School of Education
Undergraduate Unit Assessment /
DPI 2012 Annual Report
Submitted by: Dr. Brian McAlister, Director &
Dr. Anthony Beardsley, Assessment Coordinator
2011-12
October, 2012
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................2
School of Education Response to previous AIM report and DPI Annual Report ...............................................................................................3
Progress made Implementing the Teacher Performance Assessment edTPA .....................................................................................................5
Benchmark Tracking .............................................................................................................................................................................................6
Benchmark I: Acceptance into Program/School of Education ......................................................................................................................6
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test ......................................................................................................................................................8
PPST Reading ..................................................................................................................................................................................9
PPST Writing …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....11
PPST Mathematics .........................................................................................................................................................................14
Interview Results ...........................................................................................................................................................................17
The Praxis Lab ...............................................................................................................................................................................19
Benchmark II: Admission into Student Teaching ........................................................................................................................................20
PRAXIS II Content Test ............................................................................................................................................................................22
Interview Results .......................................................................................................................................................................................24
Benchmark III: Program Completion ...........................................................................................................................................................27
Student Teacher Performance Ratings .......................................................................................................................................................28
Interview Results .......................................................................................................................................................................................32
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) for Exiting Student Teachers ..............................................................................................33
2012/2013 Goals ....................................................................................................................................................................................................38
Appendix A-I: Supporting Data by Program ........................................................................................................................................................39
Appendix J: Program and Course Revision for 2011-12 .....................................................................................................................................48
School of Education’s Unit Assessment Report
2011/12
Introduction
The School of Education (SOE) celebrates the 117 undergraduate students that were awarded a degree in education during the 2011/12 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 Graduates for 2011/2012
Art Education
24
Early Childhood Education
38
Family Consumer Sciences Education
0
Marketing and Business Education
11
Science Education
6
Special Education
11
Technology & Science Education
1
Technology Education
26
Page 2
School of Education Response to previous AIM report and DPI Annual Report:












Shared a copy of the assessment report with the Dean, Provost, SOE Advisory Board, SOE Council and SOE faculty and staff.
Continued to monitor candidate pass rates on the PPST and PRAXIS II to determine the need for curricular or programmatic changes
(see Table 1).
Investigated the need for added 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.
New Coordinating Chair: Dr. Debbie Stanislawski.
The SOE made the following changes to the assessment system:
a. Modified Benchmark I requirements for admission of undergraduates into the SOE.
i. Required that the initial portfolio be electronic, FA 2011
ii. Eliminated the candidate interview because it provided limited useful data, SP 2012
iii. Implemented a new rubric for the review of their portfolio to incorporate data points that were eliminated when the
interview was eliminated, SP 2012
iv. Implemented a dispositional review to provide a comprehensive review at the benchmark, SP 2012
b. University created “data lead” system allowing SOE greater access to university data.
i. Changed our assessment collection from a calendar to an academic year. (Implemented 2011-12)
ii. Moved Data Day from spring to fall so that it aligns with the natural calendar of data collection and reporting.
Created a new data tracking system for the PRAXIS tutors so that we can now monitor the effectiveness of the program.
Created Integrated Marketing Task Force with the charge to create a marketing plan for SOE.
Changes to the clinical placement process were initiated in response to DPI consultant recommendations.
Field Experience Officer increased 50 percent office support to 100 percent.
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 is being pilot
tested during late summer/fall 2012 and will be live on the web during the Fall 2012 term.
Page 3
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
2009
2010
2011-12
Art Education
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/ART-ED-2009Program-AIM-Report-2009-10-FINAL-10-18-10.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/ART-ED2010-Program-AIM-Report.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-12-2012ART-ED-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf
Early Childhood Education
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/ECE-2009AIM-report-FINAL.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/ECE-2010Program-AIM-Report.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-12-2012ECE-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf
Family and Consumer Science
Education
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/FCSE-2009Program-AIM-FINAL-2009-10.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/FCSE2010-Program-AIM-Report.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-12-2012FCSE-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf
Marketing and Business
Education
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/MBE-2009Program-AIM-Submitted-2010-10-FINAL.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/MBE-2010Program-AIM-Report.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-12-2012MBE-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf
Math Education
N/A
N/A
N/A
Science Education
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SCIED-2009Program-AIM-Submitted-2010-8-15-10.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SCIED2010-Program-AIM-Report.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-12-2012SCIED-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf
Special Education
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SPED-2009Program-AIM-submitted-2009-10-final.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SPED2010-Program-AIM-Report.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-12-2012SPED-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf
Technology Education
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/TE-2009Program-AIM-Stricker-2009-10-FINAL.doc
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/TE-2010Program-AIM-Report.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-12-2012-TE2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf
Technology and Science
Education
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/TE-and-Sci2009-Program-AIM-Stricker-2009-10-FINAL.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/TE-and-Sci2010-Program-AIM-Report.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-12-2012-TEand-Sci-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf
School Counseling
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SCOUNAssessment-in-the-Major-2009-FINAL.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SCOUN2010-Program-AIM-Report.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-12-2012SCOUN-2011-12-Program-AIM-Report.pdf
School Psychology MS &
Ed.S.
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SPSYAssessment-in-the-Major-2009-FINAL.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/SPSYAssessment-in-the-Major-2010.pdf
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/assess/upload/10-12-2012SPSY-AIM-2011-12.pdf
Page 4
Progress made 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 all 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 complete the edTPA by August 2015.
Stout’s SOE director has been actively involved in promoting the edTPA by serving on the DPI Continuous Review Process Task Force and
by coauthoring a UW-system grant requesting funds to host system-wide training workshop. The statewide edTPA Workshop was held in
September 2012and a leadership team from SOE attended. This team also drafted a list of the next steps needed to begin the process.
An SOE edTPA Implementation Committee has been formed to detail the specific actions that SOE will complete in integrating edTPA into
our system.
Specific activities have included:
1.
Leadership team attended edTPA sessions at the 2012 AACTE conference
2.
Leadership team members participated in edTPA webinar. (SP 2012)
3.
Provided an overview for all faculty and staff during an ALL SOE meetings and Data Day. (FA 2011, SP 2012)
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
(SP 2012)
6.
SOE Director participating in the DPI Continuous Review Process Task Force (FA10-present)
7.
Stout team attended edTPA statewide workshop. (FA2012)
8.
Implementation Committee formed. (FA2012)
9.
Implementation Committee attended National edTPA Conference. (FA2012)
Page 5
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 6
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. 132 students successfully earned Benchmark I status during 2011/12.
Page 7
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. During 2011/12, exceptions to the PPST cut score were
granted for 2 candidates from the six that were requested.
Page 8
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
National
10/11
27,770
70,450
186
186
153
150
178
178
173-181
173-182
175
175
72/95
18,804/27,77
0
49,374/70,45
0
68%
70%
83/131
76%
63%
Page 9
Table 2 continues: Average Percent Correct (percentage of correct answers by category on paper and pencil format)
Reading Test
Category
Literal
Points
Available
17-21
Comprehension
Critical and Inferential
Comprehension
18-23
Type
of
Test
Paper
UWStout
10/11
74%
Comp
State
National
10/11
76%
10/11
73%
70%
76%
74%
Paper
70%
73%
69%
Comp
75%
80%
78%
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 but comparable to the national percentages.
Page 10
PPST Writing
Table 3: The PPST Writing test results show Stout students percentage passing equal to national percentage when using a computer and
slightly below in the paper and pencil format.
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
National
10-11
97
133
181
183
164
167
175
174
173-176
173-176
27,154
69,629
190
190
154
151
175
175
172-178
172-178
174
174
56/97
87/133
58%
65%
16,804/27,154
44,985/69,629
62%
65%
Page 11
The Computer PPST Writing test results based on the ETS institutional report indicates that our candidates had a better pass rate on 4 out of
the past 5 years on the computerized version of the 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
State
10/11
56%
55%
60%
10/11
61%
63%
64%
National
10/11
59%
61%
62%
59%
53%
58%
63%
63%
67%
59%
64%
64%
65%
64%
56%
61%
63%
62%
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 12
Page 13
PPST Mathematics
Table 4:
PPST Mathematics
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Passing Score:
Type of
Test
UWStout
10/11
National
10/11
Paper
81
28,187
Comp
115
71,788
Paper
Comp
Paper
Comp
188
188
164
163
190
190
151
150
Paper
Comp
Paper
Comp
179
177
175-183
174-180
177
178
170-183
173-183
173
173
Paper
Comp
Number with WI Passing
Score:
Paper
64/81
19,127/28,187
Comp
94/115
54,581/71,788
Percent with WI Passing
Score:
Paper
79%
68%
Comp
82%
76%
The Computer 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 14
Table 4 continues: Average Percent Correct (percentage of correct answers by category)
Mathematics
Test Category
Points
Available
Number and
operations
11-13
Algebra
7-8
Geometry and
Measurement
Data Analysis
and Probability
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%
Wisconsin
National
10/11
61%
74%
65%
77%
64%
76%
63%
81%
10/11
55%
68%
59%
71%
55%
68%
57%
76%
UW-Stout teacher candidates scored lower than the state averages but compare favorably to the national averages.
Page 15
Page 16
Interview Results
Table 6: Benchmark I Interview Results SOE Unit
Number Question
1
Explain personal and professional growth between your initial
resume and updated resume.
Explain your philosophy of education.
2
3
4
Explain three personal characteristics that will make you an
effective teacher.
Describe yourself as a learner and how that will impact your
future teaching.
5
Describe experiences that have impacted your understanding of
diversity and human relations and how these might aid you as
you work with students and families
6
Explain two subject matter/content artifacts and how these
examples illustrate your understanding of the content you will be
teaching
Completed Alignment Summary
7
Response
SOE UNIT
2008
2009 2010
N=133 N=96 N=80
FA 2011
N=56
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
0%
100%
3%
97%
1%
99%
0%
100%
Unsatisfactory
0%
1%
0%
0%
Satisfactory
100%
99%
100% 100%
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
0%
100%
1%
99%
0%
0%
100% 100%
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
0%
100%
1%
99%
100% 0%
99% 100%
Unsatisfactory
0%
2%
0%
Satisfactory
100%
98%
100% 100%
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
0%
100%
5%
95%
100% 0%
99% 100%
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
0%
100%
2%
98%
0%
0%
100% 100%
0%
Page 17
Table 7: Benchmark I Review Results SOE Unit
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
N=74
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
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
Page 18
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 5(a):
Praxis Lab numbers – 2011-12
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
46
10
4
71
Total students who met with PRAXIS Tutors
131
Table 5(b):
Students meeting with PRAXIS Tutors after failing a PPST test
2011-12
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
%
39
18
14
55%
25%
20%
Total students who met Tutors having failed a PPST test
71
100%
Page 19
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 20
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)
106 students successfully earned Benchmark II status in 2011/12.
Page 21
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: 93% of SOE Students passed PRAXIS II making them Benchmark II eligible.
Page 22
FCSE, Marketing Ed, and SCIED began new tests in 2008/09. Business Ed began new test in 2010/11
Page 23
Interview Results:
Table 8(a):
Benchmark II Interviews – Fall 2011
Major
Applied
Passed First
Interview
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
Math Ed.
MBE
SCIED
SPED
TECED
7
19
3
0
5
2
4
10
7
19
3
NA
5
2
4
10
Passed
Second
Interview
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
All SOE
50
50
NA
Table 8(b):
Benchmark II Interviews – Spring 2012
Major
Applied
Passed First
Interview
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
Math Ed.
MBE
SCIED
SPED
TECED
6
23
9
0
6
3
3
6
6
23
9
NA
6
3
3
4
Passed
Second
Interview
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
All SOE
56
54
2
Page 24
Table 9: 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%
201112
N=123
1%
39%
60%
0%
0%
30%
70%
0%
1%
26%
73%
0%
2%
32%
66%
0%
0%
29%
71%
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%
Page 26
Benchmark III: Program Completion
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.
117 students graduated meeting the requirements to obtain a 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 27
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 28
Table 10: 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
3.91
3.83
Page 29
Page 30
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 2009 through 2011-12 are displayed below.
In 2011-12 three items tied for highest mean.
Table 11(a): The highest teacher standard means for 2009-2011/12 are as follows:
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
1: Know subjects teaching
Tied - Highest mean
9: Reflection
Tied - Highest mean
7: Able to plan different kinds of lessons
Tied – Highest mean
Calendar
Year 2009
Calendar
Year 2010
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
3.80
4: Know how to teach
Highest Mean
3.84
3.80
2: Know how children grow
2nd Highest Mean
3.78
3.80
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
Academic
Year 20112012
1: Know subjects teaching
Tied - Highest mean
7: Able to plan different kinds of
lessons
Tied – Highest mean
9: Connected with other teachers
Tied – Highest mean
3.80
3.80
3.80
Table 11(b): The lowest teacher standard means for 2009-2011/12 are as follows:
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
10: Connected with other teachers
Lowest mean
8: Know to test for student progress
2nd lowest mean
Calendar
Year 2009
3.64
3.65
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
Page 31
Interview Results:
Table 12: 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%
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
0%
5%
0%
2%
1%
1%
0%
5%
Basic
Proficient
n/a
33%
62%
0%
24%
72%
2%
20%
78%
0%
32%
62%
0%
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
0%
3%
32%
0%
1%
20%
0%
1%
20%
0%
8%
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%
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%
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
20112008
2009
2010 2012
N=143 N=127 N=138 N=133
Alignment Summary of artifacts
meeting all 10 Wisconsin
Teaching Standards & 4 Domains/
Components & reflections/
reflection ratings
Page 32
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 13: 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
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
4.65
4.38
4.74
4.90
4.81
5.18
4.93
4.19
5.23
5.50
5.11
5.54
5.43
5.69
4.25
4.80
5.02
4.81
4.11
5.12
5.58
5.15
5.52
5.54
5.89
3.77
4.41
5.34
5.15
4.40
5.48
5.71
5.36
5.74
5.91
5.82
4.11
4.63
5.41
5.36
4.59
5.54
5.92
5.70
5.64
5.95
6.07
4.49
4.70
5.41
5.30
4.58
5.86
5.76
5.28
5.52
5.46
5.85
4.13
4.82
Page 33
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 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 34
Table 14: 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)
SOE
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
11/12
N=74
5.42
5.48
5.64
5.29
5.37
5.44
5.21
5.48
5.53
5.32
5.51
5.49
4.91
5.08
5.12
5.05
5.21
5.47
5.35
5.43
5.55
5.14
5.14
5.57
5.60
5.47
5.83
5.16
5.38
5.16
Page 35
Table 15: 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 36
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 37
2012/2013 Goals:
1. SOE will be seeking approval for a doctoral program in the area of Career and Technical Education with anticipated 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.
3. The assessment system will be improved and increased data will be sought to enhance the reporting process.
4. Update marketing plan with a focus on increasing enrollments of underrepresented population and graduate programs.
5. Establish technology task force with the charge to create a technology plan for SOE.
Page 38
Appendix A: Art Education
Praxis Test Code - 0133
The Art Education has a history of passing this test pretty consistently on the first attempt.
Art Education data from the ETS report is as follows:
Content Test from ETS
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
Number of Examinees:
13
9
18
14
23
Highest Observed Score:
194
173
183
187
196
Lowest Observed Score:
156
155
147
158
157
175
165-180
155
167
160-168
155
168.5
157-174
155
171.5
168-175
155
171
166-178
155
13/13
9/10
16/18
14/14
23/23
100%
90%
89%
100%
100%
Median:
Average Performance Range
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing
Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
Page 39
Appendix B: Business Education
Praxis Test Code – 0101 (New test)
The data below shows that Business Education candidates consistently have a 100% pass rate on the Business Education Test.
Content Test from ETS (0100)
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
Content Test from ETS (0101)
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
7
17
18
18
670
770
670
710
620
580
590
610
620
630
635
660
620-660 610-650 620-650 650-680
580
580
580
580
7/7
17/17
18/18
18/18
100%
100%
100%
100%
10/11
8
189
155
173
167-179
154
8/8
100%
Page 40
Appendix C: Elementary Education
Praxis Test Code - 0014
Elementary Education candidates pass rate has rebounded since a minor dip the previous two years.
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Scores:
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
67
195
129
161
151-168
147
61/67
91%
68
197
132
157
150-167
147
48/68
71%
50
191
134
159.5
149-170
147
43/50
86%
50
189
133
158
149-170
147
44/50
88%
18
191
134
151
146-170
147
13/18
72%
Content Test from ETS – Computer Based (5101)
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
10/11
32
179
140
159.5
149-169
147
28/32
88%
Page 41
Appendix D: Family & Consumer Sciences Education
Praxis Test Code – 0121 (New test as of 9/01/08)
Candidates felt the need to hurry and take the FCSE Content test early in 2008 before the new test was introduced. It is obvious by the results that these students
were not ready. The new test appears to be a much more accurate assessment as all but one candidate passed this test on the first attempt.
Content Test from ETS (0120)
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
06/07
07/08
14
740
590
655
630-680
590
14/14
100%
13
730
530
640
600-710
590
11/13
85%
* - scores from new test #0121 have been added to the totals scores could not be reported due to format changes in the new test
Content Test from ETS (0121)
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
08/09
09/10
10/11
18
197
151
166.5
159-171
159
15/18
83%
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
159
¾
75%
13
190
144
168
162-179
159
12/13
92%
Page 42
Appendix E: Health Education
Praxis Test Code - 0550
Health Education data from the ETS report is as follows:
Content Test from ETS
06/07
07/08
08/09
10/11
Number of Examinees:
10
4
7
3
Highest Observed Score:
790
-
700
NA
Lowest Observed Score:
640
-
520
NA
Median:
660
-
680
NA
650-780
-
600-690
NA
610
610
610
610
Number with WI Passing Score:
10/10
-
5/7
NA
Percent with WI Passing Score:
100%
-
71%
NA
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Page 43
Appendix F: Marketing Education
Praxis Test Code – 0561 (New test as of 9/01/08)
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. Candidate performance rebounded to 100% during 20092010.
Content Test from ETS
(0560)
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance
Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing
Score:
Percent with WI Passing
Score:
06/07
07/08
6
720
610
705
15
780
590
630
690-720
610-720
600
600
6/6
13/15
100%
87%
Content Test from ETS (0561)
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
08/09
09/10
10/11
19
191
145
162
156-175
153
17/19
89%
18
185
156
171.5
166-177
153
18/18
100%
11
191
169
174
169-177
153
11/11
100%
Page 44
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.
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
Score Needed to Pass:
Number with Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
27
177
134
151
148-162
146
21/27
78%
34
174
122
152
147-158
146
28/34
82%
28
181
128
152
143-162
146
20/28
71%
28
174
131
148.5
139-157
146
18/28
64%
24
192
130
153
147-163
146
20/24
83%
Page 45
Appendix H: Science Education
Praxis Test Code – 0435
Content Test from ETS
(0435)
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
08/09
09/10
10/11
5
197
161
164
163-173
154
5/5
100%
7
187
142
163
161-176
154
6/7
86%
11
200
146
167
157-181
154
10/11
91%
Page 46
Appendix I: Technology Education
Praxis Test Code – 0050
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
38
720
560
650
630-680
590
35/38
92%
39
720
550
670
630-700
590
37/39
95%
29
710
620
670
650-680
590
29/29
100%
30
730
590
670
640-690
590
30/30
100%
23
700
580
650
610-670
590
22/23
96%
Page 47
Appendix J: Program and Course Revision for 2011-12
Course Revisions Fall 2011
Program
Change
Date of Modification
Additional Information
Reading
Accept RDGED 382/582
Content Area Reading in
Grades 6-12
10/13/11
Accept RDGED 414
Literacy Instruction &
Assessment in the
Primary Grades
10/13/11
Prefix is being changed from
EDUC to RDGED to make
reading courses more
identifiable on transcripts
This course was approved last
spring as ECE 414 but the
prefix is being changed to
RDGED to make reading
courses more identifiable on
transcripts
Science, Technology &
Math
Special Education
Science Education
Accept STMED 460
Teaching Methods for Science
& Technology Education
SPED 305/505
Introduction to Early
Childhood Special Education
SPED 310/510
Methods, Materials and
Curriculum for the
Exceptional Child
SPED 315/515
Early Childhood Special
Education Programming
Accept SPED 320/520
Early Childhood Exceptional
Educational Needs
Assessment
BS Science Education
Two new minor teaching
certifications are being added.
10/27/11
10/27/11
Graduate component added
This course has ben updated to
be attentive to the needs of the
science education majors
10/20/11
CIC Recommendation
10/20/11
CID Recommendation
10/20/11
CIC Recommendation
09/15/11
09/15/11
Certifications in Environmental
Studies, and Earth & Space
Science have been approved by
DPI
Page 48