School of Education
Undergraduate Unit Assessment
Submitted by: Brian McAlister, Director &
Lesley Voigt, Assessment Coordinator
2010
Submitted October, 2011
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test ................................................................................................................................................................. 2
PPST Reading ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
PPST Writing ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Writing Test Category......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Points................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Type of Test ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
UW-Stout ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
State..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
National ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Average Percent Correct (percentage of items correctly per category) .................................................................................................................. 6
PPST Mathematics .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
PRAXIS II: Content Test ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Art Education .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Business Education ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Elementary Education ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Family & Consumer Sciences Education ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
Health Education ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Marketing Education ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Middle School Subjects – Special Education ................................................................................................................................................... 15
Science Education ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Technology Education ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Student Teacher Performance Ratings .................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) for Exiting Student Teachers ......................................................................................................... 23
EBI Factor Means Highest Difference to Lowest Difference ........................................................................................................................... 23
Trend Analysis of All EBI Factors ................................................................................................................................................................... 24
EBI SOE Specific Questions Related to Wisconsin Teacher Standards........................................................................................................... 25
EBI - Institution Specific Questions ................................................................................................................................................................. 25
Mean Data; Scale (1-Not at all, 4-Moderately, 7-Extremely) .......................................................................................................................... 25
School of Education Undergraduate Follow-Up Survey Results ..................................................................................................................... 26
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies .................................................................................................................................... 28
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Unit ................................................................................................................... 28
School of Education’s Unit Assessment Report
2010
Introduction
This report is a summary of the University of Wisconsin-Stout’s School of Education (SOE)
assessment data for undergraduates and teacher education candidates gathered from the fall
semester 2003 through December 2010. In the School of Education, data is gathered from several
sources to inform unit and program decisions. Data from this report is used to develop unit and
program goals, inform curriculum changes, and enhance course delivery in order to improve
teacher education candidate learning. This report contains data from the PRAXIS I: PreProfessional Skills Test, PRAXIS II: Content Test, Student Teacher Performances, Benchmark
Interview Ratings (new in 2008) the Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI).
Program Specific Reports
Program specific reports submitted are supplemental to this summary and provide data and
narrative descriptions and analyses of Graduate (and Employer) Follow-up Surveys, Student
Teacher Exit Surveys, Student Teaching Seminar Surveys, and other program specific data
which aid Program Directors in making program and curricular decisions. The program specific
reports also describe how this assessment data is used to improve the program, program
curriculum, and delivery of courses. In addition, Program Directors use information from the
program-specific Assessment in the Major reports to identify and describe program goals for the
upcoming year.
Assessment Data Uses
The unit and program assessment reports are shared with internal and external constituents of the
School of Education, the SOE Advisory Board, and individual Program Advisory Committees.
Advisory committee members discuss trends and make recommendations for improvement to
Program Directors, the SOE Director, and the Dean of the College of Education, Health and
Human Sciences. The Director meets regularly each semester with individual Program Directors
to discuss program data, yearly goals, and progress toward achieving short-term and long-term
goals. SOE unit and program goals are informed by the data and are developed in alignment with
university goals and priorities as well as external standards developed by the Wisconsin
Department of Public Instruction and various external accrediting agencies.
Organization of Assessment Report
This report is organized into sections based on the source of the data. The Table of Contents may
be used to navigate to a specific section or subsection of the report. To navigate without
scrolling, go to the Table of Contents page.
When viewing the data tables throughout the report, the current year data column is shaded and
the text is bolded.
1
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. Passing the PPST is required as part of meeting
SOE’s Benchmark I: Acceptance into Teacher Education Program and Pre-student Teaching
Experiences. 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.
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 2010, an exception to the PPST cut score was granted for 1 candidate
representing .7% of those that were accepted into the program during 2010. In other
words, 99.3% of teacher education candidates that were accepted to teacher education
programs in 2010 passed the PPST.
2
PPST Reading
The PPST Reading test results based on the ETS institutional report indicates that UW-Stout
scores have remained consistent over the past few years.
PPST Reading
Number of UW-Stout 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
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
101
174
185
186
159
158
175
176
169-180
172-181
125
146
187
186
157
160
176
176
171-179
172-179
79
114
185
185
156
162
176
176
172-179
172-180
84
122
185
185
157
162
177
178
173-180
175-182
83
103
183
186
160
164
177
177
173-180
175-181
175
175
175
175
175
58/101
113/174
57%
65%
77/125
89/146
62%
61%
49/79
66/114
62%
58%
59/84
93/122
70%
76%
53/83
78/103
64%
77%
3
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
05/06
74%
06/07
75%
07/08
70%
08/09
68%
Comp
NA
NA
NA
Paper
69%
72%
Comp
NA
NA
UW-Stout
State
National
09/10
70%
09/10
09/10
75%
72%
NA
75%
77%
74%
65%
67%
66%
72%
69%
NA
NA
76%
81%
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 increased from
2005/06 to 2006/07 for the teacher education candidates. UW-Stout’s teacher candidate average
scores in Literal Comprehension dropped from 06/07-08/09, but that appears to be consistent
with the trend at the State and National Level. However, Critical and Inferential Comprehension
average scores improved. Until 2010, we were unable to see State and National comparisons at
the detail level. Percent correct scores are shown to be much higher when taken via computer as
is consistent with State and National level.
4
PPST Writing
The PPST Writing test results based on the ETS institutional report shows that the lowest
observed score has increased dramatically over the past few years. This shows improvement in
those students who were scoring lowest have greatly increased their writing skills. We are
anticipating that these scores will again increase due to implementing an elective 1-credit writing
class to assist students struggling in this area and by continuing to support our PRAXIS tutor
support system.
Type of
Test
Paper
Number of UW-Stout
Examinees:
Comp
Paper
Highest Observed Score:
Comp
Paper
Lowest Observed Score:
Comp
Paper
Median:
Comp
Paper
Average Performance Range:
Comp
Paper
WI Passing Score:
Comp
Paper
Number with WI Passing Score:
Comp
Paper
Percent with WI Passing Score:
Comp
PPST Writing
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
104
211
181
183
163
151
174
174
172-175
171-176
124
159
183
182
161
166
174
175
172-177
173-176
68
102
182
185
168
166
174
175
172-176
172-177
77
116
182
184
165
152
174
175
172-176
173-177
84
124
182
184
168
166
174.5
175
172-177
173-177
174
174
174
174
174
57/104
128/211
55%
61%
79/124
104/159
64%
65%
35/68
68/102
51%
67%
43/77
84/116
56%
72%
50/84
86/124
60%
69%
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.
5
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
State
UW-Stout
National
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
09/10
09/10
48%
NA
49%
52%
NA
54%
59%
NA
57%
56%
NA
53%
57%
58%
56%
60%
64%
64%
58%
62%
62%
NA
52%
NA
66%
NA
NA
55%
NA
67%
NA
NA
50%
NA
63%
NA
NA
56%
NA
61%
NA
62%
52%
60%
63%
62%
67%
58%
64%
64%
64%
65%
56%
62%
62%
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.
6
PPST Mathematics
The PPST Mathematics test results based on the ETS institutional report shows that pass rates of
UW-Stout teacher candidates continues to decrease, however the success rate is still higher than
Reading and Writing. In 2007/08, the Mathematics test was updated. The results below reflect
the new test.
PPST Mathematics
Number of UW-Stout
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
07/08
08/09
09/10
Paper
68
76
76
Comp
Paper
Comp
Paper
Comp
Paper
Comp
Paper
Comp
Paper
Comp
Paper
Comp
16
187
189
160
170
176
183
171-182
178-185
105
188
188
162
163
179
178
172-184
173-182
107
188
188
162
161
179
178
174-182
173-182
173
173
173
46/68
15/16
54/76
83/105
56/76
86/107
Paper
68%
71%
74%
Comp
94%
79%
80%
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.
7
Average Percent Correct (percentage of correct answers by category)
Type
UW-Stout
Wisconsin
Mathematics
Points
Test Category Available of Test 07/08
08/09
09/10
09/10
Paper
48%
54%
57%
62%
Number and
11-13
Comp
operations
NA
NA
65%
73%
Paper
51%
57%
57%
63%
Algebra
7-8
Comp
NA
NA
72%
77%
Paper
58%
53%
62%
Geometry and
66%
7-9
Comp
Measurement
NA
NA
71%
74%
Paper
55%
61%
60%
65%
Data Analysis
10
Comp
and Probability
NA
NA
77%
81%
National
09/10
56%
68%
56%
71%
58%
68%
60%
77%
UW-Stout teacher candidates scored higher than the national average percent correct in all four
math test categories every year.
8
PRAXIS II: Content Test
Benchmark II: Admission to Student Teaching requires candidates to pass PRAXIS II, the
content test for a specific teacher certification area. As of 8/31/2004, all Wisconsin teacher
education students must pass the content test to be eligible to student teach. No exceptions are
granted by the School of Education for the PRAXIS II. Therefore, we have a 100% pass rate for
all candidates that enter student teaching.
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.
9
Note: All teacher education candidates are required to pass the Praxis II to be admitted to student teaching as a part of Benchmark II
Requirements
Marketing and Business Education candidates must pass #10100 and #10560 to be eligible for student teaching and licensure
Science and Technology Education candidates must pass #10050 and #10435 to be eligible for student teaching and licensure
10
Art Education
Praxis Test Code - 10133
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
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
8
13
9
18
14
Highest Observed Score:
186
194
173
183
187
Lowest Observed Score:
155
156
155
147
158
164
158-168
155
175
165-180
155
167
160-168
155
168.5
157-174
155
171.5
168-175
155
8/8
13/13
9/10
16/18
14/14
100%
100%
90%
89%
100%
Number of Examinees:
Median:
Average Performance Range
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing
Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
Business Education
Praxis Test Code - 10100
The data below shows that Business Education candidates consistently have a 100% pass rate on
the Business Education Test.
Content Test from ETS
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
Number of Examinees:
15
7
17
18
18
Highest Observed Score:
730
670
770
670
710
Lowest Observed Score:
610
620
580
590
610
Median:
660
620
630
635
660
Average Performance Range:
650-680 620-660 610-650 620-650 650-680
WI Score Needed to Pass:
580
580
580
580
580
Number with WI Passing Score: 15/15
7/7
17/17
18/18
18/18
Percent with WI Passing Score:
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
11
Elementary Education
Praxis Test Code - 10014
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:
05/06
49
189
124
160
148-168
147
06/07
67
195
129
161
151-168
147
07/08
68
197
132
157
150-167
147
08/09
50
191
134
159.5
149-170
147
09/10
50
189
133
158
149-170
147
40/49
61/67
48/68
43/50
44/50
82%
91%
71%
86%
88%
Family & Consumer Sciences Education
Praxis Test Code – 10121 (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:
05/06
18
740
600
665
620-710
590
18/18
100%
06/07
14
740
590
655
630-680
590
14/14
100%
07/08
13
730
530
640
600-710
590
11/13
85%
* - scores from new test #10121 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
18
197
151
166.5
159-171
159
15/18
83%
09/10
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
159
¾
75%
12
Health Education
Praxis Test Code - 20550
Health Education data from the ETS report is as follows: ?????
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:
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
9
830
630
660
710750
610
9/9
100%
10
790
640
660
650780
610
10/10
100%
4
-
7
700
520
680
600690
610
5/7
71%
610
-
13
Marketing Education
Praxis Test Code – 10561 (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
2009-2010.
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:
05/06
06/07
07/08
15
820
610
720
6
720
610
705
15
780
590
630
660-750
690-720
610-720
600
600
600
15/15
6/6
13/15
100%
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
19
191
145
162
156-175
153
17/19
89%
09/10
18
185
156
171.5
166-177
153
18/18
100%
14
Middle School Subjects – Special Education
Praxis Test Code – 20146
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:
Science Education
Praxis Test Code – 10435
Content Test from ETS
(0435)
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
15
185
128
148
143-159
146
9
60%
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%
08/09
09/10
5
197
161
164
7
187
142
163
Average Performance
Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
163-173
161-176
154
154
Number with WI Passing
Score:
5/5
6/7
Percent with WI Passing
Score:
100%
86%
Technology Education
Praxis Test Code – 10050
15
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:
05/06
56
750
580
655
630-680
590
55/56
98%
06/07
38
720
560
650
630-680
590
35/38
92%
07/08
39
720
550
670
630-700
590
37/39
95%
08/09
29
710
620
670
650-680
590
29/29
100%
09/10
30
730
590
670
640-690
590
30/30
100%
16
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
5
6
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Explain three personal characteristics
that will make you an effective teacher.
Unsatisfactory
Describe yourself as a learner and how
that will impact your future teaching.
Unsatisfactory
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
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
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
SOE UNIT
2008 2009 2010
N=133 N=96 N=80
0%
3%
1%
100%
97%
99%
0%
1%
0%
100%
0%
99% 100%
1%
0%
100%
99% 100%
0%
1% 100%
100%
99%
99%
0%
2%
0%
100%
98% 100%
0%
5% 100%
100%
95%
99%
0%
2%
0%
100%
98% 100%
17
Benchmark II Interview Results SOE Unit
2008
2009 2010
Response
N=147 N=129 N=80
Unsatisfactory
1%
2%
1%
36%
29% 41%
Describe your Philosophy of Education and how it Emerging
has evolved
Basic
62%
69% 58%
Not Observed
1%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory
1%
2%
1%
Emerging
31%
22% 34%
Describe what it means to be a "Reflective
Practitioner"
Basic
66%
76% 64%
Not Observed
1%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory
1%
2%
0%
Emerging
26%
19% 31%
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain
you feel most competent in
Basic
72%
79% 69%
Not Observed
1%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory
0%
2%
0%
Emerging
32%
26% 32%
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain
you have experienced the greatest growth
Basic
66%
72% 68%
Not Observed
2%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory NA
NA
0%
Provide Portfolio evidence (signed copy of the
Emerging
NA
NA
52%
Instructional Technology Utilization rubric) of your
Basic
NA
NA
48%
competence in current instructional technology
Not Observed NA
NA
0%
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence that:
Unsatisfactory
0%
2%
2%
Emerging
11%
14% 27%
demonstrates your content knowledge
Basic
34%
31% 71%
Not Observed
55%
53%
0%
Unsatisfactory
0%
8%
3%
Emerging
18%
8% 40%
demonstrates your ability to create instructional
opportunities adapted to diverse learners
Basic
31%
34% 57%
Not Observed
51%
50%
0%
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
4%
Emerging
10%
3% 25%
demonstrates your ability to teach effectively
Basic
7%
12% 71%
Not Observed
83%
85%
0%
Unsatisfactory
0%
1%
2%
Emerging
17%
17%
41%
demonstrates your ability to assess student
learning
Basic
23%
36% 57%
Not Observed
60%
46%
0%
Question
18
Benchmark III Interview Results SOE Unit
Number Question
Artifacts from student
teaching, reflection ratings
1
2
3
Final Student Teaching
Assessments and
Recommendations from
Cooperating Teachers
Disposition ratings from
student teaching from
cooperating & University
Supervisors
Instructional Technology
Utilization Rubric
4
5
Alignment Summary of
artifacts meeting all 10
Wisconsin Teaching Standards
& 4 Domains/ Components &
reflections/ reflection ratings
Response
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
2008
N=143
0%
5%
39%
53%
3%
0%
5%
33%
62%
0%
0%
3%
32%
63%
2%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0%
6%
13%
81%
0%
SOE UNIT
2009
2010
N=127 N=138
0%
0%
2%
0%
24%
24%
74%
76%
0%
0%
0%
1%
2%
1%
24%
20%
72%
78%
2%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
20%
20%
43%
76%
36%
3%
NA
0%
NA
1%
NA
19%
NA
77%
NA
3%
0%
0%
9%
14%
15%
8%
75%
75%
1%
3%
19
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.
Student Teacher Evaluations SOE Unit
Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient
SOE UNIT
2008
2009
2010
N=135 N=152 N=120
Mean
Mean
Mean
Teachers know the subjects they are teaching
3.71
3.80
3.78
Teachers know how children grow
3.61
3.73
3.82
Teachers understand that children learn differently
3.68
3.76
3.73
Teachers know how to teach
3.61
3.78
3.84
Teachers know how to manage a classroom
3.54
3.71
3.65
Teachers communicate well
3.61
3.71
3.78
Teachers are able to plan different kinds of lessons
3.64
3.80
3.77
Teachers know how to test for student progress
3.65
3.65
3.75
Teachers are able to evaluate themselves
3.69
3.80
3.78
Teachers are connected with other teachers and the
community
3.68
3.64
3.70
Teachers make effective use of instructional technologies to
enhance student learning.
NA
NA
3.91
20
21
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 2008 through 2010 are displayed below.
In 2010, an additional item was added “Teachers make effective use of instructional technologies to enhance student learning”,
to help evaluate students use of instructional technologies in the field. This item was significantly our highest rating component
at 3.91.
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
1: Know the subjects teaching
Highest mean
9: Reflection
2nd highest mean
Calendar
Year 2008
3.71
3.69
Calendar
Year 2009
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
3.80
3.80
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
3.80
It is interesting to see that different standards emerge as being the highest each year. Reflection continues to stay among the top three highest
rated components. The trend overtime shows in incline in the mean scores of student teachers across all standards.
Trends are also looked at for the lowest rated standards. These have considerably changed over the past year. However Classroom
Management continues to be rated below eight other standards.
The lowest teacher standard means for 2008-2010 are as follows:
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
5: Classroom management
lowest mean
2: Know how Children Grow
2nd lowest mean
4: Know how to Teach
2nd lowest mean
6: Communicate Well
2nd lowest mean
Calendar
Year 2008
3.54
3.61
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
3.61
3.61
22
Calendar
Year 2010
3.65
3.70
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 149 student teachers attempted to survey, 80 surveys were returned. This is an overall response rate of 54%
for 2008/09 which was down from 65% in 2007/8. In 2009/10, the SOE will send these surveys closer to the actual end date of the student
teaching placements in an attempt to raise our response rate. We will also make sure to include our summer placements as these candidates
were not asked to participate in the survey in 2008/9.
A longitudinal analysis was performed to compare the UW-Stout EBI results on the 14 factors from year. Differences in factor mean scores
between 2008/9 and 2009/10 are noted in the table below and are sorted from highest difference to lowest difference.
EBI Factor Means Highest Difference to Lowest Difference
(Rating Scale “1” disagreement/very dissatisfied –“7” strong agreement/ very satisfied)
EBI Factor
Factor 2: Learning Theories, Teaching
Pedagogy/Techniques
Factor 11: Fellow Students in Program
Factor 7: Assessment of Student Learning
Factor 3: Research Methods, Professional
Development, Societal Implications
Factor 5: Classroom Equity and Diversity
Factor 13: Career Services
Factor 4: Aspects of Student Development
Factor 6: Management of Educational Constituencies
Factor 1: Quality of Instruction
Factor 14: Overall Program Effectiveness
Factor 10: Support Services
Factor 9: Administration Services
Factor 8: Satisfaction with Faculty and Course
Factor 12: Student Teaching Experiences
2006/7
2007/8
2008/9
2009/10
2010/11
 or  from 2009/10 to
2010/11*
4.90
5.04
5.00
4.74
5.22

5.41
5.06
5.43
5.23
5.35
5.29
5.54
5.12
5.91
5.48


4.36
4.65
4.51
4.38
4.74

4.70
4.23
5.05
4.24
4.65
4.51
5.27
4.74
5.36
5.78
4.93
4.25
5.18
4.19
4.93
4.80
5.54
5.11
5.50
5.69
4.97
4.06
5.16
4.20
4.90
4.48
5.29
4.89
5.44
5.58
4.81
3.77
5.02
4.11
4.83
4.41
5.52
5.15
5.58
5.89
5.15
4.11
5.34
4.40
5.09
4.63
5.74
5.36
5.71
5.82










*The up or down arrow only indicates direction of mean score differences compared to the previous year and does not indicate if the differences are statistically or meaningfully different.
23
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 rate low, we still have a very high employment rate.
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
09/10 10/11
N=127 N=87
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?
5.42
5.48
5.29
5.37
5.21
5.48
5.32
5.51
4.91
5.08
5.05
5.21
5.35
5.43
5.14
5.14
5.60
5.47
5.16
5.38
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 INFO
MAINTAINING 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
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 mgmt
Continuing education
Finding employment
How well did the activities prepare you: your classes
Experiential learning experience
Co-curricular and extra-curricular acitivities
Current job title
Employer/company name
Is your employment directly related to your UW-Stout major?
What is your annual full-time salary?
Graduated in
2002
Graduated
in 2006
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
3.86
3.5
3.82
4.02
3.6
2.82
3.43
3.74
3.49
3.95
3.57
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
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
4.47
$31,726.79
26
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
1.07
1.51
3.79
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
27
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies
Data will be communicated to faculty members and other stakeholders through informal and formal means. The
SOE Council and SOE Advisory Board are designed to guide and support continuous improvement at the unit
level. These stakeholders meet on a regular basis for the purpose of improving the unit and its programs,
reviewing policies and procedures to make recommendations to the SOE Director related to revisions, updates,
and to meet the ever changing needs of the community, PK-12 schools, and technical colleges. In addition, the
Assessment in the Major findings are shared with other stakeholders including technical content instructors and
Wisconsin’s Department of Public Instruction (DPI).
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Unit
•
Share a copy of the assessment report with the Dean, Provost, SOE Advisory Board, SOE Council, SOE
faculty and staff, and the DPI liaison during the annual liaison visit.
•
Continue to monitor candidate pass rates on the PPST and PRAXIS to determine the need for curricular
or programmatic changes.
•
Create a system for tracking student use of the PAXIS Tutors and their success rate after receiving
services. Integrate this data into the annual report.
•
Create a RTI task force to make meaningful recommendations for professional development for Teacher
Education faculty and to guide curricular revisions in the areas of classroom management, inclusion and
professional education courses within each major.
•
Work with UW-Stout’s Career Services office to improve services for candidates in the School of
Education.
•
Integrate enrollment data into the assessment report so that they can be used to inform marketing needs.
•
Create a Integrated Marketing Task Force with the charge to create a SOE marketing plan that will help
guide marketing initiatives for the school and its programs.
•
Create a Technology Task force with a charge to create a SOE Technology Plan to help guide curricular
and resource investments.
•
Create a system for the regular assessment of the assessment system so that it can be responsive to
impending changes in teacher education such as the implementation of the Teacher Performance
Assessment that is being mandated in Wisconsin.
28