 FA only Kenneth Welty
ARTED-308 SP only Ann Oberding
ECE-313 SP & FA Kimberly Martinez
CTE-440 (MBE/FCSE and Distance Ed: MBE, TE, FCSE) SP only TBD
SPED-322 SP TBD
STMED-260 SP only David Stricker
Page 27
Appendix C- Advisory Council Meeting Minutes
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 28
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 29
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 30
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 31
University of Wisconsin-Stout
Advisory Board Meeting
Wednesday, April 15th, 2015
Memorial Student Center Oakwood
Marketing and Business
Education
Family and Consumer
Sciences Education
Together, embracing broader stakeholder perspectives and
input to better understand current and future needs, trends
and opportunities impacting secondary level teacher
preparation for Business Education, Family and Consumer
Sciences Education, Marketing Education, and Technology
Education (Stout’s PK-12 CTE Subject Programs).
Agenda:
1. (10:30 to 11:15 AM) Common FSCE and MBE Session, Oakwood Room
a. Call to order
b. Introductions
c. Curriculum Revisions (Curriculum, Methods, Assessment, and Class and Lab Management)
d. Program Revision MBE (ME, BE & ME with BE) & FCSE
e. DPI Update (David Thomas)
2. (11:15 to 12:00) Breakout (FCSE, MBE Oakwood)
b. MBE Program Self-study (Upcoming PRC)
i. Stakeholder Surveys
What?
ii. Maximizing Response Rates So What?
c. Professional Student Org Updates) Now What?
3. (12:00PM to 12:30) Lunch (Provided) Oakwood Room
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 32
4. (12:30 to 1:15 PM) Common Meeting, Oakwood Room
a. Distance Delivery Program Supply and Demand
b. Lessons Learned to Date
c. Building the critical connections to increase access to Technical Course Access
d. Next Steps
5. (1:15 PM) Adjourn
MBE/ FCSE Advisory Meeting Minutes
Call to Order- 10:42am
Approval to move those minutes: Debbie Stanislawski
Carol Mooney Seconds
Sue Halama calls to make a correction of the date\
Mary Hopkins-Best correction to technical college
Minutes approved at 10:50am
Minutes
a) Introductions
b) Curriculum Revisions (Curriculum, Methods, Assessment, and Class and Lab Management)
c) Program Revision MBE (ME, BE & ME with BE) & FCSE
d) DPI Update (David Thomas)
Statement of the issues:
Urs: What is it that you want answered?
Access to engaging young people who have the potential to become teachers.
Urs Haltinner
Things that we have done:
Anticipation of Students Growth
 MBE is up 47 students this year with distance delivery losing a lot of individuals to Norta.
 Discussion on Norta concerns
Questions/ Concerns:
Bert: Is there any analysis of where these students come from?
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 33
No further concerns on the anticipation of student growth.
Sustainability of Courses
Urs’s Students
 Sustainability
 Making the core classes available to all students in the FCSE, ME, BE, TECE will allow for these classes to be offered every
year.
 Entrepreneur element added to the program
 Opportunity to work with PBIS and RTI seminar course
 Understanding the Distance Delivery
 Unintended outcome will be a better working relationship between teachers in the workforce
Questions/ Concerns:
Carol: With having the classes laid out in this new way will it allow for the core classes to be offered every year instead of every three years?
Debbie: By breaking classes apart there is an availability for different professors to teach those classes and for students to get a crossover of facility.
Mary: She would enjoy hearing from the teachers who are here; listening to the pros and cons of the teachers who are here.
Katelyn (Stevens Point): The classes were more generalized for educators not specific to FSCE or ME, BE, MEBE.
Sue: CVTC is there a dual credit or transcript credit that a high school student get a financial consumer credit at a local technical college?
May be an area of growth out there.
Students: There will still be a focus on the content core but new ideas will be able to be shared between FSCE and MBE. Being able to see the
overlap.
Sue: Business marketing teacher and herself (FSCE) work together very closely and especially when dealing with students in work based learning.
It would be great to have the emerging practices & classroom management due to the growth of the technology and where we are moving towards.
Dave: A change is coming. Where does academic career planning start and how do they come out with the knowledge base to become a teacher.
Debbie: Making a recognition of Urs for working with six different plans and helping to serve students in this new format.
Great cross disciplinary approach that the instructors on this level are teaching the students to come in with a more open-minded approach.
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 34
Groups split up into core groups FCSE and ME, BE, and MEBE
ME, BE & MEBE
Program Revisions
Program Goals
1) Student review, ME, BE, & FCSE advisory board, and employers
2) Difficulty with the survey being in an online format and response rates are few and far between
3) What software do students need to be prepared for as they gain experiences for the workforce
4) Bert: Who does evaluation? – Urs: assessment in the major that get shared. Cross disciplinary review that people across
campus have access to.
5) Dave: academic career planning 2017-2018, will still be defined by the school district,
o Requirements of school districts
o How we prepare the students for employment
o How do we work as a district
1) Making sure the transcript reflects the content of the courses
2) Education for employment plan to be regularly looked over by advisor
a. Software base
3) Must publish the ACP to become a public record within the system
 Legislative issues within the school system and changes that are being made for the Wisconsin school districts
 Working on the communication on legislation and access
 Connecting locally as well as nationally as students
Questions and Concerns
 Is there anything that holds schools to the standards or helps schools to expand the CTE programs within schools? – DPI works on the
communication aspect to help provide schools with the data and how the schools can work with the data that is provided.
Accountability is being pushed to the side when some of the testing is not going as well as it was hoped to go.
 Request to have more business individuals on the advisory board. This could be beneficial to help students expand and get the
worldly aspect.
Solutions of the issues:
FCSE AIM Report 2014-15
Page 35