School of Education
Undergraduate Unit Assessment
2009
Submitted by: Jacalyn Weissenburger, Director &
Lesley Voigt, Assessment Coordinator
Submitted
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test ................................................................................................................................................................. 2
PPST Reading ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
PPST Writing ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
PPST Mathematics .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
UW-Stout Datatel Report ...................................................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
PRAXIS II: Content Test ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Art Education .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Business Education ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Elementary Education ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Family & Consumer Sciences Education ......................................................................................................................................................... 19
Health Education ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Marketing Education ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Middle School Subjects – Special Education ................................................................................................................................................... 23
Special Education...............................................................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Technology Education ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Teaching Minors ................................................................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Student Artifact Reflection Ratings .......................................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Disposition Ratings ................................................................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
SOE Unit Means by Category for Each Disposition Level ...............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Benchmark I Interview Results ..............................................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Benchmark II Interview Results ............................................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Benchmark III Interview Results ...........................................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Pre-Student Teaching Ratings........................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Student Teacher Performance Ratings .................................................................................................................................................................. 31
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) for Exiting Student Teachers ......................................................................................................... 35
EBI Factor Means Highest Difference to Lowest Difference ........................................................................................................................... 35
EBI SOE Specific Questions Related to Wisconsin Teacher Standards........................................................................................................... 37
EBI Factor & Item Analysis by Program ...........................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
School of Education Undergraduate Follow-Up Survey Results ..................................................................................................................... 38
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies .................................................................................................................................... 40
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Unit ................................................................................................................... 40
School of Education’s Unit Assessment Report
2009
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 2009. 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 Artifact Reflections, Candidate
Dispositions, Pre-Student Teaching and 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 on the students who take the paper and pencil version of test. No such
comparisons are available for UW-Stout students who take the computerized version of the
PPST.
Note that all candidates are required to pass the PPST to be admitted to the School of
Education as part of Benchmark I. Therefore, the pass rate is 100% for all teacher
education candidates upon Benchmark I approval.
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:
04/05
87
185
161
177
173178
175
05/06
101
185
159
175
169180
175
06/07
125
187
157
176
171179
175
07/08
79
185
156
176
172179
175
08/09
84
185
157
177
173180
175
56/87
58/101
77/125
49/79
59/84
64%
57%
62%
62%
70%
2
PPST Reading Score Distributions by Level – 2007-2009
PPST Reading
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
Number of UW-Stout Examinees:
27
27
13
7
Highest Observed Score:
182
182
185
182
Lowest Observed Score:
156
160
160
171
Median:
175
176
175
177
Average Performance Range:
168-179
173-179
173-179 173-179
WI Passing Score:
175
175
175
175
Number of attempts with WI Passing Score:
14/27
18/27
7/13
5/7
Percentage of attempts with WI Passing Score:
52%
67%
54%
71%
PPST Reading Score Distribution by Level shows that overtime our lowest observed score
dramatically increases from Freshman (156) to Senior (171). This is an indicator that our core
content courses are assisting our candidates in taking and passing the PPST exams.
Average Percent Correct (percentage of correct answers by category on paper and pencil format)
UW-Stout
Reading Test
Category
Literal
Points
Available
04/05
%
05/06
%
06/07
%
07/08
%
08/09
%
18-21
76
74
75
70
68
18-22
73
69
72
65
67
Comprehension
Critical and
Inferential
Comprehension
Wisconsin
Reading Test
Category
Literal
Points
Available
National
04/05
%
05/06
%
06/07
%
07/08
%
08/09
%
04/05
%
05/06
%
06/07
%
07/08
%
08/09
%
18-21
82
82
80
77
75
76
78
76
75
73
18-22
80
79
78
73
72
74
75
73
70
68
Comprehension
Critical and
Inferential
Comprehension
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
3
with the trend at the State and National Level. However, Critical and Inferential Comprehension
average scores improved.
4
The Computer PPST Reading test results based on the ETS institutional report is consistent with
the paper and pencil version with remaining steady over the years.
Computer
PPST
04/05
05/06
06/07 07/08 08/09
Reading
Number of
UW-Stout
166
174
146
114
122
Examinees:
Highest
Observed
187
186
186
185
185
Score:
Lowest
Observed
158
158
160
162
162
Score:
Median:
177
176
176
176
178
Average
172172175Performance
172-180 172-181
179
180
182
Range:
WI Passing
175
175
175
175
175
Score:
Number with
WI Passing
110/166 113/174 89/146 66/114 93/122
Score:
Percent with
WI Passing
66%
65%
61%
58%
76%
Score:
5
PPST Writing
The PPST Writing test results based on the ETS institutional report shows that our 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.
PPST Writing
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:
04/05
90
184
168
174.5
172-176
174
58/90
64%
05/06
104
181
163
174
172-175
174
57/104
55%
06/07
124
183
161
174
172-177
174
79/124
64%
07/08
68
182
168
174
172-176
174
35/68
51%
08/09
77
182
165
174
172-176
174
43/77
56%
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.
Computer PPST Writing*
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:
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
294
187
211
159
102
116
183
182
183
182
185
163
164
151
166
166
174
174
174
175
175
171-176 171-176 171-176 173-176 172-177
174
174
174
174
174
162/294 101/187 128/211 104/159 68/102
55%
54%
61%
65%
67%
184
152
175
173-177
174
84/116
72%
6
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.
Average Percent Correct (percentage of items correctly per category)
Writing Test Category
Grammatical Relationships
Structural Relationships
Idiom/Word Choice Mechanics,
No Error
Essay
Writing Test Category
Grammatical Relationships
Structural Relationships
Idiom/Word Choice Mechanics,
No Error
Essay
Writing Test Category
Grammatical Relationships
Structural Relationships
Idiom/Word Choice Mechanics,
No Error
Essay
UW-Stout
Points
04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09
Available
%
%
%
%
%
11-13
58
48
52
59
56
14-15
52
49
54
57
53
10-12
55
52
55
50
56
12
65
66
67
63
61
Points
Wisconsin
Available
04/05
%
05/06
%
06/07
%
07/08
%
11-13
14-15
62
62
59
59
61
59
65
66
08/09
%
63
64
10-12
60
62
64
60
62
12
69
69
69
67
65
Points
National
04/05
%
05/06
%
06/07
%
07/08
%
11-13
14-15
56
56
56
55
58
55
62
63
08/09
%
61
61
10-12
55
59
60
58
59
12
67
66
66
64
63
Available
7
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.
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:
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
73
92
119
68
76
190
164
180
175-184
173
59/73
81%
189
160
178
173-183
173
69/92
75%
190
162
178
172-183
173
84/119
76%
187
160
176
171-182
173
46/68
68%
188
162
179
172-184
173
54/76
71%
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.
Computer 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:
04/05
123
188
164
179
175/183
173
110/123
89%
05/06
139
190
164
178
175-183
173
118/139
85%
06/07
108
186
163
177
173-181
173
84/108
78%
07/08
16
189
170
183
178-185
173
15/16
94%
08/09
105
188
163
178
173-182
173
83/105
79%
UW-Stout teacher candidates scored the same as or higher than the national average percent
correct in all three test math test categories every year.
Average Percent Correct (percentage of correct answers by category)
Wisconsin
National
Mathematics Test Category Points Available 07/08 08/09 07/08 08/09
%
%
%
%
Number and operations
11-13
60
56
59
54
Algebra
7-8
62
56
62
55
Geometry and Measurement
7-9
66
58
60
53
Data Analysis and Probability
10
63
58
67
61
8
SOE PPST Pass Percentage by Year
(all attempts)
100
90
80
Reading - Computer
Percentage
70
Reading - Paper and
Pencil
60
Writing - Computer
50
Writing - Paper and
Pencil
40
Math - Computer
30
Math - Paper and Pencil
20
10
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
10
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.
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.
16
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
SOE PRAXIS II Pass Percentage by Year
(all attempts)
Art Education (10133)
Percentage
Early Childhood Education
(10014)
100
Business Education (10100)
90
Family/Consumer Sciences
Education (10120)
Family/Consumer Sciences
Education (10121)
80
Health Education (20550)
70
Marketing Education (10560)
60
Science Education (10435)
Special Education (20146)
50
2006
2007
2008
Year
Technology Education (10050)
Marketing and Business Education candidates must pass #10100 and #10560 to be eligible for student teaching and licensure
17
Art Education
Praxis Test Code - 10133
The Art Education had a pass rate of 91% in 2008. This has increased slightly from the previous
year, but due to the low number of examinees, one student could greatly affect this data.
Art Education data from the ETS report is as follows:
Content Test from ETS
05/06
06/07
07/08
8
13
9
08/09
18
Highest Observed Score:
186
194
173
183
Lowest Observed Score:
155
156
155
147
164
158-168
155
175
165-180
155
167
160-168
155
168.5
157-174
155
8/8
13/13
9/10
100%
100%
90%
Number of Examinees:
Median:
Average Performance Range
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing
Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
16/18
89%
Business Education
Praxis Test Code - 10100
The data below shows consistently 100% passing scores on the Business Education Test.
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
15
730
610
660
06/07
7
670
620
620
07/08
17
770
580
630
08/09
18
670
590
635
650-680
620-660
610-650
620-650
580
580
580
580
15/15
7/7
17/17
18/18
100%
100%
100%
100%
18
Elementary Education
Praxis Test Code - 10014
According to the ETS report, the highest observed score is the highest it has been and is a large
increase from 2007 to 2008.
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
06/07
67
195
129
161
07/08
68
197
132
157
08/09
50
191
134
159.5
148-168
151-168
150-167
149-170
147
147
147
147
40/49
61/67
48/68
43/50
82%
91%
71%
86%
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%
19
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
-
20
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.
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:
Content Test from ETS
(0561)
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance
Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
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%
08/09
19
191
145
162
156175
153
Number with WI Passing
Score:
17/19
Percent with WI Passing
Score:
89%
21
Marketing Education
Praxis Test Code – 10560
The data provided from ETS shows consistent 100% passing scores on the Marketing Education
Test.
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:
Content Test from ETS
(0561)
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance
Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
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%
08/09
19
191
145
162
156175
153
Number with WI Passing
Score:
17/19
Percent with WI Passing
Score:
89%
22
Middle School Subjects – Special Education
Praxis Test Code - 20146
According to the ETS report, there were fewer than 10 tests in Middle School Subjects for
Special Education; therefore no ETS data was reported for 2004/05. Special 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:
Score Needed to Pass:
Number with Passing
Score:
Percent with WI Passing
Score:
05/06
15
185
128
148
06/07
27
177
134
151
07/08
34
174
122
152
08/09
28
181
128
152
143-159
148-162
147-158
143-162
146
146
146
146
9
21/27
28/34
20/28
60%
78%
82%
71%
23
Science Education
Praxis Test Code – 10435
Content Test from ETS
(0435)
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
08/09
5
197
161
164
Average Performance
Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
163-173
Number with WI Passing
Score:
5/5
Percent with WI Passing
Score:
100%
154
Technology Education
Praxis Test Code – 10050
Technology 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
56
750
580
655
06/07
38
720
560
650
07/08
39
720
550
670
08/09
29
710
620
670
630-680
630-680
630-700
650-680
590
590
590
590
55/56
35/38
37/39
29/29
98%
92%
95%
100%
24
Starting in spring of 2008, the SOE started using reflection ratings from the Benchmark II
interview of teacher education candidates. As evidenced by the high percentage of Basic ratings
below, teacher education candidates in the School of Education are beginning to develop
competencies in being a reflective practitioner at Benchmark II.
25
As can be seen by the above chart, the majority of teacher education candidates received Basic or
Proficient reflection ratings at Benchmark III.
26
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
N=133 N=96
0%
3%
100%
97%
0%
1%
100%
99%
0%
1%
100%
99%
0%
1%
100%
99%
0%
2%
100%
98%
0%
5%
100%
95%
0%
2%
100%
98%
27
Benchmark II Interview Results SOE Unit
2008
Question
Response
N=147
Unsatisfactory
1%
36%
Describe your Philosophy of Education and how it Emerging
has evolved
Basic
62%
Not Observed
1%
Unsatisfactory
1%
Emerging
31%
Describe what it means to be a "Reflective
Practitioner"
Basic
66%
Not Observed
1%
Unsatisfactory
1%
Emerging
26%
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain
you feel most competent in
Basic
72%
Not Observed
1%
Unsatisfactory
0%
Emerging
32%
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain
you have experienced the greatest growth
Basic
66%
Not Observed
2%
Unsatisfactory NA
Provide Portfolio evidence (signed copy of the
Emerging
NA
Instructional Technology Utilization rubric) of your
Basic
NA
competence in current instructional technology
Not Observed NA
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence that:
Unsatisfactory
0%
Emerging
11%
demonstrates your content knowledge
Basic
34%
Not Observed
55%
Unsatisfactory
0%
Emerging
18%
demonstrates your ability to create instructional
opportunities adapted to diverse learners
Basic
31%
Not Observed
51%
Unsatisfactory
0%
Emerging
10%
demonstrates your ability to teach effectively
Basic
7%
Not Observed
83%
Unsatisfactory
0%
Emerging
17%
demonstrates your ability to assess student
learning
Basic
23%
Not Observed
60%
2009
N=129
2%
29%
69%
0%
2%
22%
76%
0%
2%
19%
79%
0%
2%
26%
72%
0%
NA
NA
NA
NA
2%
14%
31%
53%
8%
8%
34%
50%
0%
3%
12%
85%
1%
17%
36%
46%
28
Benchmark III Interview Results SOE Unit
Number Question
Artifacts from student
teaching, reflection ratings
1
2
3
4
Final Student Teaching
Assessments and
Recommendations from
Cooperating Teachers
Disposition ratings from
student teaching from
cooperating & University
Supervisors
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
SP08
N=87
0 0%
5 6%
31 36%
51 59%
0 0%
0 0%
4 5%
27 31%
56 64%
0 0%
0 0%
2 2%
29 33%
56 64%
0 0%
0 0%
1 1%
9 10%
77 89%
0 0%
SOE UNIT
FA08
SP09
N=56
N=80
0 0% 0 0%
2 4% 2 3%
25 45% 23 29%
25 45% 55 69%
3 5% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
3 5% 3 4%
20 36% 24 30%
32 57% 51 64%
0 0% 2 3%
0 0% 0 0%
2 4% 1 1%
17 30% 23 29%
34 61% 38 48%
2 4% 18 23%
0 0% 0 0%
7 13% 7 9%
10 18% 16 20%
38 68% 56 70%
0 0% 1 1%
FA09
N=47
0
0%
1
2%
7 15%
39 83%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
7 15%
47 100%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
3
6%
17 36%
29 62%
0
0%
5 11%
5 11%
37 79%
0
0%
29
Pre-Student Teaching Ratings
Beginning in fall 2004, SOE pre-student teaching final ratings were related to the final student teacher evaluation. Both the pre-student
teacher and student teacher evaluation ratings were based on Danielson’s four domains or components and the Wisconsin Teacher
Standards. The pre-student teaching experience varies among programs and depends to some extent upon how comfortable the
cooperating teacher is with involving the candidate with students in the classroom. Cooperating teachers rate the candidates on the
extent to which they meet the competency on a scale of NA= not achieved/unsatisfactory, 1=very limited achievement, 2=limited
achievement during the pre-student teaching experience.
In the case of Early Childhood Education, faculty members who teach the participation class observe the candidates participating with
school children in tutoring or one-one-one sessions. These Early Childhood Education instructors then do the final ratings at the
kindergarten and primary levels. At the infant, toddler and preschool level, the lab teachers who are the head teachers in the classroom
do the ratings. However, the items and language differs on the forms and the data from this is not included in this report.
30
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 Teacher Course Evaluations SOE Unit
Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient
SOE UNIT
SP08
FA08
SP09
FA09
N=88
N=47
N=78
N=74
Std
Std
Std
Std
Mean Dev
Mean Dev
Mean Dev
Mean Dev
Teachers know the subjects they are teaching
3.63
0.47
3.79
0.30
3.87
0.36
3.72
0.32
Teachers know how children grow
3.52
0.51
3.70
0.50
3.75
0.39
3.71
0.39
Teachers understand that children learn
differently
3.63
0.50
3.72
0.40
3.82
0.35
3.70
0.42
Teachers know how to teach
3.54
0.47
3.68
0.50
3.77
0.39
3.79
0.47
Teachers know how to manage a classroom
3.48
0.46
3.60
0.50
3.73
0.47
3.68
0.46
Teachers communicate well
3.55
0.47
3.66
0.40
3.74
0.40
3.67
0.36
Teachers are able to plan different kinds of
lessons
3.54
0.63
3.74
0.40
3.84
0.41
3.75
0.37
Teachers know how to test for student progress
3.59
0.54
3.71
0.40
3.81
0.45
3.48
0.67
Teachers are able to evaluate themselves
3.68
0.52
3.70
0.40
3.84
0.36
3.75
0.32
Teachers are connected with other teachers and
the community
3.61
0.52
3.74
0.40
3.62
0.52
3.66
0.37
31
32
Examination of the overall domain mean scores reveals a continual decrease for all four domains from 2004 to 2006. However, in 2008, there
was a considerable increase across all four domains. This result may be due to calculating the 2008 data based on the number of candidates
vs. number of placements
• 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.
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 2006 through 2008 are displayed below.
In 2008, Reflection was the highest rating component. The mean for Reflection was slightly below Teachers Know the Subjects they are
Teaching. However, these two areas continue to be the highest rated standards.
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
9. Reflection
highest mean
1: Know subjects teaching
2nd highest mean
Calendar
Year
2006
Calendar
Year
2007
3.34
3.44
3.25
3.40
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
1: Know subjects teaching
Highest mean
9: Reflection
2nd highest mean
Calendar Year
2008*
3.71
3.69
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 2006-2008 are as follows:
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
8. Assessment
lowest mean
Calendar
Year
2006
Calendar
Year
2007
3.13
3.23
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
5: Classroom management
lowest mean
Calendar Year
2008*
3.54
33
5: Classroom management
lowest mean
3.13
3.23
2: Know how Children Grow
2nd lowest mean
4: Know how to Teach
2nd lowest mean
6: Communicate Well
2nd lowest mean
3.61
3.61
3.61
34
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 2007/8 and 2008/9 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 12: Student Teaching Experiences
Factor 8: Satisfaction with Faculty and Course
Factor 11: Fellow Students in Program
Factor 10: Support Services
Factor 9: Administration Services
Factor 7: Assessment of Student Learning
Factor 4: Aspects of Student Development
Factor 1: Quality of Instruction
Factor 5: Classroom Equity and Diversity
Factor 2: Learning Theories, Teaching
Pedagogy/Techniques
Factor 14: Overall Program Effectiveness
Factor 3: Research Methods, Professional
Development, Societal Implications
Factor 6: Management of Educational Constituencies
Factor 13: Career Services
2003/4
2004/5
2005/6
2006/7
2007/8
2008/9
5.71
5.32
5.24
5.25
4.47
4.79
4.77
4.45
4.63
5.49
5.33
5.34
4.99
4.46
4.93
4.85
4.37
4.68
5.78
5.36
5.41
5.27
4.74
5.06
5.05
4.65
4.70
5.69
5.50
5.43
5.54
5.11
5.23
5.18
4.93
4.93
5.58
5.44
5.35
5.29
4.89
5.29
5.16
4.90
4.97
5.89
5.58
5.54
5.52
5.15
5.12
5.02
4.83
4.81
 or  from
2007/8 to 2008/9*









4.65
4.70
4.90
5.04
5.00
4.74

4.72
4.07
4.51
4.80
4.48
4.41

4.12
4.24
4.36
4.65
4.51
4.38

3.95
3.69
3.91
3.83
4.24
4.23
4.19
4.25
4.20
4.06
4.11
3.77


*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.
35
Trend Analysis of All EBI Factors
(Rating Scale “1” disagreement/very dissatisfied –“7” strong agreement/ very satisfied)
Factor 1: Quality of Instruction
7
Factor 2: Learning Theories, Teaching
Pedagogy/Techniques
Factor 3: Research Methods,
Professional Development, Societal
Implications
Factor 4: Aspects of Student
Development
6
5
Factor 5: Classroom Equity and Diversity
Factor 6: Management of Educational
Constituencies
4
Factor 7: Assessment of Student
Learning
Factor 8: Satisfaction with Faculty and
Course
3
Factor 9: Administration Services
2
Factor 10: Support Services
Factor 11: Fellow Students in Program
1
Factor 12: Student Teaching Experiences
Factor 13: Career Services
0
2003/4
2004/5
2005/6
2006/7
2007/8
2008/9
Factor 14: Overall Program
Effectiveness
The above graph indicates SOE teacher education candidates rate their Student Teaching Experiences and Satisfaction with the Faculty and Courses
most highly. Career Services and Management with Educational Contingencies are rated lowest out of all EBI categories over time.
36
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-UW-Stout
adds 10 questions closely related to the Wisconsin Teaching Standards. Those results are provided in the table below. Between 2005 and 2006,
means increased in all ten areas. From 2006/7 to 2008/9, means increased in all areas except: a) using a variety of learning strategies to encourage
critical thinking and problem-solving, and b) planning instruction based on knowledge of subject matter, students, the community and curriculum
goals.
Means
2004/5
N=179
2005/6
N=142
2006/7
N=156
2007/8*
N=
2008/9
N=71
4.91
5.13
5.24
-
5.27
4.72
5.02
5.09
-
5.24
3. Create instructional experiences adapted for students who learn differently?
4.48
5.01
4.96
-
5.17
4. Use a variety of learning strategies to encourage critical thinking and problem solving?
4.71
4.95
5.11
-
5.06
5. Create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active
engagement in learning and self-motivation?
4.88
5.00
5.14
-
5.28
6. Use effective verbal and nonverbal communication techniques, media and technology to
foster active inquiry, collaboration and supportive interaction in the classroom?
4.70
4.87
5.14
-
5.20
7. Plan instruction based on knowledge of subject matter, students, the community and
curriculum goals?
4.84
5.13
5.19
-
5.09
4.57
4.68
4.89
-
4.93
4.87
5.29
5.50
-
5.62
4.64
4.96
5.00
-
5.10
To what degree were you prepared to:
1. Create meaningful learning experiences for students based on your content knowledge?
2. Provide instruction that supports student learning and intellectual, social and personal
development?
8. Use formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate student progress?
9. Reflect on teaching and evaluate the effects of choices and actions on pupils, parents
and others?
10. Foster relationships with colleagues, families and the community to support student
learning and well-being?
*In 2007/8, these questions were not asked of our students.
37
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 Graduated
in 2002
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
38
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
39
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 and
SOE faculty and staff.
•
Continue to monitor candidate pass rates on the PPST and PRAXIS to determine the need for curricular
or programmatic changes.
•
Investigate the potential for developing a one credit elective reading course for SOE candidates to
develop their reading skills and improve their performance on the PPST Reading exam.
•
Investigate the need for added emphasis in the curricular areas of assessment and classroom
management strategies based on EBI and Student Teacher data over time.
•
Work with UW-Stout’s Career Services office to improve services for candidates in the School of
Education.
•
Since Management with Educational Contingencies has been rated one of the lowest areas out of all EBI
categories over several years, develop a plan (with input from the SOE Council) to address this area at
the program and unit levels.
•
Develop a five year strategic plan based on assessment data and input from various stakeholders.
40