B.S. Technology Education
Assessment in the Major
Report
By Dr. David Stricker, Program Director
2010
Submitted October 2011
Table of Contents
Overview ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................2
Overview of the Program .........................................................................................................................................................................................2
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test .................................................................................................................................................................3
PRAXIS II: Content Test Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................5
Student Teaching Performance Ratings .................................................................................................................................................................12
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) .........................................................................................................................................................14
Alumni Follow-up Survey .....................................................................................................................................................................................17
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies .........................................................................................................................................23
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program ..................................................................................................................23
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 1
Overview
The University of Wisconsin-Stout School of Education (SOE) has gathered assessment data gathered from fall semester 2003 through December
2010. In the School of Education, data are gathered from several sources to inform unit and program decisions. Data in this report are used to develop
program goals, inform curriculum changes, and enhance course delivery in order to improve teacher education candidate learning. This report
contains data from the:
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test
PRAXIS II: Content Test
Benchmark I, II, and III interviews
Student Teaching Performance Ratings
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI)
2004 and 2008 Alumni Follow-up Survey
This report also describes how assessment data are used to set programmatic goals, improve the program, program curriculum, and delivery of
courses.
Overview of the Program
In 2010, the Technology Education program consisted of 141 undergraduate students, 132 male and 9 female. Over the past five years, the numbers
in this program have consistently been decreasing. However, the one-year retention rates within Technology Education have been increasing, and are
the highest one-year retention rates within the undergraduate programs in the School of Education.
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 2
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test
The PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test (PPST) is required for teacher certification by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Students
are considered pre-Technology Education majors until they have passed the PPST. Educational Testing Service (ETS) administers the three tests
(reading, writing and mathematics) in either a written format or via computer. Due to a database conversion in 2009, Datatel to Peoplesoft, we just
now are able to start generating data by program. In addition, we are able to disaggregate each test to report data on pen/paper (P) vs. computerized
(C) tests. There was a year lapse, 2009, when we were unable to generate any data. Note that the pass rates in the table reflect attempts by all
candidates prior to being accepted into the School of Education. Since all are required to pass the PPST to be admitted to the School of
Education as part of Benchmark I, the actual pass rate is 100%.
Table 1. Technology Education Program PPST Attempts and Pass rates.
Teacher
Education
Program
TECED
undergraduate
TOTALS
PPST
Test
Math
Reading
Writing
Math
Reading
Writing
2006
# test
attempts
47
72
92
204
280
296
Technology Education AIM 2010
2006
# (and %)
passed
44 = 94%
43 = 60%
45 = 49%
148 = 73%
145 = 52%
161 = 54%
2007
# test
attempts
39
38
49
226
243
257
2007
# (and %)
passed
36 = 92%
33 = 87%
39 = 80%
191 = 85%
184 = 76%
200 = 78%
2008
# test
attempts
21
25
27
130
150
138
2008
# (and %)
passed
20 = 95%
21 = 84%
20 = 74%
102 = 79%
119 = 79%
104 = 75%
Page 3
Teacher
Education
Program
2010
PPST Test
# test
# (and %)
attempts
passed
C-Math
10
7 (70%)
P-Math
3
3 (100%)
B-Math
13
10 (77%)
C-Writing
23
11 (48%)
P-Writing
10
3 (30%)
TECED
B-Writing
33
14 (42%)
C-Reading
17
6 (35%)
P-Reading
7
1 (14%)
B-Reading
24
7 (29%)
C-Math
118
93 (79%)
P-Math
80
57 (71%)
B-Math
198
150 (76%)
C-Writing
116
92 (55%)
P-Writing
97
49 (51%)
SOE
B-Writing
213
141 (66%)
C-Reading
149
88 (59%)
P-Reading
94
50 (53%)
B-Reading
243
138 (57%)
C= Computerized; P= Pen & Paper Tests; B=Both Computerized and Pen & Paper Tests
On average the Technology Education majors show consistent performance in the math portion of the PPST (see Table 1).
However, there is a significant decrease in passing rates for the reading and writing portions of the PPST for TE students. More emphasis needs to be
placed on encouraging students to enrolling in EDUC 010: PPST Writing Prep Laboratory. EDUC 010 was first offered in 2007 and is now a
regularly scheduled course that is designed to help education majors pass the written portion of the PPST. In addition, ASPIRE, a student support
program for first-generation college students, provides help with the PPST needs to be encouraged by TE faculty – with special emphasis placed on
Advisement Day opportunities. Lastly, tutors have been hired by the School of Education for those students needing help beyond the online tutorials
and practice exams. Incoming freshman have been and are currently advised to study for the PPST and seek remediation if their reading/writing
skills are weak. Although these strategies have appeared to be effective as students in the Technology Education program pass the PPST at similar or
higher rates than all students in education majors in past years, it appears specific effort on the part of faculty to specifically point out these resources
is needed.
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 4
PRAXIS II: Content Test Summary
Note that all candidates are required to pass the Praxis II to be admitted to student teaching as part of Benchmark II so the pass rate is
100% upon Benchmark II approval.
Table 2: Praxis II median score and score ranges
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
09/10
56
750
580
655
630-680
590
55/56
98%
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%
Technology Education students’ passing rates (see Table 2) have been above 90% for the past six years with 100% passing in 2009 and 2010. Praxis
II median scores and score ranges for Technology Education majors are compiled in Table 2. The data indicates that the rate of passing scores and
average Praxis II scores remain relatively stable over time.
If students do fail the Praxis II, program faculty are poised to guide them to resources and services that address their particular needs. Specifically, a
tutor has been hired from the School of Education and content specific study materials were ordered for students to become better prepared for this
exam last Spring (2011). Although specific data have not been collected about their effects on Praxis II scores, the continuing integration of Project
Lead the Way curriculum into current course offerings combined with additional math and science requirements should contribute and are intended
to increase the rigor of UW-Stout’s Technology Education Program.
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 5
Table 3: Average percent correct by year
Wisconsin
USA
09/10
09/10
09/10
80
81
78
78
68
73
71
70
70
76
78
81
79
78
74
76
77
80
81
80
78
73
74
76
82
83
82
81
72
UW-Stout
05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09
Tech Ed Test Category
Points
Available
Pedagogy & Professional
(T Ed)
33-36
82
76
82
Information &
Communication
Technology
23-24
73
68
Construct Tech
15-17
80
Manufacturing Tech
Energy/Power/Transportati
on Tech
20-24
22-24
As categories of the Praxis II are examined more closely (see Table 3), UW-Stout remain higher than the national average in all areas.
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 6
Benchmark Interviews
The UW-Stout School of Education Assessment System is designed to review candidates’ progress at three intervals during the program. Students
are considered pre-education majors until they have passed the Benchmark I review. In this instance, the review determines a student’s readiness to
become a teacher candidate in the Technology Education program. Later, candidates are reviewed again during the Benchmark II interview to
determine whether they are equipped to proceed to the student teaching portion of the program. Benchmark III is completed at the end of student
teaching and before a candidate is recommended for licensure. This includes the presentation of a capstone “Best Practices” unit for Technology
Education, artifacts from student teaching, and recommendations by cooperating teachers.
Table 4: Benchmark 1 Interview Data
Benchmark I Interview Results Technology Education
Question
Explain personal and professional growth between
your initial resume and updated resume.
Explain your philosophy of education.
Explain three personal characteristics that will make
you an effective teacher.
Describe yourself as a learner and how that will
impact your future teaching.
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
Response
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
2008
N=23
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
TECED
2009
N=22
5%
95%
0%
10%
0%
10%
0%
10%
2010
N=7
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
Unsatisfactory
0%
5%
0%
100%
95%
100%
Unsatisfactory
0%
5%
0%
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
100%
0%
100%
95%
5%
95%
100%
0%
100%
Satisfactory
SOE
2010
N=80
1%
99%
0%
100%
0%
100%
1%
99%
0%
100%
1%
99%
0%
100%
Technology Education teacher candidates are overwhelmingly successful in moving from pre-education to BSTE program students (see Table 4).
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 7
Benchmark II
In order to be considered for a Benchmark II review, Technology Education majors must have completed or be currently enrolled in a pre-student
teaching field experience; have completed or be currently enrolled in core education courses and obtained at least a “C” in these same courses which
includes: Education Psychology, Multiculturalism, Cross-Cultural Field Experience, Secondary Reading and Language Development, Inclusion, and
Lab and Classroom Management. In addition, students must have a cumulative GPA of 2.75 at UW-Stout.
Students are rated by two reviewers at an unsatisfactory, emerging, or basic level - with a rating of emerging or basic considered to be sufficient
evidence for a student to be allowed to move forward in the program.
Table 5: Benchmark II Interview Data
Benchmark II Interview Results Technology Education
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 Education AIM 2010
Response
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
2008
N=32
0%
38%
62%
0%
0%
19%
81%
0%
0%
19%
81%
0%
0%
28%
72%
0%
NA
NA
NA
TECED
SOE
2009 2010 2010
N=29 N=28 N=80
10%
4%
1%
45% 61% 41%
45% 36% 58%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
1%
34% 68% 34%
59% 32% 64%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
24% 46% 31%
69% 54% 69%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
28% 65% 32%
65% 36% 68%
0%
0%
0%
NA
0%
0%
NA
54% 52%
NA
46% 48%
Page 8
technology
n/a
NA
NA
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence that:
Unsatisfactory
0%
3%
Emerging
9% 21%
demonstrates your content knowledge
Basic
47% 52%
n/a
44% 24%
Unsatisfactory
0% 10%
demonstrates your ability to create
Emerging
19% 34%
instructional opportunities adapted to diverse
Basic
31% 31%
learners
n/a
50% 25%
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
Emerging
6%
3%
demonstrates your ability to teach effectively
Basic
6% 10%
n/a
88% 87%
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
Emerging
9% 14%
demonstrates your ability to assess student
learning
Basic
22% 31%
n/a
69% 65%
0%
0%
7%
27%
67%
0%
4%
52%
43%
0%
0%
80%
20%
0%
0%
68%
32%
0%
2%
27%
71%
0%
3%
40%
57%
0%
4%
25%
71%
0%
2%
41%
57%
0%
Table 5 highlights that the overwhelming majority of BSTE students passed Benchmark II successfully with either a rating of “emerging” or “basic.”
However, in 2010, a small number of students lacked the capacity and dispositions of a candidate who would be successful in the program. These
students were either steered toward a program more fitting to their strengths or encouraged to graduate without teacher certification.
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 9
Benchmark III
Benchmark III is the culminating assessment for students in the Technology Education program. Benchmark III must be completed before a preservice teacher can be recommended for licensure. The assessment requires that all coursework is completed, that all program-specific requirements
are met, a satisfactory student teaching assessment is achieved, and that a complete electronic portfolio receiving a basic or higher proficiency rating
is submitted. In order to facilitate this, students complete a student teaching experience at both the middle school and high school level. Four
portfolio artifacts (student teaching observations) with accompany reflections and evaluations of the reflections accompany evaluations from
cooperating teachers. Student teachers also prepare and present a “Best Practices” unit that is evaluated on planning and preparation, knowledge of
resources, use of instructional technologies, use of assessment systems, and reflection on instruction. These artifacts are combined with alignment
summaries in the portfolio and disposition ratings from the cooperating teacher/university supervisor to demonstrate that the 10 Wisconsin teaching
standards and four Danielson domains have been addressed.
Table 6: Benchmark III Interview Results
Benchmark III Interview Results Technology Education
Question
Artifacts from student teaching, reflection ratings
Final Student Teaching Assessments and
Recommendations from Cooperating Teachers
Disposition ratings from student teaching from
cooperating & University Supervisors
Instructional Technology Utilization Rubric
Technology Education AIM 2010
Response
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
2008
N=28
0%
4%
32%
64%
0%
0%
0%
36%
64%
0%
0%
0%
36%
64%
0%
NA
TECED
SOE
2009 2010 2010
N=37 N=25 N=138
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
32% 24%
24%
68% 76%
76%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
3%
4%
1%
30% 20%
20%
62% 76%
78%
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
32% 32%
20%
35% 68%
76%
43%
0%
3%
NA
0%
0%
Page 10
Alignment Summary of artifacts meeting all 10
Wisconsin Teaching Standards & 4 Domains/
Components & reflections/ reflection ratings
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
NA
NA
NA
NA
0%
7%
21%
72%
0%
NA
NA
NA
NA
0%
15%
27%
68%
0%
0%
8%
88%
4%
0%
20%
8%
72%
0%
1%
19%
77%
3%
0%
14%
8%
75%
3%
During 2010 only 1 TE student ranked at the emerging level on the Final Student Teaching Assessments. Five student teachers ranked at the
emerging level for their alignment summaries (see Table 6). Specific clarity regarding the need and use of the alignment summary will be
incorporated during Benchmark interviews and Advisement Day opportunities. All 25 student teachers, however, met the requirements to be
recommended for licensure. When necessary, university supervisors, cooperating teachers and student teachers work to remediate deficiencies, when
possible, to facilitate progress toward recommendation for licensure.
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 11
Student Teaching Performance Ratings
Final student teaching evaluations are aligned with the School of Education’s conceptual framework (Danielson’s Framework for Teaching) and the
10 Wisconsin Teaching Standards. Teacher candidates finishing their student teaching experiences are evaluated by their cooperating teachers on a
four point scale 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient. Technology Education students’ rankings compared to the School of
Education students’ ranks are compared below. Final student teaching evaluations are aligned with the School of Education’s conceptual framework
(Danielson’s Framework for Teaching) and the 10 Wisconsin Teaching Standards. Teacher candidates finishing their student teaching experiences
are evaluated by their cooperating teachers on a four point scale. A score of one indicates a lower ranking while a score of 4 indicates a higher
ranking. Technology Education students’ rankings compared to the School of Education students’ ranks are compared in Table 7 below.
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 12
Table 7: Final student teaching evaluations
Student Teacher Evaluations Technology Education
Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient
TECED
SOE
2008
2009
2010
2010
N=27
N=38
N=24
N=120
Mean Mean Mean
Mean
Teachers know the subjects they are teaching
3.63
3.89
3.83
3.78
Teachers know how children grow
3.51
3.68
3.81
3.82
Teachers understand that children learn
differently
3.60
3.83
3.83
3.73
Teachers know how to teach
3.54
3.87
3.75
3.84
Teachers know how to manage a classroom
3.56
3.65
3.69
3.65
Teachers communicate well
3.61
3.76
3.81
3.78
Teachers are able to plan different kinds of
lessons
3.59
3.84
3.77
3.77
Teachers know how to test for student
progress
3.67
3.76
3.77
3.75
Teachers are able to evaluate themselves
3.69
3.78
3.83
3.78
Teachers are connected with other teachers
and the community
3.64
3.69
3.73
3.70
Teachers make effective use of instructional
technologies to enhance student learning.
NA
NA
3.92
3.91
As demonstrated in Table 7, the average Technology Education student teacher performance ratings remained generally consistent 2009 to 2010 with
all rankings well above the “Basic” level (3.00) as explained above.
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 13
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI)
The Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) has been administered via computer to exiting student teachers during the fall and spring terms since
2003. Eighty-eight questions and fourteen EBI factors are collected for the purpose of unit assessment and are rated on a scale from 1 to 7 with 1=
not at all, 4= moderately and 7= extremely). EBI data cannot be published in public domains and are available for internal use only.
Table 8: Factor Analysis Trends
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 14
As demonstrated in Table 8, Technology scores have risen in all of the factors and sub-categories. However, knowing how to work with one’s peers,
administration, and students’ parents, as well as, understanding educational policy and politics, and encouraging self-motivation and holistic learning
continue to be ranked – although remaining above 3.0 - among the lowest. These rankings may be explained by the limitations of a generating an
authentic technology education classroom experience within a university classroom. Although simulations have been and will continue to be reengineered to address these matters, until a student is emersed in a classroom and school culture, the contextual richness that is needed to create a
powerful learning opportunitiy is not absolutely replicable. Continued efforts are being made to carefully select experiences in school settings that
exemplify best practices in the field. Specifically, (beginning in Fall of 2010) during students’ first technology education pedegogy based course,
Introduction to Technology Education, all students are travel to visit both a middle and high school classroom, interact with students, and have
candid and directed conversations designed to address the issues alluded to above. In addition, during students’ pre-student teaching experience, they
are asked to meet with a Union representative and discuss, again using directed questions, matters of politics and policy.
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 15
Table 9: EBI Institution Specific Questions ratings
EBI - Institution Specific Questions
Mean Data; Scale (1-Not at all, 4-Moderately, 7-Extremely)
TECED
SOE
09/10 10/11 10/11
N=20 N=16 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?
4.67
5.12
5.48
4.65
5.12
5.37
4.45
5.06
5.48
4.80
5.38
5.51
4.20
5.06
5.08
4.65
5.25
5.21
4.75
5.31
5.43
4.80
5.44
5.14
5.00
5.50
5.47
4.30
5.06
5.38
*We updated our questions beginning in the 2009-2010 school year
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 16
As demonstrated in Table 9, there was an increase in all factors in when compared with 2009/10 data. Technology education student teachers ranked
all items above “moderate” (4). Although the low number of respondents could be cited as a problem to making any usable inferences, the data still
suggests that technology education students, when compared with School of Education students overall, are generally not connecting what they are
learning at Stout with what they are experiencing or being asked to do in technology education classrooms to the degree students in other programs
are able. An increase in the number of technology and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) teachers have been and will continue to
be added to the program’s advisory committee to inform and increase continuity.
Alumni Follow-up Survey
The UW-Stout One-Year Follow-up Survey is administered every 2 years by the Budget Planning and Analysis office at UW-Stout. Surveys are sent
to graduates receiving and undergraduate degree after one year and after five years. Responses are measured on a five point scale with 1 representing
“very poor”/”very dissatisfied”/”very low”/”not valuable”/”definitely no” and 5 representing “very good”/”very satisfied”/”very high”/”very
valuable”/”definitely yes”. The next survey will be sent in 2012 for graduates in 2010 and 2006. The executive summary and full report from the
Alumni Follow-Up Study are online at the following site: http://www.uwstout.edu/static/bpa/ir/afu/2010index.html
Table 10: 2004 Alumni Survey responses (“My education at UW-Stout prepared me to:”)
#
Question
Strongly
Disagree
2
1
Understand the content and central concepts of the discipline I teach.
0
2
Create meaningful learning experiences based of my content knowledge.
3
4
Mean
2 6 2 6
16
3.75
0
1 5 6 5
17
3.88
Incorporate reading and language arts into the curriculum
Effectively teach math skills in the curriculum
0
2
6 3 5 2
3 7 3 1
16
16
3.19
2.88
5
Provide instruction that supports student learning and their intellectual, social and
personal development.
0
2 5 5 5
17
3.76
6
Create instructional experiences adapted for students who learn differently.
0
4 6 2 5
17
3.47
7
Use my knowledge of minority group relations to create appropriate instruction for
diverse groups.
1
5 3 4 4
17
3.29
8
Modify curricula when instructing students with disabilities.
0
4 5 3 4
16
3.44
0
2 4 3 8
17
4.00
0
2 5 4 6
17
3.82
Use a variety of learning strategies to encourage critical thinking and problem
solving.
Create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active
10
engagement in learning and self-motivation.
Technology Education AIM 2010
4
Strongly
Agree
Responses
9
3
Page 17
11 Resolve conflicts between students and between students and staff.
2
1 8 3 3
17
3.24
12 Assist students in learning how to resolve conflicts.
2
3 5 4 3
17
3.18
13 Deal with crises or disruptive situations.
4
4 2 3 3
16
2.81
0
0 6 4 7
17
4.06
0
1 3 6 7
17
4.12
1
1 3 7 5
17
3.82
17 Use formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate student progress.
0
0 5 6 6
17
4.06
18 Use assessment tools for students with disabilities.
2
2 7 4 2
17
3.12
0
3 5 3 6
17
3.71
0
2 6 3 5
16
3.69
0
2 3 6 5
16
3.88
Use effective communication techniques, media and technology to foster active
inquiry, collaboration and supportive interaction in the classroom.
15 Use instructional technology to enhance student learning.
14
16
Plan instruction based on knowledge of subject matter, students, the community and
curriculum goals.
Use developmental, multiple and measurable assessment tools to assess student
learning over time.
20 Use assessment grounded in research and based on best practices in education.
19
21 Use assessment tools with identified benchmarks or levels of proficiency.
22
Analyze students, classroom, and school performance data; make data-driven
decisions about strategies for teaching and learning.
0
2 6 7 2
17
3.53
23
Reflect on teaching and evaluate the effects of choices and actions on students,
parents and others.
0
1 6 4 6
17
3.88
0
2 5 6 4
17
3.71
1
5 4 2 5
17
3.29
1
4 2 6 4
17
3.47
Assess and analyze student learning, make appropriate adjustments to instruction,
24 monitor student learning, and develop and implement meaningful learning
experiences to help all students learn.
Foster relationships with colleagues, parents and the community to support student
learning and well-being.
Identify, apply and promote an understanding of career clusters and pathways within
26
a technology/pre-engineering curriculum.
25
27
Recognize how student organizations provide opportunities for professional growth
and leadership for students in a contextualized learning environment.
0
4 5 6 1
16
3.25
28
Maintain and use contemporary tools, instruments and machines safely in a program
of study.
3
0 3 4 7
17
3.71
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 18
Table 11: 2008 Alumni Survey responses
#
Question
Strongly
Disagree
2
1
Understand the content and central concepts of the discipline I teach.
1
2
3
Create meaningful learning experiences based of my content knowledge.
Incorporate reading and language arts into the curriculum
4
Mean
3 2 1 3
10
3.20
3
3
1 3 3 0
3 2 2 0
10
10
2.60
2.30
Effectively teach math skills in the curriculum
4
3 0 0 3
10
2.50
5
Provide instruction that supports student learning and their intellectual, social and
personal development.
0
4 2 3 1
10
3.10
6
Create instructional experiences adapted for students who learn differently.
1
4 0 3 2
10
3.10
7
Use my knowledge of minority group relations to create appropriate instruction for
diverse groups.
2
2 1 2 3
10
3.20
1
3 1 2 3
10
3.30
0
3 3 1 3
10
3.40
0
2 5 1 2
10
3.30
11 Resolve conflicts between students and between students and staff.
3
4 1 0 2
10
2.40
12 Assist students in learning how to resolve conflicts.
3
4 1 1 1
10
2.30
13 Deal with crises or disruptive situations.
Use effective communication techniques, media and technology to foster active
14
inquiry, collaboration and supportive interaction in the classroom.
3
3 1 2 1
10
2.50
0
1 2 5 2
10
3.80
15 Use instructional technology to enhance student learning.
1
0 2 6 1
10
3.60
1
0 6 1 2
10
3.30
17 Use formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate student progress.
1
0 3 3 3
10
3.70
18 Use assessment tools for students with disabilities.
1
3 2 3 1
10
3.00
1
0 5 2 2
10
3.40
9
10
16
19
Modify curricula when instructing students with disabilities.
Use a variety of learning strategies to encourage critical thinking and problem
solving.
Create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active
engagement in learning and self-motivation.
Plan instruction based on knowledge of subject matter, students, the community and
curriculum goals.
Use developmental, multiple and measurable assessment tools to assess student
learning over time.
Technology Education AIM 2010
4
Strongly
Agree
Responses
8
3
Page 19
20 Use assessment grounded in research and based on best practices in education.
1
1 4 3 1
10
3.20
21 Use assessment tools with identified benchmarks or levels of proficiency.
1
2 4 1 2
10
3.10
1
2 2 3 2
10
3.30
1
0 3 3 3
10
3.70
1
0 4 1 4
10
3.70
22
Analyze students, classroom, and school performance data; make data-driven
decisions about strategies for teaching and learning.
Reflect on teaching and evaluate the effects of choices and actions on students,
parents and others.
Assess and analyze student learning, make appropriate adjustments to instruction,
24 monitor student learning, and develop and implement meaningful learning
experiences to help all students learn.
23
25
Foster relationships with colleagues, parents and the community to support student
learning and well-being.
3
1 2 3 1
10
2.80
26
Identify, apply and promote an understanding of career clusters and pathways within
a technology/pre-engineering curriculum.
3
3 1 1 2
10
2.60
27
Recognize how student organizations provide opportunities for professional growth
and leadership for students in a contextualized learning environment.
2
2 2 2 2
10
3.00
28
Maintain and use contemporary tools, instruments and machines safely in a program
of study.
4
1 2 0 3
10
2.70
When comparing the responses of alumni from 2004 against 2008 graduate responses (Tables 10 and 11), the overwhelming majority of means are in
the moderate to above moderate range (3 to 4) with the highest rankings in both surveys consistently given to being able to use a variety of learning
strategies to encourage critical thinking and problem solving, use effective communication techniques, media and technology to foster active inquiry,
collaboration and supportive interaction in the classroom, use instructional technology to enhance student learning, Use formal and informal
assessment strategies to evaluate student progress, reflect on teaching and evaluate the effects of choices and actions on students, parents and others,
and assess and analyze student learning, make appropriate adjustments to instruction, monitor student learning, and develop and implement
meaningful learning experiences to help all students learn.
Like the responses to EBI survey items in Table 8, lower rankings in both the 2004 and 2008 data are associated with respondents preparation to deal
with political (Foster relationships with colleagues, parents and the community to support student learning and well-being) and classroom
environment and culture problems (Resolve conflicts between students and between students and staff; assist students in learning how to resolve
conflicts; deal with crises or disruptive situations) lower than other items. Again, although simulations have been and will continue to be reengineered to address these matters, until a student is emersed in a classroom and school culture, the contextual richness that is needed to create a
powerful learning opportunitiy is not absolutely replicable.
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 20
Lastly, being able to incorporate reading, language arts, and math effectively into their curriculum was ranked lower in both surveys. As education
courses formerly designed to address only technology education teacher candidates are revised to meet the needs of science education and, beginning
Fall semester 2011, math education students, the impact on these need areas will be addressed.
It is important to note that responses of 2004 alumni were overwhelmingly higher than 2008 respondents. This is to be expected as beginning
teachers tend to go through phases that include simple day to day survival and disillusionment with what they thought the job actually entailed (Moir,
1990). Also, teachers that persevere, as evidenced by the responses of the 2004 alumni, tend to report rating that reflect a seeing the forest instead of
the trees perspective. Moir describes these stages as being characterized by a sense of rejuvenation and reflection.
Table 12: 2004 Technology Education Alumni ratings of the How Important UW-Stout was in contributing to General Education
#
Question
No degree of influence
2
1
Writing effectively
0
2
Speaking or presenting ideas effectively
3
Responses
Mean
2 5 5 5
17
3.76
0
1 3 6 7
17
4.12
Listening effectively
2
2 2 9 2
17
3.41
4
Utilization of technologies
0
1 3 4 9
17
4.24
5
6
Using analytic reasoning
Creative problem solving
1
0
2 6 6 2
1 6 6 4
17
17
3.35
3.76
7
Critically analyzing information
0
3 3 6 3
15
3.60
8
Maintaining a sense of physical well-being
3
3 6 5 0
17
2.76
9
Appreciating and understanding diversity
2
2 4 5 4
17
3.41
10 Developing a global perspective
11 Appreciating the value of literature and the arts
1
1
7 2 3 4
7 6 1 2
17
17
3.12
2.76
12 Appreciating the natural or physical sciences
1
3 8 2 3
17
3.18
13 Appreciating social, economic and political forces 1
2 8 2 3
16
3.25
14 Appreciating history in context to current issues
5 4 4 3
17
3.18
Technology Education AIM 2010
1
3
4
High degree of influence
Page 21
Table 13: 2008 Technology Education Alumni ratings of the How Important UW-Stout was in contributing to General Education
#
Question
No degree of influence
2
1
Writing effectively
2
2
Speaking or presenting ideas effectively
3
Responses
Mean
1 4 2 2
11
3.09
0
2 1 6 2
11
3.73
Listening effectively
2
1 1 7 0
11
3.18
4
Utilization of technologies
1
1 3 2 4
11
3.64
5
6
Using analytic reasoning
Creative problem solving
2
2
1 3 3 2
2 1 2 4
11
11
3.18
3.36
7
Critically analyzing information
2
1 3 4 1
11
3.09
8
Maintaining a sense of physical well-being
4
2 1 3 1
11
2.55
9
Appreciating and understanding diversity
2
2 1 4 2
11
3.18
10 Developing a global perspective
3
2 2 3 1
11
2.73
11 Appreciating the value of literature and the arts
12 Appreciating the natural or physical sciences
3
2
4 3 1 0
4 3 2 0
11
11
2.18
2.45
13 Appreciating social, economic and political forces 1
5 3 1 0
10
2.40
14 Appreciating history in context to current issues
3 4 0 0
11
2.00
4
3
4
High degree of influence
When comparing the responses of alumni from 2004 against 2008 graduate responses (Tables 12 and 13), the majority of means are in the moderate
to above moderate range (3 to 4) with the highest rankings given to being able to utilize technologies and lowest given to maintaining a sense of well
being, appreciating the value of literature and the arts, and appreciating history in the context to current issues. Although differing numbers of
respondents and a program revision in 2007 could be cited as factors for the overall lower rankings, in the literature beginning teachers generally
work through times of frustration in their beginning years – which could negatively influence 1 year alumni ratings.
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 22
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies
Communicating data with faculty members, advisory board members, and students within the program will be done using various methods. The
report will be shared with faculty members during scheduled discipline area work group meetings (DAWG) designed to support ongoing program
improvement. Program faculty and staff then discuss ways to better meet the needs of students throughout the program. Action plans for desired
change result from work group meetings. The B.S in Technology Education program advisory board, which includes students, will receive a copy of
the Assessment in the Major report during the fall advisory meeting. Their comments and recommendations for improvement will be encouraged.
University supervisors will be asked to share the AIM report with cooperating teachers and solicit feedback from them regarding improvements for
the program. The report will be made available to students within the Technology Education program and an opportunity provided for feedback.
Data from the AIM report will also be used in program revision processes.
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program
The following are changes or improvements planned for the upcoming years:
2009 Goals
1
2
Increase student exposure to classrooms, teachers, and students.
a. School of Education staff and Technology Education faculty
and staff are currently identifying schools, contemporary
technology education programs, and qualified cooperating
teachers that would serve as observation sites for pre-student
and student teacher candidates.
b. Attention will continue to be focused on developing pre-service
teachers’ and Technology Education Collegiate Association’s
efforts to work with peers, professionals and students through
competitive events, field trips, and lab activities.
The Technology Education students, faculty and staff will continue
working collaboratively with STEM and other colleges/institutions as
improving lab experiences and lab access for students is a key element
for students to thoroughly understand their content and, as a result, it’s
Technology Education AIM 2010
Evidence towards meeting goals or rationale for
abandoning
Continued efforts are being made to carefully select experiences in
school settings that exemplify best practices in the field. Specifically,
(beginning in Fall of 2010) during students’ first technology
education pedegogy based course, Introduction to Technology
Education, all students travel to visit both a middle and high school
classroom, interact with students, and have candid and directed
conversations designed to address the issues alluded to above.
In addition, the Program Director and the Coordinator of Field
Experiences have been visiting and are continuing to schedule
meetings with Technology and STEM education programs in
Wisconsin and Minnesota to facilitate healthy and lasting
relationships with programs that exemplify best practice.
A collaborative relationship has been established with the ChetekWeyerhauser (WI) school district to help facilitate a relationship
between technology and science education students and teacher
faculty to increase the authenticity of STEM problem based learning.
Page 23
interdisciplinary power.
Specifically, lab experiences and their pedagogical implications have
been emphasized.
An increase in the number of technology and STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Math) teachers have been and will
continue to be added to the program’s advisory committee to inform
and increase continuity. Specifically, members from the DPI, The
STEM Center at the University on Minnesota – Twin Cities (math
education in particular), President of the Minnesota Technology
Education Association, and middle and high school administrators
have been added.
3
Finally, there will be continued efforts to seeking input from the
recently revised advisory committee that includes, among others,
current students and alumni, STEM education professionals from other
institutions, UW-Stout STEM college faculty, and Technology
Education faculty.
1
Increase student exposure to classrooms, teachers, and students.
a. School of Education staff and Technology Education faculty and staff are currently identifying schools, contemporary technology
education programs, and qualified cooperating teachers that would serve as observation sites for pre-student and student teacher
candidates.
b. Attention will continue to be focused on developing pre-service teachers’ and Technology Education Collegiate Association’s
efforts to work with peers, professionals and students through competitive events, field trips, and lab activities.
The Technology Education students, faculty and staff will continue working collaboratively with STEM and other colleges/institutions as
improving lab experiences and lab access for students is a key element for students to thoroughly understand their content and, as a result, it’s
interdisciplinary power.
Finally, there will be continued efforts to seeking input from the recently revised advisory committee that includes, among others, current students
and alumni, STEM education professionals from other institutions, UW-Stout STEM college faculty, and Technology Education faculty.
2010 Goals
2
3
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 24
References
Moir, E. (1990). Phases of first-year teaching. Retrieved October 20, 2010 from New Teacher Center at the University of Santa Cruz Web site:
http://www.newteachercenter.org/article3.html
Technology Education AIM 2010
Page 25
Technology Education, B.S.
Minority enrollment
Male
Female
Total enrollment
SCH
Student FTE
New Freshmen
Transfers
Number of graduates by year:
Number of male graduates
Number of female graduates
Number of minority graduates
Number employed in related major:
Number continuing education:
Number employed in major:
Percent employed:
One-Year Rates in Program
One-Year Retention Rates - Any Program
Six-Year Graduation Rates in Program
Six-Year Graduation Rates Any Program
Average High School Percentile
Average ACT Composite of New Freshmen
Average Cumulative GPA
Freshmen: 1-29.5 credits
Sophomore: 30-59.5 credits
Junior: 60-89.5 credits
Senior: 90 or more credits
Honors Program (FA10)
Learning Comm. Partic.
Study Abroad Students
% of grads who participated in Experiential Learning
Salary Average
Salary Low
Salary High
I would attend UW-Stout again
I would enroll in the same academic program
Three-Year Show Rates - New Freshmen
Three-Year Show Rates - New Transfers
10-11
2
120
11
131
1,876
125
13
10
NA NA
NA
NA
09-10
08-09
4
132
9
141
2,053
137
21
13
30
29
1
1
-
2
137
10
147
2,136
142
22
11
27
25
2
1
16
1
100.0%
63.6%
77.3%
71.4%
76.2%
07-08
2
157
12
169
2,491
166
23
12
64
62
2
2
3
23
100.0%
65.2%
82.6%
06-07
04-'05
2004
20.1%
48.3%
59.1%
22.4
NA
26
25
17
63
2
100%
NA
NA
NA
61.9%
21.0
2.48
27
23
35
56
NA
NA
NA
58.9%
21.1
2.45
30
28
28
61
$
$
$
63.8%
21.1
3.02
34
34
33
68
2003
2002
2001
2000
2008 Grads
57.1%
71.4%
44.6%
58.9%
52.2%
60.9%
32.1%
63.0%
67.5%
20.2
2.78
37
44
31
97
32,000
29,000
38,000
3.45
3.36
65%
74%
2004 Grads
5
197
12
209
3,041
203
25
19
45
42
3
2
2
2
30
93.0%
68.0%
88.8%
4.00
3.41
Technology Education, B.S.
FR High School Percentile Rank
10-11
Enrollment New FR and Transfer
New FR Enrollment
Transfer Enrollment
209
59.1%
09-10
08-09
Enrollment Demographics
169
61.9%
58.9%
07-08
Total
Enrollment
63.8%
06-07
131
141
19
147
25
67.5%
FR ACT Avg. Composite score
23
22
10-11
09-10
21.0
08-09
21.1
07-08
21.1
06-07
21
197
22.4
Male
120
132 137
157
13
12
11
10
20.2
12
11
9
12
13
10
Female
FR Avg GPA
10-11
09-10
2.48
08-09
2.45
5
06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11
06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11
2
06-07
2
07-08
2.78
09-10
06-07
3.02
2
10-11
07-08
Minority
Enrollment
08-09
4
Technology Education, B.S. 2
Employment Numbers
64
-
29
25
2
-
-
10-11
09-10
08-09
07-08
06-07
0.0%
Retention
Rates Any
Program
10-11
09-10
08-09
07-08
06-07
0.0%
2
45
42
3
2
Minority
graduates
1
1
-
06-07
-
07-08
1
2
1
07-08
3
Female
graduates
08-09
2
-
09-10
2
-
Retention
Rates in
Program
Percent Employed
27
62
Male
graduates
One Year Retention Rates
Experiential Learning
30
-
16
-
Total
graduates
by year
06-07
30
10-11
-
08-09
Number
continuing
education
-
09-10
Number
employed
in related
major
23
10-11
Number
employed
in major
Graduates in Program
Six Year Graduation Rates
Graduation Rates In Program
Graduation Rates - Any Program
71.4%
63.6%
65.2%
68.0%
76.2%
77.3%
82.6%
88.8%
Employment Percentages
10-11
09-10
08-09
100%
NA
100%
07-08
06-07
100%
93%
2004
63.0%
2003
57.1%
2002
44.6%
2001
2000
For more information on retention/graduation rates go to:
http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/bpa/ir/retention/indexstu.html
20.1%
60.9%
58.9%
52.2%
32.1%
71.4%
48.3%
Technology Education, B.S. 3
Other
Three- Year Show Rates
10-11
10-11
74%
Salary Data
Salary
High
08-09
$38,000
2
Salary
Average
08-09
Salary
Low
08-09
$32,000
$29,000
SCH
3,041
65%
Student
Credit
Hours
1,876
2,053
2,136
10-11
09-10
08-09
2,491
07-08
06-07
Student FTE
203
-
-
Honors Learning Study
Program Comm. Abroad
(FA10) Partic. Students
125
137
142
10-11
09-10
08-09
166
FTE
Three-Year Three-Year
Show Rates - Show Rates New
New
Freshmen
Transfers
07-08
06-07