2009 B.S. in Early Childhood Education Assessment in Major
B.S. in Early Childhood Education
Assessment in Major
2009
Submitted by Kari Merritt, Program Director Submitted September 30, 2010
Table of Contents
Overview
The University of Wisconsin-Stout School of Education (SOE) has gathered assessment data from fall semester 2003 through December 2008. In the
School of Education, data is gathered from several sources to inform unit and program decisions. Data in this report is 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, Student Artifact Reflections, Candidate Dispositions, Pre-Student
Teaching and Student Teacher Performances, and the Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI). This report also describes how assessment data is used to set programmatic goals, improve the program, program curriculum, and delivery of courses.
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test
Like other education majors, all early childhood education candidates must pass all three sections of the PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test
(PPST). The three sections consist of reading, writing and mathematics. Passing the PPST is required as part of meeting the SOE Benchmark I:
Acceptance into Teacher Education Program and Pre-student Teaching Experiences.
PPST Attempts and Pass Rates
Due to the Datatel to Peoplesoft conversion, we are not currently able to disaggregate PPST pass percentages by program. This process is being developed. We hope to have this capability by 2011. Therefore, we only have disaggregated data through 2008. Due to this, no new conclusions could be drawn from the PPST or PRAXIS I.
Teacher
Education
Program
ECE (EC)
PPST
Test
Math
Reading
Writing
2004
# test attempts
97 a
155 a
132 a b
2004
# (and %) passed
71 = 73%
69 = 45%
69 = 52%
2005
# test attempts
77
108
108
2005
# (and %) passed
57 = 74%
48 = 44%
46 = 43%
2006
# test attempts
90
126
122
2006
# (and %) passed
57 = 63%
58 = 46%
71 = 58%
2007
# test attempts
85 d
99 d
94 d
2007
# (and %) passed
65=76%
66=67%
70=75%
2008
# test attempts
48
50
46
2008
# (and %) passed
30 = 63%
35 = 70%
33 = 72%
102 = 78.5% Math 266 215 = 80.8% 189 151 = 80.0% 204 148 = 72.5% 226 191 = 84.5% 130
SOE UG
TOTALS
Reading 368 214 = 58.2% 239 138 = 57.7% 280 145 = 51.8% 243 184 = 75.7% 150
Writing 425 206 = 48.5% 277 136 = 49.1% 296 161 = 54.4% 257 200 = 77.8% 138
To be included in the above table, the student must have a current major, and have taken the Praxis I test during that calendar year. a
- includes one double major (ARTED / ECE) b
- includes one score “grandfathered in” as a passing score
119 = 79.3%
104 = 75.4%
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2009 Page 2
ECE PPST Pass Rate by Year
(all attempts)
80
70
60
50
40
30
Reading
Writing
20
Math
10
0
2004 2005 2006
Year
2007 2008
Note: 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% upon Benchmark I approval.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2009 Page 3
PRAXIS II: Content Test
Candidates majoring in early childhood education must take and pass the content test to be eligible to pass Benchmark II and to student teach. In the
State of Wisconsin, early childhood education candidates are required to take the test in the elementary category which focuses on content provided in the general education courses. There are four categories that are covered and they include language arts, mathematics, social studies and science.
According to data generated from ETS, 50 candidates took the content test with 43 candidates receiving a passing score of 147 or higher. This is an
86% pass rate which is a significant increase from last year. The average percentage correct in the four categories are at, or close to, the pass rates nationally.
Note: 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.
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
03/04
205
04/05
37
05/06
49
06/07
67
07/08
68
08/09
50
193
122
156
183
134
156
189
124
160
195
129
161
197
132
157
191
134
159.5
146-164 151-169 148-168 151-168 150-167 149-170
147 147 147 147 147 147
Number with WI Passing
Score:
Percent with WI Passing
Scores:
150/205
73%
32/37
86%
40/49
82%
61/67
91%
48/68
71%
43/50
86%
Average Percent Correct (percentage of items answered correctly by category as compared to State and National results)
State National Elementary
Test
Category
Language Arts
Mathematics
Social Studies
Science
Points
Available
29-30
29-30
26-30
30
03/04
%
04/05
%
UW-Stout
05/06
%
06/07
%
07/08
%
08/09
%
74 74 78 77 77 73
63 68 67 74 71 66
58 60 56 57 58 64
61 66 62 68 67 65
08/09
%
77
72
66
68
08/09%
75
67
64
66
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2009 Page 4
ECE PRAXIS II
Percentage Correct by Year
(all attempts)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
70
2004 2005 2006
Year
2007 2008
Percentage of Items Answered Correctly Per Category
Language Arts
Mathematics
Social Studies
Science
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2009 Page 5
Benchmark Interview Ratings
Benchmark interview means are reported by benchmark level (I, II, and III) or each interview question.
Candidates are required to receive satisfactory ratings in all areas in order to move from pre-education status in to acceptance in the program. In the spring of 09, one student was unsuccessful with the Benchmark I process. The process was repeated unsuccessfully in the fall. The student was not retained in the program.
Benchmark I Interview Results Early Childhood Education
Question
Explain personal and professional growth between your initial resume and updated resume.
Response
Unsatisfactory
SP08 FA08 SP09 FA09
SOE UNIT
SP09 FA09
N=38 N=10 N=20 N=7 N=69 N=27
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 14% 1 1% 2 7%
Explain your philosophy of education.
Explain three personal characteristics that will make you an effective teacher.
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
38 100% 10 100% 20 100% 6 86% 68 99% 25 93%
0 0% 0 0% 1 5% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0%
38 100% 10 100% 19 95% 7 100% 68 99% 27 100%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 14% 0 0% 1 4%
38 100% 10 100% 20 100% 6 86% 69 100% 26 96%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 14% 0 0% 1 4%
38 100% 10 100% 20 100% 6 86% 69 100% 26 96%
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
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 1 4%
38 100% 10 100% 20 100% 7 100% 68 99% 26 96%
0 0% 0 0% 1 5% 2 29% 2 3% 3 11%
38 100% 10 100% 19 95% 5 71% 67 97% 24 89%
0 0% 0 0% 1 5% 0 0% 2 3% 0 0%
38 100% 10 100% 19 95% 7 100% 67 97% 27 100%
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2009 Page 6
Benchmark II Interview Results Early Childhood Education
SP08
N=30
FA08
N=26
SP09
N=29
FA09
N=16
SOE Unit
SP09 FA09
N=70 N=59
Question
Describe your Philosophy of Education and how it has evolved
Describe what it means to be a "Reflective
Practitioner"
Response
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic n/a
Fre. % Fre. % Fre. % Fre. % Fre. % Fre. %
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 2 3%
10 33% 11 42% 4 14% 5 31% 16 23% 21 36%
20 67% 15 58% 25 86% 11 69% 53 76% 36 61%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% 2 3% 1 2%
12 40% 10 38% 5 17% 5 31% 17 24% 16 27%
18 60% 16 62% 23 79% 11 69% 51 73% 42 71%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
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
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic n/a
0 0%
6 20%
0 0%
4 15%
0 0%
4 14%
0 0% 1 1% 1 2%
3 19% 13 19% 12 20%
24 80% 22 85% 25 86% 13 81% 56 80% 46 78%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 1 2%
6 20% 6 23% 3 10% 4 25% 12 17% 21 36%
24 80% 20 77% 26 90% 12 75% 57 81% 37 63%
0 0%
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence that:
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% demonstrates your content knowledge demonstrates your knowledge of how children grow and learn
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic n/a
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 6% 1 1% 1 2%
1 3% 0 0% 1 3% 1 6% 8 11% 10 17%
3 10% 3 12% 8 28% 1 6% 26 37% 20 34%
26 87% 23 88% 20 69% 13 81% 35 50% 28 47%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
1 3% 1 4% 0 0% 1 6% 1 1% 3 5%
1 3% 1 4% 3 10% 0 0% 9 13% 4 7%
28 93% 24 92% 26 90% 15 94% 60 86% 52 88%
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2009 Page 7
demonstrates your ability to create instructional opportunities adapted to diverse learners demonstrates your ability to teach effectively demonstrates your ability to manage a classroom effectively, including organizing physical space, managing procedures and student behavior, and creating a culture of respect, rapport, and learning demonstrates your ability to communicate effectively with students, parents, and colleagues demonstrates your ability to assess student learning demonstrates your professionalism, including ongoing professional development; fostering relationships with colleagues, families, and the community; and displaying ethical behavior expected of education professionals
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic n/a
0 0% 0 0% 7 24% 0 0% 2 3% 8 14%
4 13% 5 19% 2 7% 1 6% 7 10% 3 5%
12 40% 6 23% 18 62% 6 38% 33 47% 11 19%
14 47% 15 58% 8 28% 9 56% 28 40% 37 63%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
2 7% 1 4% 0 0% 1 6% 1 1% 3 5%
0 0% 0 0% 4 14% 1 6% 10 14% 6 10%
28 93% 25 96% 25 86% 14 88% 59 84% 50 85%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0%
6 20% 4 15% 1 3% 2 13% 6 9% 13 22%
8 27% 4 15% 8 28% 2 13% 22 31% 15 25%
16 53% 18 69% 20 69% 12 75% 41 59% 31 53%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
1 3% 1 4% 1 3% 1 6% 2 3% 5 8%
2 7% 2 8% 12 41% 1 6% 20 29% 4 7%
27 90% 23 88% 16 55% 14 88% 48 69% 50 85%
0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0%
3 10% 6 23% 4 14% 2 13% 8 11% 14 24%
6 20% 7 27% 11 38% 7 44% 28 40% 19 32%
21 70% 13 50% 13 45% 7 44% 33 47% 26 44%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
5 17% 6 23% 3 10% 0 0% 8 11% 4 7%
6 20% 8 31% 3 10% 4 25% 8 11% 13 22%
19 63% 12 46% 23 79% 12 75% 54 77% 42 71%
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2009 Page 8
Benchmark III interviews occur at the completion of all student teaching experiences. As would be expected at the completion of the program, a high percentage of candidates received proficient ratings:
Question
Benchmark III Interview Results Early Childhood Education
Artifacts from student teaching, reflection ratings
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=39*
FA08
N=18*
SP09
N=31*
FA09
N=10*
SOE UNIT
SP09
N=80
FA09
N=47
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0% 2 6% 0 0% 2 3% 1 2%
17 44% 9 50% 7 23% 1 10% 23 29% 7 15%
22 56% 7 39% 22 71% 9 90% 55 69% 39 83%
0 0% 2 11% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
2 5% 1 6% 1 3% 0 0% 3 4% 0 0%
14 36% 4 22% 7 23% 0 0% 24 30% 7 15%
23 59% 13 72% 23 74% 10 100% 51 64% 47 100%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 3% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 1 6% 1 3% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0%
16 41% 4 22% 8 26% 1 10% 23 29% 3 6%
23 59% 11 61% 19 61% 6 60% 38 48% 17 36%
0 0% 2 11% 3 10% 3 30% 18 23% 29 62%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% 7 9% 5 11%
5 13% 1 6% 2 6% 0 0% 16 20% 5 11%
34 87% 17 94% 27 87% 10 100% 56 70% 37 79%
0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0%
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2009
*Includes Early Childhood:Special Education Data
Page 9
Disposition Ratings
The School of Education is in the process of revising and improving upon our dispositional rating process. In the interim, we are gathering dispositional data (satisfactory/unsatisfactory) each spring on undergraduate students prior to their student teaching experience. If a student receives an unsatisfactory rating, he/she must remediate his/her disposition before allowed to progress in their program (through Benchmark I or II).
100% satisfactory disposition ratings are required at the time of Benchmark I and Benchmark II .
Starting in spring of 2010 a disposition form was implemented during student teaching with categories that align directly to our statement of values and disposition. These factors include: “Initiative, Preparedness & Continuous Learning”, “Academic Excellence through Critical Reflective
Thinking”, “Expression of Beliefs, Collaboration and Professional Communication”, “Adherence to Ethical and Legal Considerations”, and “Respect for Diversity”. Students are rated on a 3-point scale: Unsatisfactory/Emerging, Basic, and Proficient, by their cooperating teachers. A student would not be eligible for licensure if an unsatisfactory/emerging rating was reported during student teaching.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2009 Page 10
Student Teaching Performance Ratings
Cooperating teachers rated student teachers on Wisconsin Teacher Standards at the end of each student teaching placement. The data below is calculated by averaging each student teacher’s final student teaching performance ratings to come up with one final overall score for each student.
Means are calculated on a 4-point scale where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and 4=proficient. In comparing spring ’09 data with spring ’08 data, it was noted that means in all ten areas were higher. During fall of ’09, the top two ratings were Teachers Are Able to Evaluate Themselves and
Teachers Are Able to Plan Different Kinds of Lessons. These two categories also appears in the top three ratings during spring of ’09.
Student Teacher Course Evaluations Early Childhood Education
Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient
SOE UNIT
SP08 FA08 SP09 FA09 SP09 FA09
N=40* N=16* N=37* N=29* N=78
Std
Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Std Dev Mean Dev Mean
N=74
Std
Dev
Teachers know the subjects they are teaching
Teachers know how children grow
3.55
3.54
0.34 3.90
0.32 3.90
0.23 3.86
0.29 3.94
0.26 3.76
0.14 3.80
0.29 3.87 0.36 3.72 0.32
0.29 3.75 0.39 3.71 0.39
Teachers understand that children learn differently
Teachers know how to teach
Teachers know how to manage a classroom
Teachers communicate well
Teachers are able to plan different kinds of lessons
Teachers know how to test for student progress
Teachers are able to evaluate themselves
3.53
3.41
3.51
3.45
3.53
3.39
3.61
0.36 3.85
0.35 3.85
0.35 3.80
0.35 3.76
0.39 3.93
0.42 3.81
0.36 3.76
0.30 3.88
0.30 3.93
0.37 3.85
0.37 3.83
0.20 3.93
0.30 3.80
0.45 3.89
0.24 3.76
0.22 3.66
0.30 3.74
0.32 3.74
0.17 3.82
0.32 3.70
0.24 3.86
0.34 3.82 0.35 3.70 0.42
0.44 3.77 0.39 3.79 0.47
0.38 3.73 0.47 3.68 0.46
0.34 3.74 0.40 3.67 0.36
0.29 3.84 0.41 3.75 0.37
0.39 3.81 0.45 3.48 0.67
0.26 3.84 0.36 3.75 0.32
Teachers are connected with other teachers and the community 3.59 0.33 3.86 0.25 3.76 0.36 3.81 0.30 3.62 0.52 3.66 0.37
*Includes Early Childhood:Special Education Candidates
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2009 Page 11
Student Teacher Course Evaluations Early Childhood Education
Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient
3.95
3.85
3.75
3.65
3.55
3.45
3.35
SP08: N=40
FA08: N=16
SP09: N=37
FA09: N=29
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2009 Page 12
Educational Benchmarking Survey (EBI)
(Ratings: 1 - 7)
The Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) of exiting student teachers is administered via computer at the end of student teaching (final experience) for the purpose of unit assessment. Categories with the highest means were Fellow Students in Program, Student Teaching Experience and Satisfaction with Faculty and Courses. The category with the lowest mean was Career Services. 2009-2010 data shows higher means in all categories, with the exception of Career Services. Additionally, Career Services is the only category where ECE means are not higher than SOE as a whole.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2009 Page 13
6.40
5.90
5.40
4.90
4.40
3.90
2006-07
N=58
2007-08
N=52
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2009
2008-09
N=36
2009-10
N=43/51
EBI Survey of Completing ECE Student Teachers
Scale: 1 - 7
Factor 1: Quality of Instruction
Factor 2: Learning Theories, Teaching Pedagogy/Techniques
Factor 3: Research Methods, Professional Development,
Societal Implications
Factor 4: Aspects of Student Development
Factor 5: Classroom Equity and Diversity
Factor 6: Management of Education Constituencies
Factor 7: Assessment of Student Learning
Factor 8: Satisfaction with Faculty and Courses
Factor 9: Administration Services
Factor 10: Support Services
Factor 11: Fellow Students in Program
Factor 12: Student Teaching Experience
Factor 13: Career Services
Factor 14: Overall Program Effectiveness
Page 14
EBI - Institution Specific Questions 2009-2010
Mean Data; Scale 1-7
ARTED CTET ECE FCSE MBE SPED TECED SOE
N=8 N=11 N=43 N=10 N=10 N=9 N=20 N=127
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?
5.75 5.80 5.59 5.20 5.60 6.12
4.75 5.60 5.54 5.10 5.30 6.25
4.75 5.70 5.56 4.90 5.00 6.12
4.67
4.65
4.45
5.42
5.29
5.21
5.00 5.60 5.34 5.70 5.80 5.75 4.80 5.32
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?
4.62 5.10 5.41 4.40 4.80 5.57
4.38 5.60 4.82 5.60 6.30 5.38
4.20
4.65
4.91
5.05
5.25 5.10 5.60 5.10 6.20 5.75 4.75 5.35
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?
4.43 4.90 5.05 5.20 6.00 6.00
5.12 5.30 6.06 5.10 5.70 6.29
4.80
5.00
5.14
5.60
5.00 4.90 5.70 5.10 4.90 6.25 4.30 5.16
*We updated our questions for the 2009-2010 school year therefore trend data is not available
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2009 Page 15
Alumni Follow-Up Survey
Graduates of teacher education programs are sent a one and five year follow up survey. At the five year mark it is quite evident that candidates were pleased with their academic preparation as evidenced by 100% of the respondents indicating they would attend Stout again and 89% of them indicating they would choose the same program.
Comparison by Program in 2010 Study (2004 and 2008 graduates):
When comparing results by undergraduate program, many statistically significant differences were found. (Programs with less than 15 respondents were not included in the analysis.) Table 4 focuses on differences by program on three of the overarching questions with asterisks by means that were significant.
Explanations of differences are discussed after the table. Other statistically significant differences can be provided upon request.
Table 4: Program Comparison
Program Would you enroll in the same program?
How would you rate the overall effectiveness of your program?
Is your employment directly related to your program?
Applied Math & Comp. Sci.
Art
Business Administration
Career, Tech. Ed. & Trng.
Construction
Early Childhood Educ.
Engineering Tech.
Graphic Commun. Mgmt.
Hotel/Rest./Tour. Mgmt.
Human Dev. & Fam. Studies
Management
Manufacturing Engineering
Marketing & Bus. Educ.
Packaging
Psychology
Retail Merch. & Mgmt.
Technology Education
Vocational Rehabilitation
3.56
3.65
3.78
4.37*
3.95
3.88
4.00
3.21*
3.39
3.96
4.38
3.86
3.57
3.40
4.16
4.21*
3.40
3.92
3.86
4.00
3.96
4.21*
4.00
4.08
4.10
3.72
3.32*
4.11
4.06
3.98*
3.85
3.80
4.26*
4.04*
4.11*
4.28*
3.68*
3.39
2.68*
3.88
3.60
3.68
3.05*
3.70
4.33*
4.36*
3.73
3.34*
3.53*
3.53
4.57*
4.39*
3.61
4.36*
When alumni were asked if they had it to do over again would they enroll in the same program, alumni from the Manufacturing Engineering program and the Early Childhood program responded statistically higher to this question than alumni from the Retail Merchandising and Management program.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2009 Page 16
When asked how they rated the overall effectiveness of their program, alumni of the Technology Education program responded statistically lower to this question than alumni from Art, Construction, Early Childhood Education, Engineering Technology, Graphic Communication Management, and
Manufacturing Engineering.
When asked if their employment was directly related to their UW-Stout major, many statistical differences were found between programs. Following are a sample of differences found. These include programs with a greater number of statistical differences. Alumni from the Management program responded statistically lower to this question than alumni from Construction; Early Childhood Education; Graphic Communications Management; Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management; and Technology Education. Alumni from the Construction program and the Early Childhood Education program responded statistically higher to this question than alumni from Art, Business Administration, and Psychology.
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies
Data will be communicated to faculty members through informal and formal means. Program faculty meet during scheduled discipline area work group meetings (DAWG) designed to support ongoing program improvement. The early childhood education faculty and staff meet on a regular basis for the purpose of improving instruction, reviewing course policies and to make recommendations to the program director related to program revisions. In addition, the Assessment in the Major findings will be shared with the program’s advisory committee, with discussion occurring at the fall meeting.
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program
Utilizing feedback from program faculty and staff, cooperating teachers, students, and advisory board members continuous improvement is occurring in the program.
•
A major program revision is in the planning stages, including revisions of many of the major studies courses, updated philosophy and goals and the addition of Tenets of Early Childhood Education
•
Investigate reasons why students leave the major and develop an action plan based on the gathered data.
•
As a part of the program revision, investigate ways that students can feel more confident with formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate student progress.
•
Investigate ways to provide students the opportunity to become more proficient in instructional technology.
•
Continue to monitor students who are experiencing difficulty and explore services that may be available to assist.
Early Childhood Education AIM Report 2009 Page 17
