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