B.S. in Family and Consumer
Sciences Education
Assessment in the Major Report
By Dr. Diane Klemme, Program Director
2009
Submitted September 30, 2010
Table of Contents
Overview ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................1
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test .................................................................................................................................................................1
PRAXIS II: Content Test Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................2
PRAXI I and II: Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................................3
Benchmark Interview Ratings..................................................................................................................................................................................4
Benchmark I, II, III Summary..................................................................................................................................................................................6
Disposition Ratings ................................................................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Student Teaching Performance Ratings ...................................................................................................................................................................8
Summary of Student Teaching Performance Ratings ..............................................................................................................................................9
Educational Benchmarking Survey (EBI) .............................................................................................................................................................10
Summary of Educational Benchmarking Survey (EBI)........................................................................................................................................17
Alumni Follow-up Data .........................................................................................................................................................................................17
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies .........................................................................................................................................13
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program ..................................................................................................................13
Overview
The University of Wisconsin-Stout School of Education (SOE) has gathered assessment data gathered 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, PreStudent 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
The PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test (PPST) is required for teacher certification by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. To be
accepted into the Teacher Education Program at UW-Stout (Benchmark I), students; typically in their first and second year at UW-Stout, must pass
all three tests: reading writing and mathematics. The PPST is administered through the Educational Testing Services (ETS). The test is administered
as a traditional hand bubble sheet test or by computer at designated sites. ETS provides an annual institution report on all students attempting 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 so the pass
rate is 100% upon Benchmark I approval.
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
worked on. We hope to have this capability by 2011. Therefore, we only have disaggregated data through 2008.
Teacher
Education
Program
FCSE
undergraduate
TOTALS
2004
2004
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
Math
Reading
Writing
16
17
22
11 = 69%
14 = 82%
14 = 64%
2005
# test
attemp
ts
18
18
21
Math
266
215 = 80.8%
Reading
368
Writing
425
PPST
Test
2005
2006
2006
2007
2007
2008
2008
# (and %)
passed
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
17 = 94%
16 = 89%
16 = 76%
16
19
18
11 = 69%
7 = 37%
10 = 56%
10
14
12
10
14
12
6
10
6
5 = 83%
9 = 90%
5 = 83%
189
151 = 80.0%
204
148 = 72.5%
226
191 = 84.5%
130
102 = 78.5%
214 = 58.2%
239
138 = 57.7%
280
145 = 51.8%
243
184 = 75.7%
150
119 = 79.3%
206 = 48.5%
277
136 = 49.1%
296
161 = 54.4%
257
200 = 77.8%
138
104 = 75.4%
To be included in the above chart, the student must have a current major as of fall 2004 or fall 2005 or fall 2006, and have taken the Praxis I test during that calendar year.
a
b
- includes one double major (ARTED / ECE)
- includes one score “grandfathered in” as a passing score
FCSE AIM Report 2009
Page 1
PRAXIS II: Content Test Summary
The PRAXIS II FCSE content exam was revised and the new exam was implemented September 2009.
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.
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:
03/04
23
730
510
600
600-660
590
18/23
78%
04/05
10
740
490
645
600-710
590
8/10
80%
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%
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%
Average Percent Correct (as compared to State and National results)
Stout State National
Points
08/09
Available 08/09 08/09
%
%
%
The Family
15-18
79
78
75
Human Dev.
19
70
71
67
Management
17
64
73
72
FCSE Test
Category
(0121)
Nutrition /
Food
Clothing /
Textiles
Housing
FCS Educ.
Career,
Community
17
71
78
73
7
71
68
71
10
62
68
70
22-25
72
73
69
7-9
60
70
68
FCSE AIM Report 2009
Page 2
PRAXIS I and II Summary
Since no disaggregate data is available for 2009 – have no comments at this time.
The Praxis II data is from the new test and thus comparison to the pass exam is problematic. The new exam combined the original Management and
Consumer Economics areas into one section, Management, and the test has a new section, Career and Community. The Housing section and the
Management section continue to have lower percentages than the state/nation. These classes have been moved up on the four year plan so students
will take them earlier in the program and hopefully, prior to taking the PRAXIS II exam.
Benchmark Interview Ratings
Benchmark I Interview Results Family & Consumer Sciences
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
FCSE AIM Report 2009
Response
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
SP08
N=10
0
0%
10 100%
0
0%
10 100%
0
0%
10 100%
0
0%
10 100%
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
4
FA08
N=4
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
SP09
N=3
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
FA09
N=3
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
10
100% 4
100% 3
100% 3
Unsatisfactory
0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
10
0
10
100% 4
0% 0
100% 4
100% 3
0% 0
100% 3
100% 3
0% 0
100% 3
Satisfactory
SOE UNIT
SP09
FA09
N=69
N=27
1
1% 2
7%
68 99% 25 93%
1
1% 0
0%
68 99% 27 100%
0
0% 1
4%
69 100% 26 96%
0
0% 1
4%
69 100% 26 96%
1
100% 68
0%
2
100% 67
0% 2
100% 67
1%
1
4%
99% 26
96%
3%
3
11%
97% 24 89%
3% 0
0%
97% 27 100%
Page 3
Benchmark II Interview Results Family & Consumer Education
SP08
N=8
Question
FA08
N=6
SP09
N=7
FA09
N=4
SOE Unit
SP09
FA09
N=70
N=59
Response
Fre.
%
Fre.
%
Fre.
%
Fre.
%
Fre.
Unsatisfactory
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
3 38%
3 50%
2 29%
3 75% 16
Describe your Philosophy of Education and Emerging
how it has evolved
Basic
5 63%
3 50%
5 71%
1 25% 53
n/a
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
Unsatisfactory
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
2
Emerging
3 38%
0
0%
1 14%
2 50% 17
Describe what it means to be a "Reflective
Practitioner"
Basic
5 63%
6 100%
6 86%
2 50% 51
n/a
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
Unsatisfactory
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
Emerging
0
0%
2 33%
0
0%
1 25% 13
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and
Domain you feel most competent in
Basic
8 100%
4 67%
7 100%
3 75% 56
n/a
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
Unsatisfactory
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and
Emerging
3 38%
2 33%
2 29%
2 50% 12
Domain you have experienced the greatest
Basic
5 63%
4 67%
5 71%
2 50% 57
growth
n/a
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence that:
Unsatisfactory
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
Emerging
0
0%
2 33%
1 14%
0
0%
8
demonstrates your content knowledge
Basic
6 75%
0
0%
1 14%
0
0% 26
n/a
2 25%
4 67%
5 71%
4 100% 35
Unsatisfactory
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
demonstrates your knowledge of how
Emerging
1 13%
1 17%
0
0%
0
0%
1
children grow and learn
Basic
3 38%
0
0%
2 29%
1 25%
9
FCSE AIM Report 2009
%
Fre.
%
1%
23%
76%
0%
3%
24%
73%
0%
1%
19%
80%
0%
1%
17%
81%
0%
2
21
36
0
1
16
42
0
1
12
46
0
1
21
37
0
3%
36%
61%
0%
2%
27%
71%
0%
2%
20%
78%
0%
2%
36%
63%
0%
1%
11%
37%
50%
0%
1%
13%
1 2%
10 17%
20 34%
28 47%
0 0%
3 5%
4 7%
Page 4
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
FCSE AIM Report 2009
n/a
4
50%
5
83%
5
71%
3
75%
60 86%
52 88%
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
0
0
1
7
0
0
1
7
0
1
1
0%
0%
13%
88%
0%
0%
13%
88%
0%
13%
13%
0
0%
1 17%
3 50%
2 33%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
6 100%
0
0%
0
0%
2 33%
0
0
2
5
0
0
1
6
0
2
3
0%
0%
29%
71%
0%
0%
14%
86%
0%
29%
43%
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
3
0
1
1
0%
25%
0%
75%
0%
0%
25%
75%
0%
25%
25%
2
7
33
28
0
1
10
59
1
6
22
3%
10%
47%
40%
0%
1%
14%
84%
1%
9%
31%
8
3
11
37
0
3
6
50
0
13
15
14%
5%
19%
63%
0%
5%
10%
85%
0%
22%
25%
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
6 75%
0
0%
0
0%
1 13%
7 88%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
8 100%
0
0%
0
0%
3 38%
4 67%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
6 100%
0
0%
0
0%
1 17%
5 83%
0
0%
0
0%
2 33%
2 29%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
7 100%
0
0%
1 14%
1 14%
5 71%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
2 50%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
4 100%
0
0%
2 50%
0
0%
2 50%
0
0%
1 25%
0
0%
41
0
2
20
48
1
8
28
33
0
8
8
59%
0%
3%
29%
69%
1%
11%
40%
47%
0%
11%
11%
31
0
5
4
50
0
14
19
26
0
4
13
53%
0%
8%
7%
85%
0%
24%
32%
44%
0%
7%
22%
n/a
5
4
7 100%
3
54 77%
63%
67%
75%
42 71%
Page 5
Benchmark III Interview Results Family & Consumer Sciences
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
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
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
4
0
SP08
N=4
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
0%
25%
75%
0%
0%
0%
25%
75%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
FA08
N=8
0 0%
0 0%
3 38%
4 50%
1 13%
0 0%
0 0%
1 13%
7 88%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
1 13%
7 88%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
1 13%
6 75%
0 0%
0
0
2
4
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
5
0
1
0
SP09
N=6
0%
0%
33%
67%
0%
0%
17%
33%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
83%
0%
17%
0%
0
0
1
6
0
0
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
1
6
0
0
0
7
0
FA09
N=7
0%
0%
14%
86%
0%
0%
0%
43%
57%
0%
0%
0%
0%
14%
86%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
SOE UNIT
SP09
FA09
N=80
N=47
0 0% 0
0%
2 3% 1
2%
23 29% 7 15%
55 69% 39 83%
0 0% 0
0%
0 0% 0
0%
3 4% 0
0%
24 30% 7 15%
51 64% 47 100%
2 3% 0
0%
0 0% 0
0%
1 1% 0
0%
23 29% 3
6%
38 48% 17 36%
18 23% 29 62%
0 0% 0
0%
7 9% 5 11%
16 20% 5 11%
56 70% 37 79%
1 1% 0
0%
Summary of Benchmark I, II, III Interviews
Students in the FCSE program pass the Benchmark interviews with “basic” on Benchmark I and “basic” and “proficient” at the Benchmark III
level.
FCSE AIM Report 2009
Page 6
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.
FCSE AIM Report 2009
Page 7
Student Teaching Performance Ratings
Student Teacher Course Evaluations Family & Consumer Education
Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient
SOE UNIT
SP08
N=4
Std
Mean Dev
Teachers know the subjects they
are teaching
Teachers know how children grow
Teachers understand that children
learn differently
Teachers know how to teach
Teachers know how to manage a
classroom
Teachers communicate well
Teachers are able to plan different
kinds of lessons
Teachers know how to test for
student progress
Teachers are able to evaluate
themselves
Teachers are connected with other
teachers and the community
FCSE AIM Report 2009
FA08
N=6
Std
Mean Dev
SP09
N=6
Std
Mean Dev
FA09
N=7
Std
Mean Dev
SP09
N=78
Std
Mean Dev
FA09
N=74
Std
Mean Dev
3.88
3.88
0.25
0.25
3.92
3.83
0.20
0.41
3.67
3.75
0.41
0.42
3.64
3.71
0.38
0.39
3.87
3.75
0.36
0.39
3.72
3.71
0.32
0.39
3.88
3.56
0.25
0.51
3.83
3.67
0.41
0.52
3.83
3.50
0.26
0.45
3.54
3.68
0.47
0.43
3.82
3.77
0.35
0.39
3.70
3.79
0.42
0.47
3.38
3.50
0.48
0.41
3.53
3.83
0.64
0.26
3.50
3.67
0.55
0.52
3.39
3.57
0.50
0.45
3.73
3.74
0.47
0.40
3.68
3.67
0.46
0.36
3.50
0.41
3.83
0.41
3.67
0.41
3.86
0.24
3.84
0.41
3.75
0.37
3.88
0.25
3.78
0.40
3.75
0.42
3.60
0.56
3.81
0.45
3.48
0.67
3.63
0.48
3.83
0.41
3.83
0.26
3.64
0.48
3.84
0.36
3.75
0.32
3.50
0.41
3.92
0.20
3.42
0.49
3.50
0.50
3.62
0.52
3.66
0.37
Page 8
Student Teacher Course Evaluations Family & Consumer Education
Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient
3.95
3.85
3.75
3.65
3.55
3.45
SP08: N=4
3.35
FA08: N=6
SP09: N=6
FA09: N=7
Summary Student Teacher Course Evaluations
The top three areas for 2009 graduates (n=13):
The bottom two areas for 2009 graduates:
FCSE AIM Report 2009
Teachers know how to test student progress (3.76)
Teachers know how children grow (3.73)
Teachers are able to evaluate themselves (3.73)
Teachers are connected with other teachers (3.47)
Teachers know how to manage a classroom (3.45)
Page 9
N=6
FCSE AIM Report 2009
N=17
N=5
N=10/11
Page 10
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?
5.75 5.80 5.59 5.20 5.60 6.12
4.67
5.42
To what degree were you prepared to provide instruction that
fosters student learning and intellectual, social and personal
development?
4.75 5.60 5.54 5.10 5.30 6.25
4.65
5.29
To what degree were you prepared to create instructional
experiences adapted for students who learn differently?
4.75 5.70 5.56 4.90 5.00 6.12
4.45
5.21
To what degree were you prepared to use a variety of learning
strategies including the use of technology to encourage critical
thinking and problem solving?
To what degree were you prepared to manage classroom behavior
and create a learning environment that encourages positive social
interaction, active engagement in learning and self-motivation?
To what degree were you prepared to use instructional technology
and media to foster active inquiry, collaboration and interaction in
the classroom?
To what degree were you prepared to plan instruction based on
knowledge of subject matter, students, the community and
curriculum goals?
To what degree were you prepared to use formal and informal
assessment strategies to evaluate student progress?
To what degree were you prepared to reflect on teaching and
evaluate the effects of choices and actions on pupils, parents and
others?
To what degree were you prepared to foster relationships with
colleges, families and the community to support student learning
and well-being?
5.00
5.60
5.34
5.70
5.80
5.75
4.80
5.32
4.62
5.10
5.41
4.40
4.80
5.57
4.20
4.91
4.38
5.60
4.82
5.60
6.30
5.38
4.65
5.05
5.25
5.10
5.60
5.10
6.20
5.75
4.75
5.35
4.43
4.90
5.05
5.20
6.00
6.00
4.80
5.14
5.12
5.30
6.06
5.10
5.70
6.29
5.00
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
FCSE AIM Report 2009
Page 11
Summary of EBI Data
FCSE students’ means were higher than SOE unit means on all 14 EBI factors. The two highest factors were: fellow student in the programs (6.45)
and satisfaction with faculty and courses (6.32). The two lowest rated factors were: research methods, professional development and societal
implications (5.14) and career services (4.24).
The institution specific questions identified the top two for the FCSE program as: “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?” (5.70) and “To what degree were you prepared to use
instructional technology and media to foster active inquiry, collaboration and interaction in the classroom?” (5.6). the two lowest items included: “To
what degree were you prepared to create instructional experiences adapted for students who learn differently? “(4.90) and “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?” (4.40)
Alumni Follow-Up Survey
The Alumni follow-up surveys are at one-year and five-year intervals. The sample numbers are typically not large and the employer data typically
includes very few responses. Response rates for the five-year (2004) included two individuals, the one- year (2008) has 7 respondents and the
employer survey had no responses for the 2008 and 1 for 2004. Due to the low numbers I cannot draw any conclusions from the employer interviews
and alumni are very small samples. The two alumni from 2004 have full time positions, one in the field and one in an unrelated field. Both rated
their experiences as acceptable and if they had to do it over, they would attend UW- Stout.
Of the seven 2008 graduates, five are employed in a directly related field and six have full time positions. Six of the respondent identified that they
would “definitely yes” attend Stout if they had to do it over again. The other respondent indicated a “4” in attending Stout. Four would definitely
return to the same program, 2 respondents indicated a “4” and 1 indicated a “3”. Eighty –six percent of the respondents rated the overall effectiveness
of the program/major as high or very high.
The executive summary and full report from the Alumni Follow-Up Study are now complete. You can access the report in Image Now and it is also
located at the following site: http://www.uwstout.edu/static/bpa/ir/afu/2010index.html
FCSE AIM Report 2009
Page 12
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies
A School of Education Data Retreat was held May 26, 2010 where unit data and program specific data was shared with SOE faculty members. The
FCSE program strengths included: the students, the students’ ability to test students for progress and the students’ ability to provide a variety of
different lessons. Areas that are challenging continue to be classroom management, and the lower PRAXIS II pass rate. The new section on the
PRAXIS II “career/ community/connection” category was one of the lowest rated for the FCSE students. This data will be also be shared with the
FCSE advisory board at the fall meeting (meeting TBA). At this meeting, members will discuss recommendations for improvement. This document
will also be shared with the University supervising teachers; and they, in turn, will have discussion with cooperating teachers as to some ways of
improving the student teaching experience and any other recommendations for program improvement.
This report will also be shared with faculty in the program, faculty responsible for content classes in the program and SOE administration. Their
feedback and suggestions will be sought. Additionally, information regarding the PPST and content test will be shared with student in the FCSE
101-Introduction to FCSE, FCSE 201- Teaching Strategies in FCSE, and FCSE 380-Consumer Economics to aid them as they prepare to take these
tests.
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program
Based in the data, strengths included the students’ ability to test students for progress and the students’ ability to provide a variety of different
lessons; therefore the FCSE program coursework in evaluation and teaching strategies seems to be positive and needs to be continued. Areas that are
challenging continue to be classroom management, and the lower PRAXIS II pass rate. The new section on the PRAXIS II “career/
community/connection” category was one of the lowest rated for our students and will be reviewed to identify classes that teach these topics. In
addition, a PRAXIS II student session has been scheduled for the fall advisory meeting day to inform students about the areas and share ways to help
study for the exam. The Consumer Economics course and the Family Housing course has been “moved up” in the four year plan so hopefully within
the next couple of years, FCSE students will be taking these classes earlier in the program and be enrolled in the course as they take the PRAXIS II.
Classroom management continues to be one of the lowest rated areas in the FCSE program as well as for the SOE unit. Discussion on May 26, 2010
included exploring adding more courses on classroom management and/or curriculum-based measurement course to test for student progress. I
believe this discussion will continue this academic year and additional coursework or courses may result. In addition, the SOE unit low rating of
career services is similar to low rating by the FCSE program and SOE is planning to develop some strategies with Career Services to address SOE
student concerns.
As a result of the Wisconsin DPI visit, SOE students are now required to complete an Instructional Technology Utilization Rubric. Discussion with
SOE faculty members and the advisory committee will hopefully determine a meaningful way to incorporate these requirements into the program.
FCSE AIM Report 2009
Page 13