School of Education Undergraduate Unit Assessment / DPI 2013 Annual Report Submitted by: Dr. Brian McAlister, Director & Dr. Anthony Beardsley, Assessment Coordinator 2012-13 October, 2013 Table of Contents Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Progress Implementing the Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) ................................................................................................................7 Benchmark Tracking ................................................................................................................................................................................................8 Benchmark I: Acceptance into Program/School of Education ................................................................................................................................8 PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test ............................................................................................................................................................10 In 2012-13 2 exemptions were granted for the PPST Reading test, 1 for the PPST Writing test, and 1 for the PPST Mathematics test. ........10 PPST Reading ....................................................................................................................................................................................................11 PPST Mathematics .............................................................................................................................................................................................17 PPST First Time Test Takers .............................................................................................................................................................................20 The Praxis Lab ...................................................................................................................................................................................................21 The ePortfolio Lab .............................................................................................................................................................................................22 Benchmark I Applications .................................................................................................................................................................................23 Benchmark II: Admission into Student Teaching ..................................................................................................................................................25 PRAXIS II Content Test ....................................................................................................................................................................................27 Praxis II First Time Test Takers ........................................................................................................................................................................29 Interview Results: ..............................................................................................................................................................................................30 Benchmark III: Program Completion ................................................................................................................................................................33 Student Teacher Performance Ratings ...............................................................................................................................................................34 Interview Results: ..............................................................................................................................................................................................38 Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) for Exiting Student Teachers ......................................................................................................39 School of Education Mission and Vision...............................................................................................................................................................44 School of Education 2013/2014 Goals: .................................................................................................................................................................44 Appendix A-I: Supporting Data by Program .........................................................................................................................................................45 Appendix J: Program and Course Revision for 2012-13 .......................................................................................................................................54 School of Education’s Unit Assessment Report 2012/13 Introduction The School of Education (SOE) celebrates the 120 undergraduate students that were awarded a degree in education and 11 students that were awarded a degree in Career, Technical Education and Training during the 2012/13 school year. SOE undergraduate programs are committed to achieve the vision and mission of the University and have compiled impressive data that supports that commitment. Each program has documented gains in specific areas of focus which are reported within their program AIM reports (see Table 1). This Unit Report will provide overview data and analysis as well as provide specific input into what has been learned from the existing assessment system and what has been initiated as a result. Program # of 2012/2013 Graduates (# Endorsed Candidates for Licensure) Art Education 15 (11) Early Childhood Education 38 (38) Family Consumer Sciences Education 19 (15) Marketing and Business Education 12 (10) Science Education 6 (6) Special Education 11 (11) 0 (0) Technology Education 19 (17) Career, Technical Education and Training 11 Technology & Science Education Page 2 School of Education Response to previous AIM report(s) and DPI Annual Report: All assessment reports were shared with the Dean, Provost, SOE Advisory Board, SOE Council and SOE faculty and staff. Consistently monitored candidate pass rates on the PPST and PRAXIS II to determine need for curricular and/or programmatic changes (see Table 1). Investigated potential need for increased emphasis in the curricular areas of assessment and classroom management strategies based on EBI and Student Teacher data over time. Selected programs worked with UW-Stout’s Career Services office to improve services for candidates in the School of Education. SOE made the following improvements to the assessment system: a. Designed a more efficient system of acquiring raw data regarding student participation on the PPST b. Reviewed dissemination options for program data c. Updated and improved the SOE Webpage d. Provided current links to Program reports on the SOE Webpage Improved the design of the data tracking system for the PRAXIS tutors to effectively monitor the effectiveness of the program. Improvements to the clinical placement process continued to be initiated as provided in DPI recommendations. Based on recommendations from DPI Consultant Paul Trilling, course content and activities for EDUC-727 were adjusted in order to place an increased emphasis on the School of Education’s conceptual framework and assessment system. Collaboration with the field experience coordinator and two tenured professors teaching the course took place during the design of the modifications to the format and delivery of the course. Course objectives were not changed as a result of the modifications. The changes were implemented during the summer of 2012 in both sections of the course. Student feedback indicated that the content and structure of the course was well received (Appendix J). Supervision of Pupil Services, an online training module, was created during the summer 2012 session. The module was pilot tested during late summer/fall 2012 and went live on the web during the Fall 2012 term. Page 3 SOE Goals for 2012/2013 Evidence of Success 1. SOE will be seeking approval for a doctoral program in the The first doctoral program in the history of University of Wisconsin-Stout has received final approval and is scheduled to begin later this month. area of Career and Technical Education with anticipated The Higher Learning Commission, which visited UW-Stout over the summer, informed UW-Stout Friday, Oct. 4 2013, that it can begin offering a Doctor of Education degree in career and technical education. The program was approved by the UW System Board of Regents in February, but UW-Stout needed commission review and approval before it could begin enrolling students. The Higher Learning Commission, UW-Stout's accrediting body, is part of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. start date of Fall 2013. 2. Implementation of the edTPA will continue to be a major focus as the process is fully integrated into our teacher training program. SOE Faculty have been fully engaged in the process of implementing the edTPA within the fabric of our teacher preparation programs. Attending state and national conferences, participating at faculty level professional development activities, supervising pilot programs, and conducting summer local evaluation seminars are examples of the level of commitment demonstrated by faculty. This goal will continue to be a major focus for next year. Assessment improvements and refinements will continue to be a priority next year. Gains made this year have included: 3. The assessment system will be improved and increased data will be sought to enhance the reporting process. Staffing alignment in the Assessment Office was modified with role clarification for the Assessment Coordinator, E-Portfolio Coordinator/Assessment Specialist, and Assessment Assistant. A new system was implemented to track and report the number of times students have taken the Praxis tests. th Providing 10 day demographic data to faculty and staff on a timetable. A newly designed system to monitor the GPA of graduating students in the school has been developed. Established access to the ETS electronic client service which provides test score data prior to release of official reports. Page 4 SOE Goals for 2012/2013 Evidence of Success SOE Integrated Marketing 4. Update marketing plan with a focus on increasing enrollments of underrepresented populations and graduate programs. In an effort to provide meaningful information for prospective students and their families, the School of Education’s Integrated Marketing efforts include the following strategies: 5. Establish Technology task force with the charge to create a technology plan for SOE. Website – Revise the website to meet the needs of prospective and current students preparing for a teaching major Publication – Create a new publication that speaks to the needs of prospective high school students interested in initial teacher licensure majors Student Contacts – In partnership with the UW-Stout Admissions Office, the School of Education will coordinate call nights in which current students will contact prospective students and incoming freshmen. SOE Ambassador – The staff of student ambassadors will assist the Program Directors and the School of Education in marketing initiatives, including, but not limited to, meeting with prospective students and families, emailing prospective and incoming students, and participating in student call nights. An SOE Technology task force was established and designed a plan for the role of technology within the department. The committee tasked with this effort sought input from University level faculty as well as PK-12 level faculty in order to make their recommendations as relevant and practical as possible. A path forward for the SOE was outlined within the final report and initiatives to follow through with the recommendations have begun to be put into place. Page 5 Table 1: The following table provides links to each program’s assessment in the major report. Each report documents what each program is learning from our assessment system. Program 2010 2011-12 2012-13 Art Education http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/ART-ED-2010Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-122012-ART-ED-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/ARTED-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf Early Childhood Education http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/ECE-2010Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-122012-ECE-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/ECE-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf Family and Consumer Science Education http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/FCSE-2010Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-122012-FCSE-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/FCSE-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf Marketing and Business Education http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/MBE-2010Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-122012-MBE-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/MBE-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf Math Education N/A N/A N/A Science Education http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SCIED-2010Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-122012-SCIED-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SCIED-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf Special Education http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SPED-2010Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-122012-SPED-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SPED-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf Technology Education http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/TE-2010Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-122012-TE-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/TECED-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf Technology and Science Education http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/TE-and-Sci2010-Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-122012-TE-and-Sci-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/TE-SCIEDAIM-Report-2012-13.pdf School Counseling http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SCOUN-2010Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-122012-SCOUN-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SCOUN-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf School Psychology MS & Ed.S. http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SPSYAssessment-in-the-Major-2010.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-122012-SPSY-AIM-2011-12.pdf http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SPSY-AIMReport-2012-13.pdf Page 6 Progress Implementing the Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) The edTPA is a classroom-based assessment administered during the student teaching field experience. The readiness of a candidate to teach effectively is the focus on this assessment and it includes written documents, video clips, samples of P-12 student work and written teacher candidate reflections. DPI is requiring teacher preparation institutions in the state to begin the process of adopting this approach into their systems in order for students to be prepared to successfully complete the edTPA by August 2015. Stout’s SOE director continues to be actively involved in promoting the edTPA by coauthoring a UW-system grant requesting funds to host system-wide training workshops. Statewide edTPA Workshops were held in September 2012 and May 2013. SOE leadership teams attended both workshops. Members of these teams also created guidelines of goals for continuing the implementation process. An SOE edTPA Implementation Committee was formed to outline the specific actions that faculty would be engaged in to integrate the edTPA within our system. Specific activities have included: 1. Leadership team attended edTPA sessions at the 2012 AACTE conference 2. Implementation Committee met regularly throughout the year to draft and evaluate progress 3. Provided intense training for all faculty and staff during the ALL SOE meetings and Data Day. (FA 2012, SP 2013) 4. Members of SOE leadership team joined the TPAC online community 5. SOE Director coauthored a UW-system grant to request funds to host system-wide training (FL2012) 6. Stout team attended edTPA statewide workshop. (FA2012 and SP2013) 7. Implementation Committee accepted responsibility for continuing faculty professional development activities 8. Implementation Committee attended National edTPA Conference. (FA2012) 9. Faculty generated training materials have been developed for orientation of new faculty Page 7 Benchmark Tracking The UW-Stout School of Education Assessment System is designed so that candidate progress in our undergraduate and graduate programs is reviewed at various points and data is gathered from multiple assessment measures. Benchmark I: Acceptance into Program/School of Education The UW-Stout School of Education Assessment System is designed so that candidate progress is reviewed at various points. Benchmark I is the first level where candidate progress is reviewed. The purpose of the Benchmark I review process is to determine student readiness to become a teacher candidate in one of the programs within the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. Note: Professional education courses and program-specific pre-clinical, clinical, methods, curriculum, and evaluation courses can be taken only after student is accepted into teacher education via Benchmark I review. Students must complete the following to be cleared for Benchmark I Review: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Completed 40 semester credit hours Cumulative GPA of 2.75 at Stout Passed the Wisconsin Background check Passed the PPST (score reports must be provided to the School of Education: HERH 267) Reading 175/322 Math 173/318 Writing 174/320 6. Completed/Currently Enrolled in the required college English and speech courses; ENGL-101, ENGL-102, SPCOM-100 (minimum grade of "C" required for Benchmark; some program standards may be higher) 7. Completed/Currently Enrolled in Introduction to the major course (minimum grade of "C" required for Benchmark; some program standards may be higher) 8. Completed/Currently Enrolled in EDUC-326 Foundations of Education course (minimum grade of "C" required for Benchmark; some program standards may be higher) Page 8 The Benchmark I Review Process consists of three phases: PHASE 1 - Application Review: Benchmark I Application is due by February 15th for Spring Review and September 15th for Fall Review. The candidate will receive an e-mail indicating their Application Review Status (cleared/not cleared) and provided instructions for the Portfolio Review if they have been cleared to proceed. PHASE 2 - Portfolio Review: The ePortfolio will be checked to verify that it includes the following artifacts: 1. 2. 3. 4. Signed School of Education Statement of Values and Dispositions Resume Philosophy Statement Two (2) artifacts related to the subject matter the candidate will teach PHASE 3 - Dispositional Review: A group of program faculty will convene to perform a formal dispositional review of each candidate. Upon completion of all three phases, candidates will be notified via e-mail whether they have successfully passed the Benchmark I Review. 99 students successfully earned Benchmark I status during 2012-13. Page 9 PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test Educational Testing Service Institutional Report The PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test (PPST) is required for teacher certification by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Teacher candidates are not admitted into the teacher education program until they pass the PPST. The PPST is administered through the Educational Testing Service (ETS). The PPST consists of three tests: Reading, Writing and Mathematics. All three tests must be passed to meet the SOE Education’s Benchmark I requirements. These tests can be taken in a handwritten format in traditional testing settings at designated sites and times or by computer at designated sites. ETS provides an annual institutional academic year summary report on all students attempting the PPST and passing rates. It also compares scores of UW-Stout students to those at the state level and the national level. See Table 2, 3 and 4 for a specific data on each test area. Note that according to PI34.14 (1) (b) Exceptions under par. (a) relating to the established passing scores on standardized tests or SCD designed or approved assessments, or the minimum cumulative grade point average may be granted to no more than 10% of the total number of students admitted to the initial or advanced programs for each admission period. In 2012-13 2 exemptions were granted for the PPST Reading test, 1 for the PPST Writing test, and 1 for the PPST Mathematics test. Page 10 PPST Reading Table 2: PPST Reading Number of Examinees: Highest Observed Score: Lowest Observed Score: Median: Average Performance Range: WI Passing Score: Number of attempts with WI Passing Score: Percentage of attempts with WI Passing Score: Type of Test Paper Comp Paper Comp Paper Comp Paper Comp Paper Comp Paper Comp Paper Comp Paper Comp UWStout 10/11 95 131 184 185 158 162 178 177 175-180 172-180 UWStout 11/12 99 121 184 186 159 162 175 177 172-180 175-180 UWStout 12/13 39 109 185 185 162 160 176 176 173-178 171-179 175 175 175 175 72/95 83/131 76% 63% 65/99 93/121 66% 77% 24/39 69/109 62% 63% 4,412/8,101 41,954/58,738 54% 71% National 12/13 8,101 58,738 185 187 153 150 175 178 170-180 174-182 *Official ETS results only include student’s highest test score Page 11 Table 2 continues: Average Percent Correct (percentage of correct answers by category) Reading Test Category Literal Points Available 17-21 Comprehension Critical and Inferential Comprehension 18-23 Type of Test Paper UWStout 10/11 74% UWStout 11/12 70% UWStout 12/13 72% Comp 70% 76% Paper 70% Comp 75% State National 12/13 72% 12/13 67% 73% 81% 79% 68% 66% 70% 64% 74% 69% 77% 74% UW-Stout’s average percent correct (percentage of items answered correctly) on the two reading test categories of Literal Comprehension and Critical/Inferential Comprehension are below state levels and below national percentages in the computerized test version. Page 12 Page 13 PPST Writing Table 3: The PPST Writing test results show Stout students percentage passing equal to national percentage. PPST Writing Number of Examinees: Highest Observed Score: Lowest Observed Score: Median: Average Performance Range: WI Passing Score: Number with WI Passing Score: Percent with WI Passing Score: Type of Test Paper Comp Paper Comp Paper Comp Paper Comp Paper Comp Paper Comp Paper Comp Paper Comp UWStout 10/11 UWStout 11/12 UWStout 12/13 National 12-13 97 133 181 183 164 167 175 174 173-176 173-176 110 134 184 184 164 167 174 175 172-176 172-177 34 122 181 185 166 164 175 175 173-176 173-176 7,048 59,108 188 190 155 151 174 175 171-177 173-178 174 174 174 174 56/97 87/133 58% 65% 59/110 89/134 54% 66% 21/34 86/122 62% 70% 3,785/7,048 39,000/59,108 54% 66% *Official ETS results only include student’s highest test score Page 14 The ETS institutional report indicates that our candidates had a better pass rate on on the computerized version of the PPST Writing test vs. the paper and pencil version. Table 3 continues: Average Percent Correct (percentage of items correctly per category) Writing Test Category Points Available Grammatical Relationships 11-13 Structural Relationships 14-16 Idiom/Word Choice Mechanics 10-12 Essay 12 Type of Test Paper Comp Paper Comp Paper Comp Paper Comp UWStout UWStout UWStout State 10/11 56% 55% 60% 11/12 56% 58% 57% 12/13 56% 59% 60% 12/13 55% 62% 62% National 12/13 52% 60% 57% 59% 53% 58% 63% 63% 58% 55% 61% 63% 62% 59% 50% 61% 63% 65% 64% 54% 65% 64% 66% 61% 50% 62% 61% 63% In all four writing test categories, UW-Stout students continue to score below the state level. However, UW-Stout teacher candidate average scores are typically within a few percentage points of the national averages. Page 15 Page 16 PPST Mathematics Table 4: PPST Mathematics Number of Examinees: Highest Observed Score: Lowest Observed Score: Median: Average Performance Range: WI Passing Score: UWStout 10/11 UWStout 11/12 UWStout 12/13 National 12/13 Paper 81 90 36 8,232 Comp 115 120 91 60,005 Paper Comp Paper Comp 188 188 164 163 188 188 154 163 189 189 165 157 190 190 150 150 Paper Comp Paper Comp 179 177 175-183 174-180 177 177 172-183 174-181 178 178 172-181 174-182 175 178 169-180 173-183 173 173 173 173 Type of Test Paper Comp Number with WI Passing Score: Paper 64/81 67/90 26/36 4,034/8,232 Comp 94/115 101/120 76/91 44,582/60005 Percent with WI Passing Score: Paper 79% 74% 72% 49% Comp 82% 84% 84% 74% *Official ETS results only include student’s highest test score The PPST Mathematics test results based on the ETS institutional report indicates that this is definitely our strongest area. We have fewer candidates taking this test due to the percent pass rate being so high. This chart also shows that our candidates do better on the computerized version vs. the paper and pencil version. Page 17 Table 4 continues: Average Percent Correct (percentage of correct answers by category) Mathematics Test Category Number and operations Algebra Geometry and Measurement Data Analysis and Probability Points Available 11-13 7-8 7-9 10 Type of Test Paper Comp Paper Comp Paper Comp Paper Comp UWStout 10/11 58% 64% 64% 71% 61% 67% 59% 76% UWStout 11/12 54% 65% 62% 69% 63% 69% 65% 72% UWStout 12/13 57% 70% 59% 71% 64% 71% 65% 76% State National 12/13 57% 76% 61% 78% 65% 74% 69% 81% 12/13 48% 70% 51% 72% 55% 67% 62% 77% UW-Stout teacher candidates scored lower than the state averages but compare favorably to the national averages. Page 18 Page 19 PPST First Time Test Takers Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, all teacher preparation program in the state of Wisconsin are required to report on “the passage rate on the first attempt of students and graduates of the program on examinations administered for licensure” (Act 166, section 17). Table 6 PPST Test Math Writing Reading Spring 2013 # first # (and %) time test passed takers 63 52 (83%) 65 40 (62%) 63 40 (63%) Page 20 The Praxis Lab The Praxis Tutor Lab employs two graduate students as Praxis Tutors. They assist undergraduate teacher education students in their preparation for the Praxis I: Pre-Professional Skills Test. Praxis Tutors assist with test registration; individual skills development in reading, writing, and mathematics; and serve as a central PPST resource center in order to direct students to other on-campus or off-campus Praxis resources. Table 7(a): Praxis Lab numbers – 2012-13 Students who met Tutors having not taken a PPST test Students seeking information about PRAXIS II Students who changed Major after visiting the lab Students who met Tutors having failed a PPST test 45 8 14 74 Total students who met with PRAXIS Tutors 141 Table 7(b): Students meeting with PRAXIS Tutors after failing a PPST test 2012-13 Met Tutor and passed next time Met Tutor and did not pass next time Met Tutor and have not re-taken PPST test yet N % 49 4 21 66% 5% 28% Total students who met Tutors having failed a PPST test 74 100% Page 21 The ePortfolio Lab In 2012-13 the ePortfolio Lab employed three undergraduate students as ePortfolio tutors. The tutors assist teacher education students with creating and preparing their electronic portfolios for Benchmark I, II, & III. Additionally, ePortfolio tutors make class presentations on Chalk & Wire, the UW-Stout School of Education portfolio platform. In the Fall 2012 semester there were 142 registered clients at the ePortfolio Lab. In the Spring 2013 semester there were 82 registered clients at the ePortfolio Lab. Page 22 Benchmark I Applications Table 8: Benchmark I Applications SOE 2012-13 141 Cleared for Benchmark I Review 101 Denied: No passing PPST score 16 Denied: Low GPA 9 Denied: Insufficient credits/coursework 4 Denied: Did not receive “C” or higher in English, Speech, Intro, or Foundation of Education courses 3 Denied: Missing background check 5 Denied: Other Reasons 6 *Individual students 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. Being cleared for Benchmark I review does not necessarily mean that a candidate went through with it. Page 23 Benchmark I Review Results Table 9: 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 SOE Spring 2012 2012-13 N=86 N=74 2% 0% 98% 100% 1% 0% 99% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 3% 0% 97% 100% Disposition Area Response Commitment to Learning: The candidate will demonstrate a commitment to their own and their students continuous learning Deficiency 0% No Deficiency 100% Respect for Oneself and Others: The candidate will demonstrate respect for others through thoughtful and responsive communication, showing respect and collaboration Deficiency 0% No Deficiency Deficiency No Deficiency 100% 0% 100% Commitment to Excellence: The candidate recognizes his/her professional responsibility for engaging in and supporting appropriate professional practices for self and others 1% 99% 0% 100% 1% 99% Page 24 Benchmark II: Admission into Student Teaching Benchmark II is the second level of review of candidate’s progress in the SOE assessment system. As part of the process, faculty /staff reviewers interview initial teacher candidates to determine whether they may proceed to the student teaching portion of their programs. The reviewers evaluate candidates’ ability to provide ePortfolio evidence of their higher level knowledge, skills, and disposition aligned to the SOE Conceptual Framework and Standards. Candidates that successfully complete the Benchmark II review are eligible for student teaching placement pending satisfactory completion of all required courses and evidence of passing the PRAXIS II: Subject Assessment(s). During the Benchmark II interview, candidates are expected to demonstrate evidence of their: Ability to communicate effectively Ability to articulate and provide portfolio evidence of content knowledge Command of the pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions Understanding of the roles and responsibilities of a teacher Proficiency in adapting instruction to meet the needs of all students Benchmark II Application: Student Teacher candidates complete the Benchmark II Application two semesters prior to their student teaching term. Benchmark II Interview: Student Teacher candidates are eligible to interview if they have: Submitted a completed Benchmark II Application form Earned a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75 Taken or registered to take the Praxis II Assessment Test Completed or enrolled in Pre-Student Teaching Field Experience(s). (Minimum grade of "C" required for Benchmark II; some program standards may be higher) Completed or enrolled in Education core courses. (Minimum grade of "C" required for Benchmark II; some program standards may be higher) Page 25 Benchmark II Prerequisite Checklist is available for students insure all requirements have been met Student Teaching Placement Student teaching placements are coordinated for those candidates who have: Satisfied all Benchmark II requirements Passed the Benchmark II interview Passed the Praxis II: Subject Assessment(s) 122 students successfully earned Benchmark II status in 2012/13. Page 26 PRAXIS II Content Test All Wisconsin teacher education students must pass a PRAXIS II content specific test for acceptance into Benchmark II and become eligible as a teacher candidate. No exceptions are granted by the School of Education for the PRAXIS II. Praxis II report data is general and does not clearly differentiate among undergraduate teacher education students, graduate teacher education students, teachers who want to add-on an additional teacher certification or the “certification only” category. Note that the number of examinees taking a designated content test varies by content test area. Note: The pass rate of PRAXIS II tests reported in 2012-13 was 76%. Page 27 Business Education began new test in 2010/11, Art Education and Technology Education began new tests in 2011/12 Page 28 Praxis II First Time Test Takers Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, all teacher preparation program in the state of Wisconsin are required to report on “the passage rate on the first attempt of students and graduates of the program on examinations administered for licensure” (Act 166, section 17). Table 10 Praxis II Content Test ARTED Business Ed. ECE FCSE Marketing Ed. SCIED SPED TECED Spring 2013 # first # (and %) time test passed takers 8 6 (75%) 4 4 (100%) 27 23 (85%) 5 4 (80%) 3 3 (100%) 6 9 6 4 (67%) 5 (56%) 6 (100%) Page 29 Interview Results: Table 11(a): Benchmark II Interviews – Fall 2012 Major Applied Passed First Interview ARTED ECE FCSE Math Ed. MBE SCIED SPED TECED 5 21 6 1 7 2 7 10 5 21 6 0 7 2 7 7 Passed Second Interview NA NA NA 1 NA NA NA 2 All SOE 59 55 3 Table 11(b): Benchmark II Interviews – Spring 2013 Major Applied Passed First Interview ARTED ECE FCSE Math Ed. MBE SCIED SPED TECED 11 29 5 3 NA 4 6 7 9 27 5 2 NA 4 6 5 Passed Second Interview 1 2 NA 1 NA NA NA 2 All SOE 65 58 6 Page 30 Table 12: Benchmark II Interview Results SOE Unit Question Describe your Philosophy of Education and how it has evolved Describe what it means to be a "Reflective Practitioner" Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain you feel most competent in Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain you have experienced the greatest growth Provide Portfolio evidence (signed copy of the Instructional Technology Utilization rubric) of your competence in current instructional technology Response Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic Not Observed Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic Not Observed Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic Not Observed Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic Not Observed Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic Not Observed 2008 N=147 1% 36% 62% 1% 1% 31% 66% 1% 1% 26% 72% 1% 0% 32% 66% 2% NA NA NA NA 2009 N=129 2% 29% 69% 0% 2% 22% 76% 0% 2% 19% 79% 0% 2% 26% 72% 0% NA NA NA NA 2010 N=80 1% 41% 58% 0% 1% 34% 64% 0% 0% 31% 69% 0% 0% 32% 68% 0% 0% 52% 48% 0% 20112012 N=123 1% 39% 60% 0% 0% 30% 70% 0% 1% 26% 73% 0% 2% 32% 66% 0% 0% 29% 71% 0% 20122013 N=128 2% 39% 59% 0% 1% 30% 69% 0% 2% 30% 68% 0% 2% 31% 66% 0% 1% 26% 73% 0% 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 Not Observed Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic Not Observed Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic Not Observed Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic Not Observed 0% 11% 34% 55% 0% 18% 31% 51% 0% 10% 7% 83% 0% 17% 23% 60% 2% 14% 31% 53% 8% 8% 34% 50% 0% 3% 12% 85% 1% 17% 36% 46% 2% 27% 71% 0% 3% 40% 57% 0% 4% 25% 71% 0% 2% 41% 57% 0% 2% 30% 69% 0% 5% 35% 60% 0% 3% 34% 62% 0% 4% 40% 56% 0% 2% 34% 64% 0% 2% 43% 55% 0% 0% 44% 56% 0% 1% 45% 54% 0% Page 32 Benchmark III: Program Completion Benchmark III is the final review that occurs at the culmination of student teaching (clinical practice). Upon graduation, most candidates are endorsed for appropriate licensure. 108 undergraduate students graduated meeting the requirements to obtain an initial license to teach in Wisconsin. The UW-Stout School of Education Assessment System is designed so that candidate progress is reviewed at various points. Benchmark III is the final review that occurs at the culmination of student teaching (clinical practice). Upon completion of all degree requirements, candidates are endorsed for appropriate licensure. Complete the following to be cleared for Benchmark III Review: 1. Portfolio Assessment 2. Final student teaching (clinical practice) assessment(s) including two written observations per quarter 3. Recommendation letter(s) from Cooperating Teacher(s) 4. Disposition rating(s) from Cooperating Teacher(s) 5. Instructional Technology Utilization Rubric 6. Review of alignment summary Page 33 Student Teacher Performance Ratings The School of Education uses Danielson’s domains and the Wisconsin Teacher Standards as components of the framework for student teacher competency evaluations. Cooperating teachers utilize these competencies to rate student teachers on their final performance evaluation. Student teaching placements vary among programs. The numbers have been tabulated by averaging the scores per item per candidate rather than on each experience. Early Childhood Education candidates complete three student teaching placements at the preschool, kindergarten and primary levels. Art Education student teachers complete two nine-week student teaching placements at the elementary and secondary levels. Family and Consumer Sciences Education, Marketing and Business Education, Science Education, and Technology Education student teachers complete two nine-week student teaching placements at the middle school and high school levels. Special Education candidates complete a semester long student teaching placement at either the elementary, middle or high school level depending on their individual licensure needs. Page 34 Table 13: Student Teacher Evaluations SOE Unit Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient SOE UNIT Teachers know the subjects they are teaching Teachers know how children grow Teachers understand that children learn differently Teachers know how to teach Teachers know how to manage a classroom Teachers communicate well Teachers are able to plan different kinds of lessons Teachers know how to test for student progress Teachers are able to evaluate themselves Teachers are connected with other teachers and the community Teachers make effective use of instructional technologies to enhance student learning. 2008 2009 N=135 N=152 Mean Mean 3.71 3.80 3.61 3.73 3.68 3.76 3.61 3.78 3.54 3.71 3.61 3.71 3.64 3.80 3.65 3.65 3.69 3.80 3.68 3.64 NA NA 2010 N=120 Mean 3.78 3.82 3.73 3.84 3.65 3.78 3.77 3.75 3.78 3.70 20112012 N=151 Mean 3.80 3.74 3.75 3.78 3.66 3.73 3.80 3.76 3.78 3.80 20122013 N=134 Mean 3.82 3.71 3.72 3.75 3.60 3.77 3.74 3.63 3.86 3.71 3.91 3.83 3.80 Page 35 Page 36 Each of the program/certification areas has been inspected to determine patterns in student teacher competency ratings from cooperating teachers. The highest and lowest component rating means and the Wisconsin Teacher Standards rating means for each program for calendar years 2010 through 2012-13 are displayed below. Table 14(a): The highest teacher standard means for 2010-2012/13 are as follows: Wisconsin Teacher Standard 4: Know how to teach Highest Mean 2: Know how children grow 2nd Highest Mean Calendar Year 2010 3.84 3.78 Academic Year 20112012 Wisconsin Teacher Standard 1: Know subjects teaching Tied - Highest mean 7: Able to plan different kinds of lessons Tied – Highest mean 3.80 3.80 10: Connected with other teachers Tied – Highest mean 3.80 Wisconsin Teacher Standard Academic Year 20122013 9: Able to evaluate themselves Highest mean 1: Know subjects teaching 2nd Highest Mean 3.86 3.82 6: Communicate well 3rd Highest mean 3.77 Table 14(b): The lowest teacher standard means for 2010-2012/13 are as follows: Wisconsin Teacher Standard 5: Classroom management lowest mean 10: Connected with other teachers 2nd lowest mean Calendar Year 2010 3.65 3.70 Wisconsin Teacher Standard 5: Classroom management lowest mean 10: Communicate well 2nd lowest mean Academic Year 20112012 3.66 3.73 Wisconsin Teacher Standard 5: Classroom management lowest mean 8: Know to test for student progress 2nd lowest mean Academic Year 20122013 3.60 3.63 Page 37 Interview Results: Table 15: Benchmark III Interview Results SOE Unit SOE UNIT Number Question Response Artifacts from student teaching, reflection ratings Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic Proficient n/a 0% 5% 39% 53% 3% 0% 2% 24% 74% 0% 0% 0% 24% 76% 0% 0% 2% 24% 74% 0% 0% 2% 23% 75% 0% Unsatisfactory Emerging 0% 5% 0% 2% 1% 1% 0% 5% 0% 7% Basic Proficient n/a 33% 62% 0% 24% 72% 2% 20% 78% 0% 32% 62% 0% 25% 68% 0% Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic 0% 3% 32% 0% 1% 20% 0% 1% 20% 0% 8% 23% 0% 6% 23% Proficient n/a Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic Proficient n/a 63% 2% NA NA NA NA NA 43% 36% NA NA NA NA NA 76% 3% 0% 1% 19% 77% 3% 69% 0% 1% 0% 17% 82% 0% 71% 0% 0% 3% 19% 79% 0% Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic Proficient n/a 0% 6% 13% 81% 0% 0% 9% 15% 75% 1% 0% 14% 8% 75% 3% 0% 25% 5% 71% 0% 0% 1% 3% 96% 0% 1 Final Student Teaching Assessments and Recommendations from Cooperating Teachers 2 Disposition ratings from student teaching from cooperating & University Supervisors 3 Instructional Technology Utilization Rubric 4 5 2011- 20122008 2009 2010 2012 2013 N=143 N=127 N=138 N=133 N=108 Alignment Summary of artifacts meeting all 10 Wisconsin Teaching Standards & 4 Domains/ Components & reflections/ reflection ratings Page 38 Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) for Exiting Student Teachers (Ratings are on a 7 point scale with “1” indicating either strong disagreement or being very dissatisfied and “7” indicating either strong agreement or being very satisfied) The Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) of exiting student teachers is administered via computer at the end of student teaching for the purpose of unit assessment. Of the 137 student teachers attempted to survey, 85 surveys were returned. This is an overall response rate of 62%, virtually the same as the 61.5% response rate in 2010/11. Table 16: EBI Factor Means Highest Difference to Lowest Difference (Rating Scale “1” disagreement/very dissatisfied –“7” strong agreement/ very satisfied) EBI Factor Factor 1: Quality of Instruction Factor 2: Learning Theories, Teaching Pedagogy/Techniques Factor 3: Research Methods, Professional Development, Societal Implications Factor 4: Aspects of Student Development Factor 5: Classroom Equity and Diversity Factor 6: Management of Educational Constituencies Factor 7: Assessment of Student Learning Factor 8: Satisfaction with Faculty and Course Factor 9: Administration Services Factor 10: Support Services Factor 11: Fellow Students in Program Factor 12: Student Teaching Experiences Factor 13: Career Services Factor 14: Overall Program Effectiveness Factor 15: Overall Learning Factor 16: Overall Satisfaction 2007/8 4.93 5.04 2008/9 4.83 4.74 2009/10 5.09 5.22 2010/11 5.23 5.22 2011/12 5.16 5.28 2012/13 5.32 5.40 4.65 4.38 4.74 4.90 4.81 4.94 5.18 4.93 4.19 5.23 5.50 5.11 5.54 5.43 5.69 4.25 4.80 NA NA 5.02 4.81 4.11 5.12 5.58 5.15 5.52 5.54 5.89 3.77 4.41 NA NA 5.34 5.15 4.40 5.48 5.71 5.36 5.74 5.91 5.82 4.11 4.63 NA NA 5.41 5.36 4.59 5.54 5.92 5.70 5.64 5.95 6.07 4.49 4.70 NA NA 5.41 5.30 4.58 5.86 5.76 5.28 5.52 5.46 5.85 4.13 4.82 NA NA 5.33 5.20 4.55 5.51 5.86 5.56 5.52 5.64 6.04 4.40 5.48 5.99 6.01 Page 39 Trend Analysis of All EBI Factors (Rating Scale “1” disagreement/very dissatisfied –“7” strong agreement/ very satisfied) The above graph indicates SOE teacher education candidates continue to rate their Fellow Students in the Program and Student Teaching Experiences as well as Satisfaction with Faculty and Course most highly. Career Services and Management with Educational Contingencies although increasing, are rated lowest out of all EBI categories over time. While Career Services is rated low, the employment rate remains very high for UW-Stout Graduates. Page 40 Table 17: EBI SOE Specific Questions Related to Wisconsin Teacher Standards (Rating Scale “1” disagreement/very dissatisfied to “7” strong agreement/ very satisfied) Each EBI participating institution can add ten questions to the EBI Teacher Education Exit Assessment which are institution specific. UW-Stout adds 10 questions closely related to the Wisconsin Teaching Standards. Those results are provided in the table below. Our questions were updated in the 2009/10 school year. EBI - Institution Specific Questions Mean Data; Scale (1-Not at all, 4-Moderately, 7-Extremely) To what degree were you prepared to create meaningful learning experiences for students based on your content knowledge? To what degree were you prepared to provide instruction that fosters student learning and intellectual, social and personal development? To what degree were you prepared to create instructional experiences adapted for students who learn differently? To what degree were you prepared to use a variety of learning strategies including the use of technology to encourage critical thinking and problem solving? To what degree were you prepared to manage classroom behavior and create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning and self-motivation? To what degree were you prepared to use instructional technology and media to foster active inquiry, collaboration and interaction in the classroom? To what degree were you prepared to plan instruction based on knowledge of subject matter, students, the community and curriculum goals? To what degree were you prepared to use formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate student progress? To what degree were you prepared to reflect on teaching and evaluate the effects of choices and actions on pupils, parents and others? To what degree were you prepared to foster relationships with colleges, families and the community to support student learning and well-being? 09/10 N=127 10/11 N=87 SOE 11/12 N=74 12/13 N=87 5.42 5.48 5.64 5.48 5.29 5.37 5.44 5.46 5.21 5.48 5.53 5.35 5.32 5.51 5.49 5.34 4.91 5.08 5.12 5.02 5.05 5.21 5.47 5.12 5.35 5.43 5.55 5.40 5.14 5.14 5.57 5.22 5.60 5.47 5.83 5.64 5.16 5.38 5.16 5.15 Page 41 Table 18: SOE Undergraduate Follow-Up Survey Results School of Education Undergraduate Follow-Up Survey Results Rating Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree Questions How did Stout contribute to writing effectively? Speak/Present Ideas Listening Effectively Utilization of Technologies Using Analytic Reasoning Creative Problem Solving Critically Analyzing Information Maintaining a Sense of Physical Well Being Appreciating and Understanding Diversity Developing a Global Perspective Appreciating the Value of Literature and the Arts Appreciating Natural or Physical Sciences Appreciating Social, Economic and Political Forces Appreciating History in Context to Current Issues Organizing Info Making Decisions Making Decisions Ethically Working in Teams Leadership Thinking Creatively Maintaining a Sense of Mental Well Being Rate Aspects of Education: General Education Information Program Instruction Availability of Faculty in Gen Ed Courses Availability of Faculty in Program Courses Course Availability Academic Advising Graduated in 2002 3.55 3.93 3.61 3.73 3.5 3.88 3.59 3.3 3.52 3.18 3.23 3.16 3.13 3.14 3.93 3.79 3.68 4.25 4.02 4.02 3.66 3.51 3.75 3.69 4.04 3.59 3.32 Graduated in 2006 3.31 3.76 3.49 3.86 3.61 3.81 3.55 3.15 3.74 3.47 3.31 3.17 3.24 3.17 3.9 3.76 3.73 4.07 3.98 4.03 3.47 3.22 3.63 3.29 3.75 3.34 3.07 Page 42 Lab Facilities and Equipment Digital Environment How would you rate the overall effectivess of your program/major? How valuable/senior coursework: Promoting meaningful connections Preparation for community, civic and political roles Financial Management Continuing education Finding employment How well did the activities prepare you: your classes Experiential learning experience Co-curricular and extra-curricular activities Current job title Employer/company name Is your employment directly related to your UW-Stout major? What is your annual full-time salary? Are you employed full or part time? May we ask your employer to participate in our employer survey? How did your education at Stout compare to education of people hired from other colleges? If unemployed, please indicate current status: student Active military service Full-time homemaker Unemployed and seeking a job Unemployed and not seeking a job Other Other blank How would you rate the value of your education? How would you rate your overall Stout experience in the development of interpersonal skills? If you had to do it over again: Would you attend Stout? Would you enroll in the same program 3.86 3.5 3.82 4.02 3.6 2.82 3.43 3.74 3.49 3.95 3.57 3.53 3.6 3.83 4.11 3.45 2.91 3.24 3.09 3.51 3.85 3.45 4.31 $41,394.63 1.07 1.51 3.79 4.47 $31,726.79 1.04 1.71 3.65 0.02 0 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0 0 0.02 0.08 0 0.03 3.84 4.11 3.41 3.72 4.39 3.6 4.19 3.77 Page 43 School of Education Mission and Vision Mission "The School of Education faculty and staff will engage in exemplary teaching, research, and service to ensure that graduates of the School become successful professional educators." Vision "The School of Education faculty and staff have the vision of preparing teachers and other professional educators who are reflective practitioners and engage in evidence-based practice." School of Education 2013/2014 Goals: 1. Implement the new Career and Technical Education doctoral Program. a. First Cohort to begin in the Fall of 2013. b. Initiate collection of evaluation data for the program. 2. Continue to integrate the edTPA within the teacher preparation process. a. Scale up the implementation process by increasing the number of teacher candidates who complete an edTPA b. Engage faculty in the process of local evaluation for completed edTPAs. c. Initiate a seminar to assist students and faculty as edTPAs are attempted. d. Identify specific courses where embedded signature assignments will be located and a process to evaluate effectiveness. 3. Continue to improve the assessment process with valid and reliable measures. a. Identify significant edTPA milestones to be included within the Benchmark system. b. Monitor and evaluate student progress with the new CORE test c. Monitor and evaluate student progress with the new Reading test 4. The SOE Marketing Committee will be separated into two sub-Committees: one for Graduate/CTE programs and one for Undergraduate licensure programs. a. Increased enrollment of underrepresented populations will be a goal for both sub-Committees. b. The evaluation design for collection and reporting will be streamlined. 5. Develop action plans to address the recommendations from the Technology Task Force. 6. Explore the viability of creating common professional courses by piloting courses for the CTE related undergraduate programs in TECED, MBE, and FCSE. Page 44 Appendix A: Art Education Praxis Test Code – 0134 (new test) In the 2011-12 academic year, the Art Content Knowledge 0134 PRAXIS II test replaced the Art Content Knowledge 0133 PRAXIS II test. The combined pen & paper/computer Art Education test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows: Content Test from ETS 11/12 17 12/13 18 Highest Observed Score: 184 186 Lowest Observed Score: WI Score Needed to Pass: Number with WI Passing Score: 142 158 150 158 12/17 16/18 71% 89% Number of Examinees: Percent with WI Passing Score: Page 45 Appendix B: Business Education Praxis Test Code – 0101 The data below shows that Business Education candidates consistently have a close to 100% pass rate on the Business Education Test. Combined pen & paper/computer Business Education test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows: Content Test from ETS Number of Examinees: Highest Observed Score: Lowest Observed Score: WI Score Needed to Pass: Number with WI Passing Score: Percent with WI Passing Score: 10/11 8 189 155 154 8/8 100% 11/12 14 186 150 154 13/14 93% 12/13 8 184 158 154 8/8 100% Page 46 Appendix C: Elementary Education Praxis Test Code - 0014 Elementary Education candidates pass rate took a minor dip the previous academic year. The combined pen & paper/computer Elementary Education test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows: Content Test from ETS Number of Examinees: Highest Observed Score: Lowest Observed Score: WI Score Needed to Pass: Number with WI Passing Score: Percent with WI Passing Scores: 08/09 50 191 134 147 43/50 86% 09/10 50 189 133 147 44/50 88% 10/11 50 191 134 147 44/50 88% 11/12 57 184 100 147 53/57 93% 12/13 52 183 136 147 43/52 83% Page 47 Appendix D: Family & Consumer Sciences Education Praxis Test Code – 0121 The data below shows that Family Consumer Science candidates have had a fairly consistent pass rate on the Family & Consumer Sciences Education Test. Combined pen & paper/computer Family & Consumer Sciences Education test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows: Content Test from ETS (0121) Number of Examinees: Highest Observed Score: Lowest Observed Score: WI Score Needed to Pass: Number with WI Passing Score: Percent with WI Passing Score: 08/09 18 197 151 159 15/18 83% 09/10 4 NA NA 159 3/4 75% 10/11 13 190 144 159 12/13 92% 11/12 18 185 146 159 15/18 83% 12/13 15 183 146 159 12/15 80% Page 48 Appendix E: Health Education Praxis Test Code - 0550 The combined pen & paper/computer Health Education test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows: Content Test from ETS 08/09 10/11 11/12 12/13 7 3 8 3 Highest Observed Score: 700 NA 760 NA Lowest Observed Score: 520 NA 610 NA WI Score Needed to Pass: 610 610 610 610 Number with WI Passing Score: 5/7 NA 8/8 NA Percent with WI Passing Score: 71% NA 100% NA Number of Examinees: Page 49 Appendix F: Marketing Education Praxis Test Code – 0561 The new Marketing Education Praxis II test was not administered during the Fall 2008 semester. ETS does not offer that test during every testing date. The first date this test was offered during the 2008-2009 school year was in January. Candidates pass rate has taken a major dip the previous two academic years. The combined pen & paper/computer Marketing Education test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows: Content Test from ETS Number of Examinees: Highest Observed Score: Lowest Observed Score: WI Score Needed to Pass: Number with WI Passing Score: Percent with WI Passing Score: 08/09 19 191 145 153 17/19 89% 09/10 18 185 156 153 18/18 100% 10/11 11 191 169 153 11/11 100% 11/12 12 178 133 153 9/12 75% 12/13 10 178 140 153 6/10 60% Page 50 Appendix G: Middle School Subjects – Special Education Praxis Test Code – 0146 Special Education candidates take the Middle School Subjects content test in the state of Wisconsin. The pass rate has fallen by 40% in the last two years. Combined pen & paper/computer Middle School Subjects test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows: Content Test from ETS 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 Number of Examinees: Highest Observed Score: Lowest Observed Score: Score Needed to Pass: Number with Passing Score: Percent with WI Passing Score: 28 181 128 146 20/28 71% 28 174 131 146 18/28 64% 24 192 130 146 20/24 83% 23 175 126 146 15/23 65% 37 176 113 146 16/37 43% Page 51 Appendix H: Science Education Praxis Test Code – 0435 In the last two years, the pass rate on the PRAXIS II General Science Exam has decreased significantly. Combined pen & paper/computer General Science test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows: Content Test from ETS (0435) Number of Examinees: Highest Observed Score: Lowest Observed Score: WI Score Needed to Pass: 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 5 197 161 154 7 187 142 154 11 200 146 154 7 177 144 154 10 177 144 154 Number with WI Passing Score: 5/5 6/7 10/11 5/7 5/10 Percent with WI Passing Score: 100% 86% 91% 71% 50% Page 52 Appendix I: Technology Education Praxis Test Code – 0051 In the 2011-12 academic year, the Technology Education 0051 PRAXIS II test replaced the Technology Education 0050 PRAXIS II test. The combined pen & paper/computer Art Education test data from the ETS institutional report is as follows: Content Test from ETS Number of Examinees: Highest Observed Score: Lowest Observed Score: WI Score Needed to Pass: Number with WI Passing Score: Percent with WI Passing Score: 11/12 12/13 22 200 161 159 22/22 100% 17 200 162 159 17/17 100% Page 53 Appendix J: Program and Course Revision for 2012-13 Program/Course Revisions Fall 2012 Program Change Art Education ARTED 396 Teaching Aesthetics in Art Education ECE 480 Student Teaching: Infant, Toddler, Preschool ECE 493 Student Teaching: Kindergarten Early Childhood ECE 480 Student Teaching: Primary B.S. in Early Childhood Education Education Accept EDUC 330/530 Multiculturalism: Dialogue and Field Experience Date of Modification 08/30/12 11/15/12 12/20/12 11/15/12 Additional Information One or two time only offering. Revision to titles, prerequisites, description, content and objectives. Objectives updated in alignment with the Student Teaching Handbook. Changes address reduced credits and incorporated General Education requirements to meet DPI requirements. Two new concentrations allow for certification in EC- Special Education and Middle Childhood New Course. Page 54 EDUC 496F/696F Flipped Classroom EDUC 796C Applied Techniques Improving Student Achievement Math & Science Accept EDUC 330/530 Multiculturalism: Dialogue and Field Experience 08/30/12 One or two time only offering. 11/15/12 Family and Consumer Science B.S. Family and Consumer Science 11/15/12 Marketing and Business Education B.S. in Marketing and Business Education 12/20/12 Reading RDGED 414 /614 Literacy Instruction and Assessment in the Primary Grades B.S. Technology Education and B.S. Technology and Science Education 12/20/12 New course addresses new General Education requirements, RES-A and GLP course. Changes address the new 120 credits, General Education requirements. Revisions offer three different licensures in PK12 education Revision to pre-requisites SPED 305/505 Early Childhood Inclusion of Children with Exceptional Needs B.S. in Science Education 12/20/12 Science, Technology & Math Special Education Science Education 12/20/12 11/15/12 Changes address the new General Education, credit reduction, DPI requirements and pedagogy Revision to pre-requisites Changes address General Education, grade and course requirement updates. Page 55 Program/Course Revisions Spring 2013 Program Change Art Education B.S. in Art Education Early Childhood Education ECE 411 Early Childhood Curriculum: Math ECE 415 Early Childhood Curriculum: Science/Social Studies ECE 421 Administration of Early Childhood Programs ECE 426 Classroom Management in the Primary Classroom EDUC 260 Images of Education: Not Another Brick in the Wall EDUC 464/664 Update in Early Childhood 01/24/13 Accept EDUC 314/514 Student Teaching in Middle Childhood Grades Accept EDUC 451/651 Learning in Flipped Classroom EDUC 709 Middle Childhood Education EDUC 710 Middle Childhood Education Teaching Science EDUC 711 Middle Childhood Education Teaching Mathematics EDUC 712 Middle Childhood Education 05/16/13 Education Date of Modification 01/24/13 02/21/13 Additional Information Changes address the new 120 credits, General Education requirements. Revision to pre-requisites. Changes address General Education. 01/24/13 New course. New course Revision to course numbers, pre-requisites, title, credits, description, content, and objectives. Page 56 Career and Technical Education Reading Science, Technology & Math Special Education Teaching Social Studies EDUC 713 Middle Childhood Education Teaching Language Arts B.S. in Career and Technical Education 01/24/13 RDGED 720 Guiding and Directing Reading Programs RDGED 721 Supporting Literacy Instruction RDGED 722 Reading Specialist Field Experience 02/21/13 B.S. in Special Education 01/24/13 Accept SPED 471/671 as New Course Introduction to Special Education and Professional Portfolio Development 05/16/13 Changes address the new 120 credits, General Education requirements. Three- course on-line sequence for the DPI approved Reading Specialist certification Change addresses the new 120 program change, General Education requirements and Racial & Ethnic Studies (RES ) requirements Page 57 Science Education School Psychology (SPSY) SPSY 710 Psychoeducational Assessment of the Young Child SPSY 778 Psychoeducational Disability SPSY 781 Field Practicum in Psychoeducational Services I SPSY 782 Field Practicum in Psychoeducational Services II SPSY 790 Systems Level Prevention and Intervention SPSY 792 Internship in School Psychology 05/16/13 Revisions in titles, prerequisites, descriptions, content, and objectives. Page 58