School of Education
Undergraduate Unit Assessment
2008
Submitted by: Jacalyn Weissenburger, Director &
Lesley Voigt, Assessment Coordinator
Submitted October 27, 2009
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 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
PRAXIS II: Content Test ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Art Education .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Business Education ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Elementary Education ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Family & Consumer Sciences Education ......................................................................................................................................................... 21
Health Education ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Marketing Education ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Middle School Subjects – Special Education ................................................................................................................................................... 24
Special Education.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24
Technology Education ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Teaching Minors ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Student Artifact Reflection Ratings ...................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Disposition Ratings ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
SOE Unit Means by Category for Each Disposition Level .............................................................................................................................. 36
Benchmark I Interview Results ............................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Benchmark II Interview Results ........................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Benchmark III Interview Results .......................................................................................................................................................................... 44
Pre-Student Teaching Ratings........................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Student Teacher Performance Ratings .................................................................................................................................................................. 49
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) for Exiting Student Teachers ......................................................................................................... 53
EBI Factor Means Highest Difference to Lowest Difference ........................................................................................................................... 53
EBI SOE Specific Questions Related to Wisconsin Teacher Standards........................................................................................................... 55
EBI Factor & Item Analysis by Program .......................................................................................................................................................... 56
School of Education Undergraduate Follow-Up Survey Results ..................................................................................................................... 61
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies .................................................................................................................................... 63
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Unit ................................................................................................................... 63
School of Education’s Unit Assessment Report
2008
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 2008. 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) and 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. Unfortunately as of October 2009, we
have not received our 08/09 test data from ETS.
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:
03/04
105
185
156
176
171180
175
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
58/105
56/87
58/101
77/125
49/79
55%
64%
57%
62%
62%
08/09
2
PPST Reading Score Distributions by Level – 2007-2008
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
Points
Available
Literal
03/04
%
04/05
%
05/06
%
06/07
%
07/08
%
21-24
73
76
74
75
70
16-19
67
73
69
72
65
08/09
%
Comprehension
Critical and
Inferential
Comprehension
Wisconsin
Reading Test
Category
Literal
Points
Available
National
03/04
%
04/05
%
05/06
%
06/07
%
07/08
%
03/04
%
04/05
%
05/06
%
06/07
%
07/08
%
21-24
79
82
82
80
77
76
76
78
76
75
16-19
77
80
79
78
73
73
74
75
73
70
08/09
%
08/09
%
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 dropped from 06/07-07/08, but that appears to be consistent with the trend at the State and
National Level.
3
Percentage of Correct Points
Reading: Literal Comprehension
85
80
75
UW-Stout
70
Wisconsin
Nation
65
60
2007/8
2006/7
2005/6
2004/5
2003/4
Year
Percentage of Correct Points
Reading: Inferential Comprehension
85
80
75
UW-Stout
70
Wisconsin
Nation
65
60
2007/8
2006/7
2005/6
2004/5
2003/4
Year
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. Again, our pass rates did
drop slightly but remain consistent with the State and National trend.
Computer
PPST
Reading
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
286
166
174
146
114
186
187
186
186
185
155
158
158
160
162
177
177
176
176
176
172-180
172-180
172-181
172179
172180
175
175
175
175
175
188/286
110/166
66%
66%
08/09
113/174 89/146 66/114
65%
61%
58%
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. Unfortunately
at this time, we do not have the 08/09 test data. 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:
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08 08/09
108
90
104
124
68
184
184
181
183
182
165
168
163
161
168
174
174.5
174
174
174
171176
172176
172175
172177
172176
174
174
174
174
174
56/108
58/90
57/104
52%
64%
55%
79/124 35/68
64%
51%
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*
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08 08/09
Number of UW-Stout Examinees:
294
187
211
159
102
Highest Observed Score:
183
182
183
182
185
Lowest Observed Score:
163
164
151
166
166
Median:
174
174
174
175
175
Average Performance Range:
171-176 171-176 171-176 173-176 172-177
WI Passing Score:
174
174
174
174
174
Number with WI Passing Score:
162/294 101/187 128/211 104/159 68/102
Percent with WI Passing Score:
55%
54%
61%
65%
67%
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
03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09
Available
%
%
%
%
%
%
10-12
52
58
48
52
59
13-16
45
52
49
54
57
11-14
58
55
52
55
50
12
64
65
66
67
63
Points
Wisconsin
Available
03/04
%
04/05
%
05/06
%
06/07
%
07/08
%
10-12
13-16
61
56
62
62
59
59
61
59
65
66
11-14
64
60
62
64
60
12
69
69
69
69
67
Points
National
03/04
%
04/05
%
05/06
%
06/07
%
07/08
%
10-12
13-16
57
52
56
56
56
55
58
55
62
63
11-14
60
55
59
60
58
12
67
67
66
66
64
Available
08/09
%
08/09
%
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
03/04
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:
99
188
165
178
174183
173
84/99
85%
04/05 05/06
73
92
06/07
07/08
119
68
190
189
190
164
160
162
180
178
178
175- 173172184
183
183
173
173
173
59/73 69/92 84/119
81% 75%
76%
08/09
187
160
176
171182
173
46/68
68%
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:
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
240
123
139
108
16
190
154
178
174183
173
188
164
179
190
164
178
175183
173
186
163
177
173181
173
189
170
183
178185
173
175/183
173
07/08 08/09
200/240 110/123 118/139 84/108 15/16
83%
89%
85%
78%
94%
8
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)
Mathematics Test
Category
Conceptual
Knowledge and
Procedural
Knowledge
Representations of
Quantitative
Information
Measurement and
Informal Geometry,
Formal Math
Reasoning
Points
Available
03/04
%
Wisconsin
04/05 05/06
%
%
06/07
%
03/04
%
National
04/05 05/06 06/07
%
%
%
17-18
70
69
68
67
63
60
60
60
11-12
75
76
75
72
68
66
67
65
9-10
73
71
72
70
65
63
62
61
Mathematics Test Category
Points Available
Number and operations
Algebra
Geometry and Measurement
Data Analysis and Probability
11-13
7-8
7-9
10
Wisconsin
07/08 08/09
%
%
60
62
66
63
National
07/08 08/09
%
%
56
56
58
58
9
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
UW-Stout Datatel Report
PPST data from UW-Stout Datatel System was extracted for the calendar years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. These tables shows first
attempts and number of students that had passed by the end of the calendar year for each type of test as well as a pattern of student persistence
in test taking. One UW-Stout candidate took the reading test up to 15 times in 2005.
The following charts show that our candidates initial pass rate is slightly decreasing, but that our candidates remain very dedicated to passing
this exam.
Number of Attempts at Reading Test (all programs)
# times ever
taken test
by end of
year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
2005
Frequency*
164
26
5
11
5
2
1
1
------1
2007
2006
Percentage
of Total
75.9%
12.0%
2.3%
5.1%
2.3%
0.9%
0.5%
0.5%
Frequency*
Percentage of
Total
166
22
15
8
3
4
1
75.8%
10.0%
6.8%
3.7%
1.4%
1.8%
0.5%
Frequency
165
47
14
8
4
2
3
----1
2008
Percentage of
Total
67.6%
19.3%
5.7%
3.3%
1.6%
0.8%
1.2%
Frequency
Percentage of
Total
93
25
11
11
5
2
1
1
1
62.0%
16.7%
7.3%
7.3%
3.3%
1.3%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.4%
0.5%
* Frequency includes any double SOE majors – students with double majors will be counted twice
11
Number of Attempts at Writing Test (all programs)
# times
2005
2006
2007
2008
ever
taken
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
test by Frequency*
Frequency*
Frequency*
Frequency*
of Total
of Total
of Total
of Total
end of
year
153
69.5%
159
66.0%
176
68.2%
1
92
66.7%
15.9%
17.8%
50
19.4%
22
35
43
2
15.9%
15
6.8%
17
7.1%
14
5.4%
3
14
10.1%
8
3.6%
7
2.9%
6
2.3%
4
5
3.6%
2
0.9%
8
3.3%
6
2.3%
5
4
2.9%
1.8%
1.2%
2
0.8%
4
3
1
6
0.7%
2
0.9%
2
0.8%
1
0.4%
7
------8
1
0.5%
--3
1.2%
9
0.4%
1
10
1
0.4%
11
12
13
14
15
* Frequency includes any double SOE majors – students with double majors will be counted twice
12
Number of Attempts at Math Test (all programs)
2005
# times ever taken test
by end of year
Frequency*
Percentage of
Total
2006
Frequency*
Percentage of
Total
2007
Frequency*
192
87.7%
187
86.2%
190
1
9.1%
10.1%
23
20
22
2
4
1.8%
5
2.3%
9
3
1
0.5%
2
0.9%
2
4
----2
5
0.9%
---2
6
---7
---8
--1
9
--10
--11
--12
1
0.5%
13
14
15
* Number includes any double SOE majors – student with double major will be counted twice
2008
Percentage of
Total
83.7%
10.1%
4.0%
0.9%
0.9%
---0.4%
Frequency*
Percentage of
Total
106
8
7
5
4
81.5%
6.2%
5.4%
3.8%
3.1%
13
PPST Attempts and Pass Rates by Program by Calendar Year
APSCI
Math
Reading
Writing
2004
# test
attempt
s
-------------
ARTED
Math
Reading
Writing
19 a
23 a
29 a
14 = 74%
12 = 52%
17 = 59%
22
23
21
15 = 68%
15 = 65%
16 = 76%
15
12
19
10 = 67%
12 = 100%
8 = 42%
22
18
25
19 (86%)
15 (83%)
21 (84%)
19
23
20
15 (79%)
19 (83%)
16 (80%)
ECE (EC)
Math
Reading
Writing
97 a
155 a
132 a b
71 = 73%
69 = 45%
69 = 52%
77
108
108
57 = 74%
48 = 44%
46 = 43%
90
126
122
57 = 63%
58 = 46%
71 = 58%
85d
99d
94d
65 (76%)
66 (67%)
70 (74%)
48
50
46
30 (63%)
35 (70%)
33 (72%)
FCSE
Math
Reading
Writing
16
17
22
11 = 69%
14 = 82%
14 = 64%
18
18
21
17 = 94%
16 = 89%
16 = 76%
16
19
18
11 = 69%
7 = 37%
10 = 56%
10
14
12
10 (100%)
14 (100%)
12 (100%)
6
10
6
5 (83%)
9 (90%)
5 (83%)
MBE
(MKTED)
Math
Reading
Writing
23
31
38
20 = 87%
23 = 74%
24 = 63%
9
7
11
8 = 89%
5 = 71%
7 = 64%
15
19
14
9 = 60%
12 = 63%
10 = 71%
22
22
24
20 (91%)
19 (86%)
17 (71%)
11
11
12
11 (100%)
11 (100%)
10 (83%)
TECED
Math
Reading
Writing
79
109 c
172 c
73 = 92%
72 = 66%
61 = 35%
47
64
96
42 = 89%
44 = 69%
42 = 44%
47
72
92
44 = 94%
43 = 60%
45 = 49%
39
38
49
36 (92%)
33 (87%)
39 (80%)
21
25
27
20 (95%)
21 (84%)
20 (74%)
SPED
Math
Reading
Writing
-------------
-------------
8
9
11
7 = 88%
4 = 44%
6 = 55%
15
28
24
12 = 80%
11 = 39%
13 = 54%
20
23
23
13 (65%)
10 (43%)
14 (61%)
16
22
18
14 (88%)
18 (82%)
12 (67%)
VR
(SPED
certificate)
Math
Reading
Writing
32
33
32
26 = 81%
24 = 73%
21 = 66%
8
10
9
5 = 63%
6 = 60%
3 = 33%
6
4
7
5 = 83%
2 = 50%
4 = 57%
1
3
2
1 (100%)
2 (67%)
2 (100%)
1
1
--
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
--
Teacher
Education
Program
PPST Test
2004
2005
2005
2006
2006
2007
2007
2008
2008
# (and %)
passed
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
-------------
-------------
-------------
1
1
1
1 = 100%
1 = 100%
1 = 100%
4
4
3
4 (100%)
4 (100%)
3 (100%)
1
1
2
1 (100%)
1 (100%)
2 (100%)
14
Teacher
Education
Program
PPST Test
2004
# test
attempt
s
2004
2005
2005
2006
2006
2007
2007
2008
2008
# (and %)
passed
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
Career, Tech
Ed and
Training
Math
Reading
Writing
1
1
1
1 (100%)
1 (100%)
1 (100%)
----
----
Other
Math
Reading
Writing
23
22
25
22 (96%)
20 (91%)
21 (84%)
8
8
8
7 (88%)
6 (75%)
7 (88%)
Math
undergraduate
TOTALS
266
Reading
368
Writing
425
215 =
80.8%
214 =
58.2%
206 =
48.5%
189
239
277
151 =
80.0%
138 =
57.7%
136 =
49.1%
204
280
296
148 =
72.5%
145 =
51.8%
161 =
54.4%
226
243
257
191 =
84.5%
184 =
75.7%
200 =
77.8%
130
150
138
102 =
78.5%
119 =
79.3%
104 =
75.4%
To be included in the above chart, the student must have taken the Praxis I test during the calendar year listed.
a
- includes one double major (ARTED / ECE)
b
- Includes one score “grandfathered in” as a passing score
c
- Includes one exemption granted for a passing score
d
- Includes three double majors (ECE/TECHED)
Students grouped as “other” in the table have an undeclared major or have a non-SOE major.
15
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. Students who took
the content test during 2003-04 were “grandfathered in,” as this was a no-fault year in
Wisconsin.
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.
ETS did not include results of tests with fewer than 10 individuals in 2004/05 or for 5 individuals
for 2005/06. Therefore, some content areas may not be included in the tables for specific years.
However, these content areas are included in the data reported by UW-Stout’s Datatel System.
The UW-Stout Datatel System/Data Warehouse provides information on the UW-Stout
candidates who have taken PRAXIS II content test appropriate for their designated teaching
certification. Data from that system is reported on a calendar year basis.
Note: Comparing the ETS content test data with the content test data from the university’s Datatel system
reveals a number of discrepancies. This appears to be due to the way individual information (i.e., first
name, middle name or initial and last name) was entered into ETS by candidates at the time of testing.
The inputted format must match Datatel information exactly in order for the two systems to match for
reporting and comparison purposes. Thus, some content areas may depict a pass rate of less than 100%
in ETS which is not accurate. Likewise, the number of tests may not correctly match the Datatel system.
The School of Education asks students to use their name as it appears on university records when they
register and sign in for the test. Also, SOE reconciles student lists from ETS with the university database.
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
According to our Datatel system which reports on a calendar year, 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 and Datatel is as follows:
Content Test
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:
Datatel
2004
Datatel
2005
Datatel
2006
Datatel
2007
Datatel
2008
22
8
8
10
11
178
146
-
186
157
-
194
155
-
188
150
174
147
-
-
-
155
155
155
19/22
8/8
8/8
9/10
10/11
86%
100%
100%
90%
91%
18
Business Education
Praxis Test Code - 10100
The data below shows consistently 100% passing scores on the Business Education Test.
Business Education – from Datatel
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
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:
2004
25
760
520
580
20/25
80%
2004
6
730
580
580
6/6
100%
2005
17
750
450
580
15/17
88%
2006
11
720
600
580
11/11
100%
2007
14
700
580
580
14/14
100%
03/04
30
760
520
630
610-680
04/05
18
750
450
635
600-660
05/06
15
730
610
660
650-680
06/07
7
670
620
620
620-660
07/08
17
770
580
630
610-650
580
25/30
580
17/18
580
15/15
580
7/7
580
17/17
83%
94%
100%
100%
100%
2008
8
680
580
580
8/8
100%
08/09
19
Elementary Education
Praxis Test Code - 10014
According to the ETS report and Datatel, the highest observed score is the highest it has been
and is a large increase from 2007 to 2008.
Early Childhood Education
(Early Childhood – regular/special
education)
(Middle Childhood – regular
education)
Content Knowledge – from
Datatel
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
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:
2004
2004
175
193
122
147
130/176
74%
4
143
169
147
3/4
75%
2005
41
183
134
147
38/41
93%
2006
82
195
125
147
63/82
77%
2007
61
190
128
147
56/61
92%
03/04
205
193
122
156
04/05
37
183
134
156
05/06
49
189
124
160
06/07
67
195
129
161
07/08
68
197
132
157
146-164
151-169
148-168
151-168
150-167
147
147
147
147
147
150/205
32/37
40/49
61/67
48/68
73%
86%
82%
91%
71%
2008
53
197
128
147
46/53
87%
08/09
20
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.
Family & Consumer
Sciences Education – from 2004*
Datatel
Number of Examinees:
20
Highest Observed Score:
730
Lowest Observed Score
470
WI Score Need to Pass:
590
Number with WI Passing
14/20
Score
Percent with WI Passing
70%
Score
2004
2005
2006
2007
3
670
560
590
5
670
560
590
12
710
550
590
2/3
4/5
10/12
67%
80%
83%
2008
New test
2008
15
740
510
590
10/15
11
710
510
590
4/11
7
177
157
159
6/7
67%
36%
86%
* - scores from no-fault year – “grandfathered in” as passing
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:
03/04
23
730
510
600
04/05
10
740
490
645
05/06
18
740
600
665
06/07
14
740
590
655
07/08*
20
-
600-660
600-710
620-710
630-680
-
590
590
590
590
-
18/23
8/10
18/18
14/14
17/20
78%
80%
100%
100%
85%
08/09
* - scores from new test #10121 have been added to the totals scores could not be reported due to format changes in the new test
21
Health Education
Praxis Test Code - 20550
Health Education data from the ETS report and Datatel is as follows:
Content Test
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:
Datatel*
2004
Datatel
2005
Datatel
2006
Datatel
2007
Datatel
2008
6
14
15
6
4
790
810
830
780
700
580
610
610
620
590
-
-
-
-
-
-
610
610
610
610
610
5/6
14
15/15
6/6
3/4
83%
100%
100%
100%
75%
22
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.
Marketing Education
Praxis Test Code – 10560
The data provided from Datatel and ETS shows consistent 100% passing scores on the
Marketing Education Test.
Marketing Education – from
Datatel
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
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:
2004
2004
21
810
480
600
14/21
67%
2005
6
820
660
600
6/6
100%
13
810
580
600
12/13
92%
2006
13
820
610
600
13/13
100%
2007
2008
5
780
610
600
5/5
100%
11
780
590
600
11/11
100%
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
29
14
15
6
15
810
820
820
720
780
450
570
610
610
590
660
685
720
705
630
550-720
660-750
660-750
690-720
610-720
600
600
600
600
600
18/29
12/14
15/15
6/6
13/15
62%
86%
100%
100%
87%
08/09
23
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 and Datatel is as follows:
Special Education
(Middle School)
(Cognitive/Hearing/Emotional/Visual/LD)
Content Knowledge – from Datatel
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
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:
2004*
49
184
101
146
29/49
59%
2004
2005
1
151
151
146
1/1
100%
2006
9
170
130
146
7/9
78%
2007
28
185
122
146
15/28
54%
22
173
131
146
21/22
96%
03/04
59
184
101
149
04/05
-
05/06
15
185
128
148
06/07
27
177
134
151
07/08
34
174
122
152
136-163
-
143-159
148-162
147-158
146
-
146
146
146
34/59
-
9
21/27
28/34
58%
-
60%
78%
82%
2008
18
176
122
146
16/18
89%
08/09
24
Science Education
Praxis Test Code – 10435
Science Education – from
Datatel
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
2004*
2004
2005
2006
2007
1
147
147
153
0/1
0%
2008
2
173
142
154
1/2
50%
* - scores from no-fault year – “grandfathered in” as passing
Technology Education
Praxis Test Code – 10050
Technology Education data from the ETS report and Datatel is as follows:
Technology Education –
PRAX-10050 from Datatel
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
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:
2004
2004
84
750
560
590
79/84
94%
03/04
104
750
560
650
2005
10
700
600
590
10/10
100%
42
730
580
590
40/42
95%
2006
69
750
580
590
67/69
97%
2007
35
720
550
34
720
570
32/35
91%
33/34
97%
590
04/05
45
740
580
650
630690
590
97/104
44/45
55/56
35/38
37/39
93%
98%
98%
92%
95%
610-680
2008
05/06
56
750
580
655
06/07
38
720
560
650
07/08
39
720
550
670
630-680
630-680
630-700
590
590
590
08/09
590
25
Teaching Minors
Data on Teaching Minors from Datatel is as follows:
Broadfield Social Studies
(Economics/Geography/History/Sociology/
Psychology/Political Science/Citizenship)
Content Knowledge – PRAX-10081
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
Mathematics
Content Knowledge – PRAX10061
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
2004
1
154
154
135
1/1
100%
2004
2005
2006
1
180
180
153
1/1
100%
0
153
-
1
183
183
153
1/1
100%
2004
2005
2006
1
135
135
135
1/1
100%
Broadfield Language Arts
(Literature/Journalism/Speech/Composition) 2004
Content Knowledge PRAX-10041
Number of Examinees:
0
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
160
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
-
0
135
-
2005
1
145
145
160
0/1
0%
2007
2008
0
0
153
153
2007
2008
1
141
141
135
1/1
100%
1
146
146
135
1/1
100%
2006
2007
0
160
-
0
135
2008
0
0
160
160
26
Student Artifact Reflection Ratings
for Benchmarks I, II and III (data from 2004-2007)
Beginning in fall 2004, all teacher education students in School of Education courses were
required to develop artifacts as evidence of their learning. This was part of the Performance
Based Assessment Requirements for the School of Education at UW-Stout. For each selected
artifact, students were required to write a reflection related to: the intended learning, new or
unanticipated learning gained from completing the artifact, and how each artifact related to
Danielson’s domains and components and the ten Wisconsin Teacher Standards (connections).
From 2004 until 2007, SOE faculty who graded the artifacts then rated the reflections associated
with that artifact. Each faculty member submitted a copy of the reflection rating form to the
School of Education office for compilation of the data. Reflection ratings ranged from 1 =
unsatisfactory, 2 = basic/achieved to a limited degree, 3 = proficient, to 4 = advanced/achieved to
a high degree.
Artifacts and artifact reflections are required to meet the SOE Benchmarks. Course artifacts and
reflection ratings are reviewed by two faculty members during each transition point (Benchmark
stage). A Benchmark I interview and portfolio review is required for each student at Benchmark
I: Acceptance into Teacher Education Program and Pre-student Teaching Experiences. The
Benchmark I means for each category on the reflection rubric ratings (1 = unsatisfactory, 2 =
basic, 3 = proficient, and 4 = advanced) increased from 2004 to 2005 and from 2005 to 2006.
However, the 2007 mean ratings were somewhat lower than the 2006 mean ratings:
Benchmark I
Intended
Unanticipated
Connections
2004
mean (N)
2.66 (379)
2.51 (379)
2.49 (379)
2005
mean (N)
2.78 (338)
2.77 (389)
2.62 (389)
2006
mean (N)
3.06 (356)
2.96 (356)
2.76 (353)
2007
mean (N)
2.79 (410)
2.84 (410)
2.70 (410)
Note: 1=unsatisfactory, 2=basic, 3= proficient, and 4=advanced.
27
It is interesting to note that for three consecutive years (2004-2006), means for Benchmark I
reflections increased in all categories. In all years, teacher candidates were between emerging
and basic at reflecting on Intended Learning. In other words, they demonstrated a good
understanding of what they are supposed to be learning from the learning process and artifacts
they created. Teacher candidates scored slightly lower overall for all four years in the category of
Connections. Candidates seemed to have more difficulty connecting their learning to prior
learning.
Another interview and portfolio review is required at Benchmark II: Admission to Student
Teaching. The Benchmark II means on the reflection rubric ratings increased in every category
(except Intended Learning) from 2004 to 2005 and from 2005 to 2006, with mild dips from 2006
to 2007 in Intended Learning and Connections.
Benchmark II
Intended
Unanticipated
Connections
2004
mean (N)
2.74 (510)
2.63 (510)
2.76 (510)
2005
mean (N)
2.72 (776)
2.73 (776)
2.80 (774)
2006
mean (N)
2.80 (618)
2.76 (628)
2.88 (626)
2007
mean (N)
2.78 (757)
2.85 (757)
2.79 (757)
Note: 1=unsatisfactory, 2=basic, 3= proficient, and 4=advanced.
The final interview and portfolio review is at Benchmark III: Program Completion. Benchmark
III occurs at the end of student teaching. During student teaching, candidates are required to
develop at least two artifacts which are then rated by their cooperating teachers using the School
of Education reflection rubric. The Benchmark III means on the reflection rubric ratings
increased from 2004 to 2005 but decreased in all three categories from 2005 to 2006. However,
all three means increased again from 2006 to 2007.
28
Benchmark III
Intended
Unanticipated
Connections
2004
mean (N)
3.42 (257)
3.36 (257)
3.39 (257)
2005
mean (N)
3.54 (237)
3.51 (237)
3.64 (237)
2006
mean (N)
3.36 (290)
3.27 (290)
3.38 (284)
2007
mean (N)
3.51 (675)
3.42 (675)
3.57 (675)
Note: 1=unsatisfactory, 2=basic, 3= proficient, and 4=advanced.
The overall pattern on reflection ratings increased in all three categories from 2004 to 2005 for
all three benchmarks. The overall pattern on reflection ratings from 2005 to 2006 was an increase
in reflection ratings in all three categories at the Benchmark I and II levels. However, from 2005
to 2006, Benchmark III reflection ratings decreased in all three categories. From 2006 to 2007,
mean reflection ratings increased again in all three categories.
Summary of All SOE Programs
Benchmark I
Intended
Unanticipated
Connections
Benchmark II
Intended
Unanticipated
Connections
Benchmark III
Intended
Unanticipated
2004
mean (N)
2.66 (379)
2.51 (379)
2.49 (379)
2005
mean (N)
2.78 (338)
2.77 (389)
2.62 (389)
2006
mean (N)
3.06 (356)
2.96 (356)
2.76 (353)
2007
mean (N)
2.79 (410)
2.84 (410)
2.70 (410)
2.74 (510)
2.63 (510)
2.76 (510)
2.72 (776)
2.73 (776)
2.80 (774)
2.80 (618)
2.76 (628)
2.88 (626)
2.78 (757)
2.85 (757)
2.79 (757)
3.42 (257)
3.36 (257)
3.54 (237)
3.51 (237)
3.36 (290)
3.27 (290)
3.51 (675)
3.42 (675)
29
Connections
3.39 (257)
3.64 (237)
3.38 (284)
3.57 (675)
Note: 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and 4=advanced basic
The charts below are graphic representations of the data above. One would anticipate seeing
growth in each category (Intended, Unanticipated, and Connections) as the teacher education
candidates progress from level to level. In other words, Benchmark II means should be higher
than Benchmark I means.
In viewing the below charts, it is clear that between 2004 and 2007, Benchmark II candidates
were not necessarily rated higher than the Benchmark I candidates. However, the Benchmark III
candidates appeared to have higher ratings than those at Benchmark I & II. These results suggest
that our 2004-2007 assessment tools were able to differentiate candidate’s growth in becoming a
reflective practitioner between Benchmark II and III, but not between Benchmark I and II.
Note: 1=unsatisfactory, 2=basic, 3= proficient, and 4=advanced.
Note: 1=unsatisfactory, 2=basic, 3= proficient, and 4=advanced.
30
The table below depicts the reflection ratings for the category of Intended Learning by SOE
program for 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. Note: The “OTHER” category includes students with
a major that is not SOE (i.e., pre-education, business administration, etc.)
Reflections – Intended Learning
Mean (N)
2004
2.07 (15)
2.58 (137)
2.53 (43)
3.00 (91)
2.84 (31)
2.51 (63)
Mean (N)
2005
2.00 (1)
2.82 (28)
2.82 (157)
2.68 (60)
2.56 (43)
2.69 (13)
2.89 (84)
Mean (N)
2006
2.67 (3)
3.41 (22)
3.06 (119)
3.26 (19)
2.90 (61)
3.00 (56)
3.05 (61)
2.66 (379)
2.78 (338)
3.06 (356)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
MBE
SPED / VR
TE
CTET
Other
Aggregate *
1.89 (9)
2.80 (332)
2.63 (54)
3.30 (61)
2.33 (24)
1.80 (30)
2.52 (21)
2.79 (580)
2.69 (32)
2.48 (40)
2.37 (19)
2.47 (83)
1.50 (2)
2.62 (13)
2.76 (386)
3.24 (89)
3.06 (70)
2.38 (26)
2.04 (28)
2.74 (510)
2.72 (776)
2.80 (618)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
MBE
SPED / VR
TE
CTET
Other
Aggregate *
3.10 (20)
3.44 (117)
3.38 (26)
3.32 (50)
3.70 (27)
3.53 (17)
3.29 (17)
3.63 (106)
3.47 (15)
3.53 (60)
3.75 (8)
3.31 (32)
3.25 (8)
3.49 (147)
3.54 (26)
2.97 (36)
3.00 (9)
3.29 (49)
3.42 (257)
3.54 (237)
3.36 (290)
Program
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
MBE
SPED / VR
TE
CTET
Other
Aggregate *
Mean (N)
2007
2.75 (4)
2.66 (44)
2.88 (138)
3.05 (41)
2.53 (73)
2.91 (32)
2.75 (55)
3.00 (1)
2.73 (22)
2.50 (2)
2.30 (27)
2.82 (426)
2.95 (81)
2.89 (76)
2.73 (71)
2.42 (52)
2.57 (22)
3.38 (26)
3.58 (314)
3.65 (40)
3.13 (45)
3.72 (25)
3.43 (201)
3.71 (24)
Note: 1=unsatisfactory, 2=basic, 3= proficient, and 4=advanced.
* - Aggregate “N” is slightly lower than the actual sum of “N” from all programs. This occurs
when the reflection data is included twice because students may be enrolled in multiple
programs.
31
The table below depicts the reflection ratings for the category of New and Unanticipated
Learning by SOE program for 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Reflections – New and Unanticipated Learning
Mean (N)
Mean (N)
Mean (N)
2004
2006
2.67 (3)
3.55 (22)
3.03 (119)
Program
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
2.07 (15)
2.35 (137)
2005
2.00 (1)
2.79 (28)
2.78 (157)
FCSE
MBE
SPED / VR
TE
Other
Aggregate *
2.42 (43)
2.86 (91)
2.52 (31)
2.51 (63)
2.63 (60)
2.67 (43)
2.77 (13)
2.88 (85)
3.32 (19)
2.80 (61)
2.63 (56)
2.93 (61)
2.51 (379)
2.77 (389)
2.96 (356)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
2.00 (9)
2.68 (332)
2.57 (21)
2.78 (580)
2.00 (2)
2.31 (13)
2.75 (391)
FCSE
MBE
SPED / VR
TE
Other
Aggregate *
2.67 (54)
2.77 (61)
2.45 (64)
2.17 (30)
2.59 (32)
2.60 (40)
2.53 (19)
2.53 (83)
3.01 (90)
3.07 (70)
2.34 (29)
2.13 (30)
2.63 (510)
2.73 (776)
2.76 (628)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
3.20 (20)
3.24 (117)
3.35 (17)
3.57 (106)
3.13 (8)
3.38 (147)
FCSE
MBE
SPED / VR
TE
3.54 (26)
3.44 (50)
3.47 (74)
3.53 (17)
3.33 (15)
3.52 (60)
3.75 (8)
3.34 (32)
3.27 (26)
2.86 (36)
3.33 (9)
3.22 (49)
Other
Aggregate *
3.36 (257)
3.51 (237)
3.27 (290)
Mean
(N)
2007
3.50 (4)
2.70 (44)
2.94
(138)
2.88 (41)
2.70 (73)
2.84 (32)
2.87 (55)
2.73 (22)
2.50 (2)
2.48 (27)
2.87
(426)
3.07 (81)
2.87 (76)
2.77 (71)
2.63 (52)
2.83 (23)
3.38 (26)
3.46
(314)
3.55 (40)
2.91 (45)
3.72 (25)
3.37
(201)
3.63 (24)
Note: 1=unsatisfactory, 2=basic, 3= proficient, and 4=advanced.
* Aggregate “N” is slightly lower than the actual sum of “N” from all programs. This
occurs when the reflection data is included twice because students may be enrolled in
multiple programs.
32
The table below depicts the reflection ratings for the category of Connections Drawn to
Domains/Components and Wisconsin Teacher Standards by SOE program for 2004, 2005, 2006
and 2007.
Reflections – Connections to Domains, Components and Wisconsin Teacher Standards
Mean (N)
Program
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
Benchmark I
FCSE
MBE
SPED / VR
TE
CTET
Other
Aggregate *
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
Benchmark II
FCSE
MBE
SPED / VR
TE
CTET
Other
Aggregate *
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
Benchmark
III
FCSE
MBE
SPED / VR
TE
CTET
Other
Aggregate *
Mean (N)
Mean (N)
Mean
(N)
2004
2005
2006
2007
2.00 (1)
2.33 (3)
3.00 (4)
2.27 (15) 2.68 (28) 3.18 (22) 2.45 (44)
2.58 (137 2.75 (157) 2.97 (119) 2.86
(138)
2.60 (43) 2.42 (60) 3.05 (19) 2.54 (41)
2.16 (91) 2.07 (43) 2.44 (61) 2.56 (73)
2.80 (50) 2.62 (13) 2.52 (56) 2.63 (32)
2.54 (63) 2.76 (85) 2.61 (61) 2.75 (55)
3.00 (1)
2.86 (23)
2.49 (379) 2.62 (389) 2.76 (353)
2.50 (2)
1.50 (2)
2.11 (9)
2.37 (19) 2.23 (13) 2.33 (27)
2.89 (332) 2.95 (580) 3.06 (389) 2.96
(426)
2.67 (54) 2.34 (32) 2.76 (90) 2.58 (81)
2.64 (61) 2.13 (40) 2.61 (70) 2.44 (52)
2.36 (64) 2.32 (19) 2.21 (29) 2.79 (71)
2.20 (30) 2.41 (83) 2.50 (30) 2.44 (52)
2.83 (23)
2.76 (510) 2.80 (774) 2.88 (626)
3.00 (20) 3.35 (17) 3.38 (8)
3.35 (26)
3.46 (117) 3.74 (106) 3.53 (146) 3.63
(314)
3.42 (26) 3.73 (15) 3.58 (26) 3.73 (40)
3.26 (50) 3.67 (60) 2.64 (36) 3.00 (45)
3.45 (74) 3.75 (8)
3.44 (9)
3.76 (25)
3.53 (17) 3.41 (32) 3.42 (48) 3.55
(201)
3.79 (24)
3.39 (257) 3.64 (237) 3.38 (284)
33
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.
Reflection Ratings (2008)
of SOE Candidates at Benchmark II Interview
80
Percentage of Students
70
66
70
60
50
Unsatisfactory
40
30
29
23
Emerging
Basic
20
10
0
Benchmark II Spr 08
Benchmark II Fall 08
2008 Spring (n = 70) and Fall (n =75) Reflection Ratings
34
Reflection Ratings (2008)
of SOE Artifacts at Benchmark III
70
59
Percentage of Students
60
50
40
45
45
Unsatisfactory
36
Emerging
30
Basic
Proficient
20
10
0
Benchmark III Spr 08
Benchmark III Fall 08
2008 Spring (n = 82) and Fall (n =50) Reflection Ratings
As can be seen by the above chart, the majority of teacher education candidates received Basic or
Proficient reflection ratings at Benchmark III.
Disposition Ratings
The School of Education developed a system to assess candidate dispositions from the beginning
of the program through program completion. From 2004 until fall of 2007, Dispositions of
Teaching ratings were completed for candidates in the undergraduate teacher education
programs. The dispositions ratings were comprised of eight professional disposition categories:
attendance, preparedness, continuous learning, creating a positive climate, reflective, thoughtful
and responsive learner, cooperative/collaborative and respectful. These dispositions of teaching
are linked to the Wisconsin Teacher Standards. Disposition of Teaching ratings have a four point
scale: 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and 4=proficient. Mean scores were then
calculated for each teacher education candidate based on this scale.
At the undergraduate teacher education level until 2008, candidates received disposition ratings
from the course instructor for the introduction to the major course and the Foundations of
Education course for Benchmark I. Benchmark II candidates received disposition rating from
two of their program methods/curriculum class instructors. For Benchmark III, cooperating
teachers at each student teaching placement rated each candidate at the completion of student
teaching.
35
Although all undergraduate teacher education programs and graduate pupil services programs
used the same eight categories of dispositions from 2004 until fall of 2008, the definitions of
disposition ratings varied. The undergraduate programs all used the same definitions.
The table below depicts SOE unit means by Disposition category for each benchmark level.
SOE Unit Means by Category for Each Disposition Level
Attendance
BM I
BM II
BM III
Mean (N)
2004
3.38 (268)
3.55 (188)
3.68 (192)
Mean (N)
2005
3.18 (342)
3.49 (455)
3.79 (174)
Mean (N)
2006
3.43 (499)
3.43 (366)
3.84 (152)
Mean (N)
2007
3.27 (386)
3.35 (425)
3.86 (348)
Preparedness
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.33 (268)
3.13 (188)
3.49 (192)
2.45 (342)
3.27 (456)
3.70 (174)
2.88 (498)
3.37 (368)
3.57 (152)
2.87 (386)
3.32 (425)
3.70 (348)
Continuous
Learning
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.28 (268)
2.99 (188)
3.43 (192)
2.33 (342)
3.13 (456)
3.53 (174)
2.70 (498)
3.19 (368)
3.57 (152)
2.63 (386)
3.23 (425)
3.65 (348)
BM I
Positive Climate BM II
BM III
2.37 (268)
3.16 (188)
3.60 (192)
2.51 (342)
3.31 (454)
3.68 (174)
2.94 (498)
3.43 (368)
3.67 (152)
2.88 (386)
3.48 (425)
3.75 (348)
Reflective
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.35 (268)
2.98 (188)
3.47 (192)
2.34 (342)
3.06 (453)
3.57 (174)
2.71 (498)
3.20 (369)
3.60 (152)
2.71 (386)
3.17 (425)
3.69 (348)
Thoughtful &
Responsive
Listener
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.38 (268)
3.03 (188)
3.56 (192)
2.45 (342)
3.11 (454)
3.67 (174)
2.78 (498)
3.28 (369)
3.68 (152)
2.76 (386)
3.31 (425)
3.74 (348)
Cooperative /
Collaborative
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.44 (268
3.16 (188)
3.45 (192)
2.47 (341)
3.30 (453)
3.59 (174)
2.99 (498)
3.57 (369)
3.57 (152)
2.75 (386)
3.56 (425)
3.67 (348)
Respectful
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.69 (268)
3.47 (188)
3.69 (192)
2.69 (341)
3.55 (454)
3.83 (174)
3.18 (498)
3.75 (369)
3.83 (152)
3.15 (386)
3.73 (425)
3.87 (348)
Disposition
Category
Level
Means calculated on a 4-point scale where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and
4=advanced basic.
* - Aggregate “N” is slightly lower than the actual sum of “N” from all programs. This occurs
when the disposition data is included twice because students may be enrolled in multiple
programs.
36
Starting in spring of 2008, the SOE started using disposition ratings by cooperating teachers
generated during the candidates’ student teaching experiences. As evidenced by the high
percentage of Basic and Proficient ratings below, nearly all teacher education candidates in the
School of Education demonstrated appropriate dispositions at the Benchmark III review.
2008 Disposition Ratings of SOE Candidates
by Cooperating Teachers at Benchmark III
70
64
61
Percentage of Students
60
50
40
Unsatisfactory
33
30
30
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
20
10
0
Benchmark III Spr 08
Benchmark III Fall 08
2008 Spring (n = 97) and Fall (n =55) Reflection Ratings
As can be seen by the above chart, nearly all SOE teacher education candidates received Basic or
Proficient disposition ratings at Benchmark III.
37
Benchmark I Interview Results Calendar Year 2008
Number Question
1
2
Explain personal and professional
growth between your initial
resume and updated resume.
Explain your philosophy of
education.
3
Explain three personal
characteristics that will make you
an effective teacher.
4
Describe yourself as a learner and
how that will impact your future
teaching.
5
6
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
ARTED
SP08
FA08
N=11
N=4
Response
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
0
0% 0
0%
ECE
FCSE
SP08
N=38
0
0%
FA08
N=10
0
0%
SP08
N=10
0
0% 0
MBE
FA08
N=4
0%
SP08
N=12
0
0% 0
FA08
N=4
0%
11 100% 4 100% 38 100% 10 100% 10 100% 4 100% 12 100% 4 100%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
11 100% 4 100% 38 100% 10 100% 10 100% 4 100% 12 100% 4 100%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
11 100% 4 100% 38 100% 10 100% 10 100% 4 100% 12 100% 4 100%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
11 100% 4 100% 38 100% 10 100% 10 100% 4 100% 12 100% 4 100%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
11 100% 4 100% 38 100% 10 100% 10 100% 4 100% 12 100% 4 100%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
11 100% 4 100% 38 100% 10 100% 10 100% 4 100% 12 100% 4 100%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
11 100% 4 100% 38 100% 10 100% 10 100% 4 100% 12 100% 4 100%
38
Benchmark I Interview Results Calendar Year 2008 - Continued…
SCIED
Number Question
1
Explain personal and professional
growth between your initial resume and
updated resume.
0
Satisfactory
4 100% 1 100% 5 100% 7 100% 16 100% 7 100% 96 100% 37 100%
Explain three personal characteristics
that will make you an effective teacher.
Unsatisfactory
0
Satisfactory
4 100% 1 100% 5 100% 7 100% 16 100% 7 100% 96 100% 37 100%
Describe yourself as a learner and how
that will impact your future teaching.
Unsatisfactory
0
Satisfactory
4 100% 1 100% 5 100% 7 100% 16 100% 7 100% 96 100% 37 100%
Unsatisfactory
0
5
Satisfactory
4 100% 1 100% 5 100% 7 100% 16 100% 7 100% 96 100% 37 100%
Unsatisfactory
0
6
Satisfactory
4 100% 1 100% 5 100% 7 100% 16 100% 7 100% 96 100% 37 100%
Unsatisfactory
0
Satisfactory
4 100% 1 100% 5 100% 7 100% 16 100% 7 100% 96 100% 37 100%
Completed Alignment Summary
7
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0% 0
FA08
N=7
Unsatisfactory
0% 0
0% 0
SP08
N=16
4 100% 1 100% 5 100% 7 100% 16 100% 7 100% 96 100% 37 100%
0% 0
0% 0
FA08
N=7
Satisfactory
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
0% 0
SP08
N=5
SOE UNIT
SP08
FA08
N=96
N=37
0
2
4
Response
FA08
N=1
TECED
Unsatisfactory
Explain your philosophy of education.
3
SP08
N=4
SPED
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
39
Benchmark II Interview Results Calendar Year 2008
ARTED
SP08
FA08
Question
Response
N=5
N=4
Unsatisfactory
1 20% 0
0%
Emerging
0
0%
0
0%
1. Describe your Philosophy of Education
and how it has evolved
Basic
4 80% 4 100%
n/a
0
0% 0
0%
Unsatisfactory
0
0% 0
0%
Emerging
0
0% 0
0%
2. Describe what it means to be a
"Reflective Practitioner"
Basic
5 100% 4 100%
n/a
0
0% 0
0%
Unsatisfactory
0
0% 0
0%
Emerging
1 20% 0
0%
3. Describe the WI Teacher Standard and
Domain you feel most competent in
Basic
4 80% 4 100%
n/a
0
0% 0
0%
Unsatisfactory
0
0% 0
0%
4. Describe the WI Teacher Standard and
Emerging
0
0% 0
0%
Domain you have experienced the greatest
Basic
4 80% 4 100%
growth
n/a
1 20% 0
0%
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence that:
Unsatisfactory
0
0% 0
0%
Emerging
0
0% 0
0%
5a. demonstrates your content knowledge
Basic
5 100% 3 75%
n/a
0
0% 1 25%
Unsatisfactory
0
0% 0
0%
Emerging
0
0% 0
0%
5b. demonstrates your knowledge of how
children grow and learn
Basic
1 20% 1 25%
n/a
4 80% 3 75%
Unsatisfactory
0
0% 0
0%
5c. demonstrates your ability to create
Emerging
0
0% 0
0%
instructional opportunities adapted to
Basic
2 40% 2 50%
diverse learners
n/a
3 60% 2 50%
Unsatisfactory
0
0% 0
0%
Emerging
0
0% 0
0%
5d. demonstrates your ability to teach
effectively
Basic
1 20% 0
0%
n/a
4 80% 4 100%
5e. demonstrates your ability to manage a
Unsatisfactory
0
0% 0
0%
classroom effectively, including organizing
Emerging
0
0% 0
0%
physical space, managing procedures and
Basic
1 20% 1 25%
student behavior, and creating a culture of
respect, rapport, and learning
n/a
4 80% 3 75%
Unsatisfactory
0
0% 0
0%
5f. demonstrates your ability to
Emerging
0
0% 0
0%
communicate effectively with students,
Basic
1 20% 1 25%
parents, and colleagues
n/a
4 80% 3 75%
Unsatisfactory
0
0% 0
0%
Emerging
0
0%
0
0%
5g. demonstrates your ability to assess
student learning
Basic
4 80% 1 25%
n/a
1 20% 3 75%
5h. demonstrates your professionalism,
Unsatisfactory
0
0% 0
0%
including ongoing professional
Emerging
0
0% 0
0%
development; fostering relationships with
colleagues, families, and the community;
Basic
1 20% 0
0%
and displaying ethical behavior expected of
education professionals
n/a
4 80% 4 100%
ECE
SP08
FA08
N=30
N=26
0 0% 0 0%
10 33% 11 42%
20 67% 15 58%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
12 40% 10 38%
18 60% 16 62%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
6 20% 4 15%
24 80% 22 85%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
6 20% 6 23%
24 80% 20 77%
0 0% 0 0%
0
1
3
26
0
1
1
28
0
4
12
14
0
2
0
28
0
6
8
0%
3%
10%
87%
0%
3%
3%
93%
0%
13%
40%
47%
0%
7%
0%
93%
0%
20%
27%
16
0
1
2
27
0
3
6
21
53% 18 69%
0% 0 0%
3% 1 4%
7% 2 8%
90% 23 88%
0% 0 0%
10% 6 23%
20% 7 27%
70% 13 50%
0
0%
0
0
3
23
0
1
1
24
0
5
6
15
0
1
0
25
0
4
4
0
0%
0%
12%
88%
0%
4%
4%
92%
0%
19%
23%
58%
0%
4%
0%
96%
0%
15%
15%
0%
5 17%
6 23%
6 20%
8 31%
19 63% 12 46%
40
Benchmark II Interview Results Calendar Year 2008 - Continued…
Question
Response
Unsatisfactory
1. Describe your Philosophy of Education and how Emerging
it has evolved
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
2. Describe what it means to be a "Reflective
Practitioner"
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
3. Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain
you feel most competent in
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
4. Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain
you have experienced the greatest growth
Basic
n/a
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence
that:
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
5a. demonstrates your content knowledge
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
5b. demonstrates your knowledge of how children Emerging
grow and learn
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
5c. demonstrates your ability to create
Emerging
instructional opportunities adapted to diverse
Basic
learners
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
5d. demonstrates your ability to teach effectively
Basic
n/a
5e. demonstrates your ability to manage a
Unsatisfactory
classroom effectively, including organizing physical Emerging
space, managing procedures and student
Basic
behavior, and creating a culture of respect,
rapport, and learning
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
5f. demonstrates your ability to communicate
effectively with students, parents, and colleagues
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
5g. demonstrates your ability to assess student
learning
Basic
n/a
5h. demonstrates your professionalism, including
ongoing professional development; fostering
relationships with colleagues, families, and the
community; and displaying ethical behavior
expected of education professionals
0
3
5
0
0
3
5
0
0
0
8
0
0
3
5
0
0
0
6
2
0
1
3
4
0
0
1
7
0
0
1
7
0
1
1
FCSE
SP08
FA08
N=8
N=6
0% 0
0%
38% 3 50%
63% 3 50%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
38% 0
0%
63% 6 100%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
0% 2 33%
100% 4 67%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
38% 2 33%
63% 4 67%
0% 0
0%
0
4
5
0
0
4
5
0
0
8
1
0
0
8
1
0
MBE
SP08
FA08
N=9
N=3
0% 1 33%
44% 1 33%
56% 1 33%
0% 0
0%
0% 1 33%
44% 1 33%
56% 1 33%
0% 0
0%
0% 1 33%
89% 0
0%
11% 2 67%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
89% 1 33%
11% 1 33%
0% 1 33%
0%
0%
75%
25%
0%
13%
38%
50%
0%
0%
13%
88%
0%
0%
13%
88%
0%
13%
13%
0
0% 0
0% 0
0%
2 33% 2 22% 0
0%
0
0% 1 11% 0
0%
4 67% 6 67% 3 100%
0
0% 0
0% 0
0%
1 17% 0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 0
0% 0
0%
5 83% 9 100% 3 100%
0
0% 0
0% 0
0%
1 17% 2 22% 1 33%
3 50% 0
0% 1 33%
2 33% 7 78% 1 33%
0
0% 0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 3 33% 0
0%
0
0% 1 11% 0
0%
6 100% 5 56% 3 100%
0
0% 0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 1 11% 0
0%
2 33% 2 22% 0
0%
6 75%
0
0%
0
0%
1 13%
7 88%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
8 100%
4 67% 6 67% 3 100%
0
0% 0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 0
0% 0
0%
6 100% 9 100% 3 100%
0
0% 0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 5 56% 2 67%
1 17% 0
0% 0
0%
5 83% 4 44% 1 33%
Unsatisfactory 0
0% 0
0% 0
0% 0
0%
Emerging
0
0% 0
0% 2
22% 0
0%
Basic
3
38% 2
33% 1
11% 0
0%
n/a
5
63% 4
67% 6
67% 3 100%
41
Benchmark II Interview Results Calendar Year 2008 - Continued…
Question
Response
Unsatisfactory
1. Describe your Philosophy of Education and how Emerging
it has evolved
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
2. Describe what it means to be a "Reflective
Practitioner"
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
3. Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain
you feel most competent in
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
4. Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain
you have experienced the greatest growth
Basic
n/a
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence
that:
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
5a. demonstrates your content knowledge
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
5b. demonstrates your knowledge of how children Emerging
grow and learn
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
5c. demonstrates your ability to create
Emerging
instructional opportunities adapted to diverse
Basic
learners
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
5d. demonstrates your ability to teach effectively
Basic
n/a
5e. demonstrates your ability to manage a
Unsatisfactory
classroom effectively, including organizing physical Emerging
space, managing procedures and student
Basic
behavior, and creating a culture of respect,
rapport, and learning
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
5f. demonstrates your ability to communicate
effectively with students, parents, and colleagues
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
5g. demonstrates your ability to assess student
learning
Basic
n/a
5h. demonstrates your professionalism, including
ongoing professional development; fostering
relationships with colleagues, families, and the
community; and displaying ethical behavior
expected of education professionals
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
SCIED
SP08
FA08
N=1
N=2
0% 0
0%
100% 0
0%
0% 2 100%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
100% 2 100%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
100% 2 100%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
100% 0
0%
0% 2 100%
0% 0
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
SPED
SP08
FA08
N=8
N=12
0 0% 0 0%
1 13% 6 50%
6 75% 6 50%
1 13% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
2 25% 7 58%
5 63% 5 42%
1 13% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
4 50% 6 50%
3 38% 6 50%
1 13% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
4 50% 6 50%
3 38% 6 50%
1 13% 0 0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0
2
5
1
0
4
1
3
0
4
1
3
0
4
1
3
0
4
1
0%
25%
63%
13%
0%
50%
13%
38%
0%
50%
13%
38%
0%
50%
13%
38%
0%
50%
13%
0
5
6
1
0
2
4
6
0
3
5
4
0
2
5
5
0
4
4
0%
42%
50%
8%
0%
17%
33%
50%
0%
25%
42%
33%
0%
17%
42%
42%
0%
33%
33%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
1 100% 2 100%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
0
0% 0
0%
1 100% 2 100%
3
0
2
5
1
0
3
4
1
38%
0%
25%
63%
13%
0%
38%
50%
13%
4
0
1
4
7
0
3
4
5
33%
0%
8%
33%
58%
0%
25%
33%
42%
0% 0
0%
Unsatisfactory 0
0% 0
0% 0
Emerging
0
0% 0
0% 2 25% 2 17%
Basic
0
0% 0
0% 5 63% 3 25%
n/a
1 100% 2 100% 1 13% 7 58%
42
Benchmark II Interview Results Calendar Year 2008 - Continued…
TECED
SP08
FA08
N=10
N=22
0
0% 0 0%
6 60% 6 27%
4 40% 16 73%
0
0% 0 0%
0
0% 0 0%
2 20% 4 18%
8 80% 18 82%
0
0% 0 0%
0
0% 0 0%
2 20% 4 18%
8 80% 18 82%
0
0% 0 0%
0
0% 0 0%
2 20% 7 32%
8 80% 15 68%
0
0% 0 0%
Question
Response
Unsatisfactory
1. Describe your Philosophy of Education and how Emerging
it has evolved
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
2. Describe what it means to be a "Reflective
Practitioner"
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
3. Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain
you feel most competent in
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
4. Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain
you have experienced the greatest growth
Basic
n/a
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence
that:
Unsatisfactory 0
0% 0
Emerging
1 10% 2
5a. demonstrates your content knowledge
Basic
5 50% 10
n/a
4 40% 10
Unsatisfactory 0
0% 0
0
0% 1
5b. demonstrates your knowledge of how children Emerging
grow and learn
Basic
0
0% 2
n/a
10 100% 19
Unsatisfactory 0
0% 0
5c. demonstrates your ability to create
Emerging
2 20% 4
instructional opportunities adapted to diverse
Basic
2 20% 8
learners
n/a
6 60% 10
Unsatisfactory 0
0% 0
Emerging
1 10% 1
5d. demonstrates your ability to teach effectively
Basic
1 10% 1
n/a
8 80% 20
5e. demonstrates your ability to manage a
Unsatisfactory 0
0% 0
classroom effectively, including organizing physical Emerging
1 10% 5
space, managing procedures and student
Basic
5 50% 7
behavior, and creating a culture of respect,
rapport, and learning
n/a
4 40% 10
Unsatisfactory 0
0% 0
Emerging
0
0% 1
5f. demonstrates your ability to communicate
effectively with students, parents, and colleagues
Basic
0
0% 2
n/a
10 100% 19
Unsatisfactory 0
0% 0
Emerging
2 20% 1
5g. demonstrates your ability to assess student
learning
Basic
2 20% 5
n/a
6 60% 16
5h. demonstrates your professionalism, including
ongoing professional development; fostering
relationships with colleagues, families, and the
community; and displaying ethical behavior
expected of education professionals
0
SOE UNIT
SP08
FA08
N=71
N=76
1 1% 1 1%
25 35% 28 37%
44 62% 47 62%
1 1% 0 0%
0 0% 1 1%
23 32% 22 29%
47 66% 53 70%
1 1% 0 0%
0 0% 1 1%
21 30% 17 22%
49 69% 58 76%
1 1% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
24 34% 23 30%
45 63% 52 68%
2 3% 1 1%
0%
9%
45%
45%
0%
5%
9%
86%
0%
18%
36%
45%
0%
5%
5%
91%
0%
23%
32%
0
7
25
39
0
6
6
59
0
12
18
41
0
10
5
56
0
14
18
0%
10%
35%
55%
0%
8%
8%
83%
0%
17%
25%
58%
0%
14%
7%
79%
0%
20%
25%
0
9
25
42
0
5
10
61
0
15
27
34
0
4
6
66
0
13
21
0%
12%
33%
55%
0%
7%
13%
80%
0%
20%
36%
45%
0%
5%
8%
87%
0%
17%
28%
45%
0%
5%
9%
86%
0%
5%
23%
73%
39
0
3
9
59
0
13
16
42
55%
0%
4%
13%
83%
0%
18%
23%
59%
42
0
3
9
64
0
12
18
46
55%
0%
4%
12%
84%
0%
16%
24%
61%
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Unsatisfactory
0
0%
Emerging
2
20%
Basic
2
20% 11 50% 18 25% 24 32%
n/a
6
60%
4 18% 11 15% 12 16%
7 32% 42 59% 40 53%
43
Benchmark III Interview Results Calendar Year 2008
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
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
n/a
0
ARTED
SP08
FA08
N=3
N=6
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
100% 6 100%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
100% 6 100%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
100% 6 100%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
0% 0
0%
100% 6 100%
0% 0
0%
ECE
FCSE
SP08
FA08
SP08
N=39
N=18*
N=4
0 0% 0 0% 0
0%
0 0% 0 0% 0
0%
17 44% 9 50% 2 50%
22 56% 7 39% 2 50%
0 0% 2 11% 0
0%
0 0% 0 0% 0
0%
2 5% 1 6% 0
0%
14 36% 4 22% 1 25%
23 59% 13 72% 3 75%
0 0% 0 0% 0
0%
0 0% 0 0% 0
0%
0 0% 1 6% 0
0%
16 41% 4 22% 1 25%
23 59% 11 61% 3 75%
0 0% 2 11% 0
0%
0 0% 0 0% 0
0%
0 0% 0 0% 0
0%
5 13% 1 6% 0
0%
34 87% 17 94% 4 100%
0
0%
0
0% 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
HLTED
SP08
FA08
N=5
N=0
0 0% 0 0%
1 20% 0 0%
4 80% 0 0%
1 20% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
2 40% 0 0%
3 60% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
3 60% 0 0%
2 40% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
2 40% 0 0%
3 60% 0 0%
0% 0
MBE
0
3
3
2
0
0
2
5
1
0
0
2
3
3
0
0
0
0
8
0% 0 0% 0
SP08
N=8
0%
38%
38%
25%
0%
0%
25%
63%
13%
0%
0%
25%
38%
38%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
FA08
N=9
0 0%
2 22%
5 56%
2 22%
0 0%
0 0%
1 11%
8 89%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
5 56%
4 44%
0 0%
0 0%
3 33%
2 22%
4 44%
0% 0
All numbers exclude any add-on certification candidates
*Does not include carry-over candidates
44
0%
Benchmark III Interview Results Calendar Year 2008 - Continued…
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
SCIED
SP08
FA08
N=0
N=0
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
SPED
0
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
1
8
0
0
0
1
8
0
SP08
N=9
0%
0%
11%
89%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
11%
89%
0%
0%
0%
11%
89%
0%
FA08
N=6
0 0%
0 0%
3 50%
3 50%
0 0%
0 0%
1 17%
2 33%
3 50%
0 0%
0 0%
1 17%
2 33%
3 50%
0 0%
0 0%
2 33%
2 33%
3 50%
0 0%
TECED
SP08
FA08
N=19
N=9
0 0% 0 0%
1 5% 0 0%
4 21% 5 56%
14 74% 4 44%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
5 26% 5 56%
14 74% 4 44%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
5 26% 5 56%
14 74% 4 44%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
1 5% 1 11%
1 5% 5 56%
17 89% 3 33%
0 0% 0 0%
SOE UNIT
SP08
FA08
N=87
N=56
0 0% 0 0%
5 6% 2 4%
31 36% 25 45%
51 59% 25 45%
0 0% 3 5%
0 0% 0 0%
4 5% 3 5%
27 31% 20 36%
56 64% 32 57%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
2 2% 2 4%
29 33% 17 30%
56 64% 34 61%
0 0% 2 4%
0 0% 0 0%
1 1% 7 13%
9 10% 10 18%
77 89% 38 68%
0 0% 0 0%
All numbers exclude any add-on certification candidates
*Does not include carry-over candidates
45
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.
The table on the following page shows the compiled frequency results for the calendar
years of 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. The frequency patterns indicate that the
overwhelming majority of candidates achieved competencies related to the
domains/components and selected Wisconsin Teacher Standards at an “emerging” level.
46
Pre-student Teaching Results
This table includes only data from the general form and does not include all majors.
2004
Frequencies
Domain I:
Planning and Preparation
1. Shows knowledge of content and pedagogy
2. Shows knowledge of student characteristics
3. Shows some understanding of instructional
objectives
4. Shows some understanding of assessing student
learning.
Domain II:
The Classroom Environment
1. Displays respect and rapport
2. Notices sensitivity to learning, cultural and racial
differences in pupils
3. Aware of classroom procedures
4 Shows understanding of behavior management
5. Initiates interaction with students
Domain III:
Instruction
1. Exhibits appropriate oral language usage
2. Exhibits appropriate written language usage
3. Exhibits appropriate voice projection
4. Recognizes the importance of student involvement
5.
6.
7.
8.
Provides appropriate feedback to student
Displays a sense of flexibility and responsiveness
Assists in classroom activities
? Check Datatel code
2005
Frequencies
2006
Frequencies
2007
Frequencies
2008
Frequencies
NA
1
2
NA
NA
1
2
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
6
6
0
0
132
132
5
5
7
11
119
115
14
8
1
0
164
171
10
34
3
1
152
130
7
5
0
0
127
129
8
0
130
1
4
126
13
0
166
8
0
157
6
0
128
101
0
37
56
10
65
61
0
118
66
1
98
90
0
44
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
1
0
137
4
1
126
0
0
179
1
1
163
0
1
133
28
1
109
6
5
120
3
0
176
5
1
159
8
0
126
75
29
2
0
7
9
63
102
127
94
9
7
0
4
7
37
118
117
69
4
3
1
4
7
109
171
169
47
7
2
1
0
1
117
158
162
2
5
1
0
1
0
132
128
133
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
5
15
7
0
0
1
133
123
130
1
12
3
5
2
8
125
117
120
3
14
8
0
0
2
176
165
169
3
17
28
0
0
3
162
148
134
4
13
14
0
0
1
130
121
119
7
0
131
2
2
127
6
0
173
31
0
134
3
0
131
4
3
72
137
3
1
2
0
131
134
64
1
5
2
52
128
4
2
3
0
122
127
76
3
4
5
69
175
5
1
3
0
170
173
107
4
2
4
46
164
3
4
2
0
160
157
117
1
1
3
25
1
0
0
0
132
131
109
5
129
47
Domain IV:
Professional Responsibilities /
Personal Character
1. Demonstrates potential to grow & develop
professionally
2. Shows active interest & willingness to participate
in classroom activities
3. Has poise & confidence
4. Indicates sense of responsibility and
dependability.
5. Exhibits good judgment, self-control & tact
6. Shows interest in students
7. Presents a professional appearance
8. Displays a positive attitude
Select Wisconsin
Teacher Standards
1.
2.
3.
6.
Knows the subjects they are teaching
Knows how children grow
Understands that children learn differently
Communicates well
7. Plans instruction based on knowledge of subject
matter, students and curriculum goals
8. Knows how to test for student progress
2004
Frequencies
NA
1
2
2005
Frequencies
NA
1
2
2006
Frequencies
NA
1
2
2007
Frequencies
NA
1
2
2008
Frequencies
NA 1
2
1
0
137
2
5
124
0
0
179
4
0
161
1
0
133
3
2
133
11
4
116
99
1
79
2
1
162
1
1
132
3
5
130
1
6
124
0
3
176
2
3
160
0
2
132
2
6
130
2
1
128
0
3
176
3
2
160
0
1
133
3
2
0
2
135
134
1
0
3
3
127
128
9
9
1
2
169
168
4
2
0
0
161
163
2
2
0
0
132
132
2
1
135
0
5
126
9
1
169
2
0
163
2
1
131
2
0
136
2
0
129
8
0
171
3
1
161
2
0
132
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
12
16
41
6
3
2
120
119
95
7
10
10
5
2
3
119
119
118
16
18
15
1
3
1
162
158
163
13
17
39
2
2
2
150
146
124
7
13
8
1
1
0
126
120
126
9
1
128
5
5
121
13
2
164
4
1
160
3
0
131
107
1
30
35
3
93
70
0
109
68
1
96
90
0
44
135
0
3
78
0
53
117
0
62
70
1
94
91
0
43
Scale: NA-Not applicable in this teaching situation, 1 –Unsatisfactory/not achieved, s2–Emerging/achieved with limited degree
* Unit Means do not include Science Education
48
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 Evaluation Data by Program
Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient
Art Ed
ECE
FCSE
Student Teacher Competency Final
Ratings
MBE
SOE UNIT
2006
2007
2008*
2006
2007
2008*
2006
2007
2008*
2006
2007
2008*
2006
2007
2008*
N=
N=28
N=8
N=213
N=162
N=56
N=5
N=29
N=10
N=12
N=12
N=18
N=294
N=348
N=135
WI Teacher Standards
3.20
3.74
3.24
3.32
3.68
2.94
3.37
3.73
2.84
3.18
3.61
3.24
3.44
3.64
#1: Teachers know the subjects they
are teaching
3.25
3.88
3.24
3.38
3.73
3.00
3.41
3.90
2.92
3.25
3.66
3.25
3.40
3.71
#2: Teachers know how children grow
3.11
3.68
3.24
3.35
3.72
3.00
3.34
3.86
2.75
3.08
3.41
3.23
3.33
3.61
#3: Teachers understand that children
learn differently
3.14
3.83
3.16
3.23
3.69
3.00
3.24
3.86
2.73
3.00
3.59
3.16
3.27
3.68
#4: Teachers know how to teach
3.21
3.67
3.14
3.21
3.63
2.80
3.38
3.62
2.83
3.17
3.66
3.15
3.32
3.61
#5: Teachers know how to manage a
classroom
3.25
3.63
3.32
3.40
3.66
2.80
3.38
3.46
2.75
3.25
3.59
3.29
3.41
3.54
#6: Teachers communicate well
3.18
3.77
3.25
3.33
3.61
2.60
3.55
3.67
2.92
3.25
3.72
3.24
3.37
3.61
#7: Teachers are able to plan different
kinds of lessons
3.29
3.73
3.29
3.35
3.73
3.40
3.38
3.67
2.83
3.33
3.53
3.27
3.41
3.64
#8: Teachers know how to test for
student progress
3.11
3.63
3.10
3.15
3.60
2.80
3.31
3.83
3.00
3.08
3.53
3.13
3.23
3.65
#9: Teachers are able to evaluate
themselves
3.29
3.77
3.33
3.41
3.69
3.40
3.38
3.73
2.83
3.25
3.72
3.34
3.44
3.69
#10: Teachers are connected with other
teachers and the community
3.14
3.80
3.35
3.44
3.73
2.60
3.34
3.71
2.83
3.08
3.69
3.37
3.43
3.68
49
SPED
Student Teacher Competency Final Ratings
TECED
SOE UNIT
2006
2007
2008*
2006
2007
2008*
2006
2007
2008*
N=9
N=9
N=13
N=51
N=81
N=27
N=294
N=348
N = 135
WI Teacher Standards
2.86
3.52
3.84
3.48
3.60
3.24
3.44
3.64
#1: Teachers know the subjects they are teaching
2.78
3.44
3.95
3.51
3.67
3.25
3.40
3.71
#2: Teachers know how children grow
2.89
3.44
3.95
3.38
3.51
3.23
3.33
3.61
#3: Teachers understand that children learn differently
2.78
3.78
4.00
3.37
3.60
3.16
3.27
3.68
#4: Teachers know how to teach
2.67
3.56
3.95
3.51
3.54
3.15
3.32
3.61
#5: Teachers know how to manage a classroom
3.00
3.67
3.77
3.48
3.56
3.29
3.41
3.54
#6: Teachers communicate well
2.67
3.33
3.70
3.43
3.61
3.24
3.37
3.61
#7: Teachers are able to plan different kinds of lessons
2.67
3.67
3.77
3.51
3.59
3.27
3.41
3.64
#8: Teachers know how to test for student progress
2.78
3.11
3.95
3.40
3.67
3.13
3.23
3.65
#9: Teachers are able to evaluate themselves
3.00
3.67
3.77
3.57
3.69
3.34
3.44
3.69
#10: Teachers are connected with other teachers and the
community
3.33
3.56
3.62
3.60
3.64
3.37
3.43
3.68
*2008 Data was calculated based on number of student teachers vs. number of student teacher placements
50
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.
Danielson’s Domain
Domain 4:
Domain 2:
Domain 3:
Domain 1:
Professional
Responsibilities
The Classroom
Environment
Instruction
Planning and
Preparation
Mean
Rank
2004
2005
2006
2007
Highest
3.39
3.50
3.42
3.44
2nd -- tied
3.34
3.40
3.28
3.37
2nd -- tied
3.28
3.38
3.25
3.37
4th
Lowest
3.26
3.34
3.22
3.30
Danielson’s Domain
Domain 4:
Professional Responsibilities
Domain 1:
Planning and Preparation
Domain 2:
The Classroom Environment
Domain 3:
Instruction
2008*
3.66
3.61
3.61
3.65
*2008 Data was calculated based on number of student teachers vs. number of student teacher placement
51
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
5: Classroom management
lowest mean
Calendar
Year
2006
Calendar
Year
2007
3.13
3.23
3.13
3.23
Wisconsin Teacher Standard
5: Classroom management
lowest mean
2: Know how Children Grow
2nd lowest mean
4: Know how to Teach
2nd lowest mean
6: Communicate Well
2nd lowest mean
Calendar Year
2008*
3.54
3.61
3.61
3.61
52
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.
53
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.
54
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.
55
Art Ed
EBI Factor & Item Analysis by Program
F1: Quality of Instruction
Q17. Teaching
Q18. Feedback on assignments (other than grades)
F2: Learning Theories, Teaching Pedagogy/Techniques
Q24. Teaching methods (pedagogy)
Q19. Theories of human development
Q21. Learning theories
Q20. Classroom management
Q31. Impact of technology on schools
F3: Research Methods, Professional Development, Societal Implication
Q27. Professional development
Q30. Professional ethics
Q32. Impact of societal changes on schools
Q23. Inquiry/research skills
Q29. Educational policy
Q28. School law
F4: Aspects of Student Development
Q34. Effectively develop a lesson plan
Q35. Foster intellectual development of students
Q36. Foster social development of students
Q46. Actively engage students in the learning process
Q44. Encourage positive social interaction among students
Q45. Encourage self motivation in students
Q37. Foster student’s personal development
Q33. Foster classroom collaboration
Q38. Develop curricula
Q41. Foster holistic learning
Q40. Manage behavior of students
F5: Classroom Equity & Diversity
Q52. Teach children from diverse academic backgrounds
Q42. Establish equity in the classroom
Q51. Teach children from diverse ethnic backgrounds
F6: Management of Education Constituencies
Q48. Work with colleagues in your school
Q50. Work effectively with parents
Q49. Work with school administrators
Q47. Deal with school politics
F7: Assessment of Student Learning
Q56. Informally assess student learning
Q55. Formally assess student learning
F8: Satisfaction with Faculty & Courses
Q61. Average size of classes
Q58. Accessibility of instructors outside of class.
Q59. Instructor’s responsiveness to student concerns
Q60. Amount of work required of student
F9: Administrative Services
Q64. Availability of courses
Q62. Academic advising by faculty
Q63. Academic advising by non-faculty
ECE
FCSE
SOE UNIT
04/05
N=7
05/06
N=8
06/07
N=10
07/08
N=10
08/09
N=4
03/04
N=53
04/05
N=41
05/06
N=62
06/07
N=55
07/08
N=50
08/09
N=35
03/04
N=5
04/05
N=11
05/06
N=6
06/07
N=17
07/08
N=6
08/09
N=5
04/05
N=174
05/06
N=142
06/07
N=156
07/08
N=121
08/09
N=75
3.93
4.00
3.86
4.94
5.00
4.88
4.55
4.70
4.40
4.22
4.44
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.00
4.17
4.43
3.87
4.47
4.78
4.17
4.62
4.79
4.44
4.87
5.22
4.49
5.13
5.40
4.84
5.06
5.25
4.89
5.10
5.20
5.00
4.73
4.91
4.55
5.17
5.33
5.00
5.50
5.62
5.47
5.90
6.00
6.00
5.30
5.40
5.20
4.37
4.67
4.06
4.65
4.86
4.44
4.93
5.11
4.74
4.90
5.08
4.70
4.83
5.03
4.64
4.66
4.86
4.14
4.86
4.43
5.00
4.19
4.29
4.33
4.71
3.86
4.29
3.71
4.44
5.57
5.00
4.43
5.00
4.14
4.43
4.41
5.00
3.57
3.14
3.62
3.43
4.00
3.43
3.21
3.29
3.00
3.43
3.14
4.93
4.86
5.00
4.82
5.29
5.00
4.86
4.14
3.40
3.71
3.00
3.00
4.62
4.75
4.25
4.88
4.75
4.50
4.33
5.13
4.25
4.25
5.00
4.00
3.38
4.56
5.25
4.63
4.63
4.63
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.63
4.25
4.38
4.63
4.50
4.88
4.50
3.94
4.25
3.88
3.88
3.75
4.69
4.63
4.75
5.88
6.00
5.75
5.75
6.00
3.75
4.00
3.00
4.71
4.52
4.80
4.50
4.70
4.00
4.60
4.05
4.70
4.50
4.40
3.90
3.90
2.90
4.63
4.60
4.70
4.40
4.10
4.50
4.70
4.50
4.20
5.60
4.40
4.80
4.30
4.20
4.10
4.60
3.12
3.50
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.55
4.20
4.90
5.52
6.30
5.00
5.30
5.50
4.30
4.70
3.90
4.38
4.34
4.40
4.40
4.20
3.80
4.90
4.00
4.90
4.22
4.30
3.90
3.50
3.20
4.25
5.20
4.50
3.80
4.40
4.10
3.90
4.30
4.80
3.90
3.60
4.40
4.50
4.00
4.70
3.72
4.00
3.80
3.50
3.60
5.15
5.10
5.20
5.52
5.80
5.50
5.30
5.50
4.77
5.20
4.20
5.67
4.35
4.25
4.50
4.50
3.50
5.00
4.04
4.75
4.50
3.75
4.00
4.00
3.25
4.50
3.75
5.00
4.75
5.00
4.50
5.00
4.75
3.50
4.50
4.00
4.67
4.75
4.50
4.75
3.50
3.75
3.25
3.75
3.25
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.50
4.75
4.75
5.00
3.92
4.50
3.00
4.00
4.56
4.69
5.07
5.04
4.20
3.80
3.76
4.36
4.09
3.98
3.84
3.29
2.98
4.77
5.87
4.93
5.04
5.00
4.89
4.69
4.33
4.68
3.79
4.11
4.60
4.58
4.62
4.60
3.91
3.93
4.82
3.56
3.21
4.68
4.69
4.38
5.10
5.70
4.98
4.7
5.02
4.09
3.86
4.28
4.17
4.86
4.97
5.56
5.08
4.55
4.08
4.32
5.26
4.45
4.46
4.26
3.90
3.45
5.31
6.05
5.45
5.37
5.68
5.55
5.45
5.00
5.11
4.87
4.51
4.90
4.84
5.05
4.82
4.23
4.73
4.71
3.97
3.43
5.11
5.24
5.00
5.61
6.38
5.42
5.24
5.37
4.98
5.00
4.78
5.06
4.91
4.90
5.53
5.13
4.58
4.40
4.31
5.40
4.53
4.51
4.47
3.69
3.31
5.37
6.24
5.57
5.63
5.73
5.54
5.28
5.19
5.33
4.78
4.64
4.77
4.59
5.12
4.59
4.32
4.78
4.85
4.03
3.63
5.02
5.12
4.92
5.35
5.86
5.31
5.15
5.22
4.80
4.73
4.90
4.68
5.16
5.52
5.31
5.17
5.12
4.63
4.81
5.60
5.29
4.73
4.55
4.54
4.23
5.53
5.27
5.73
5.31
5.04
5.49
5.63
5.49
5.12
6.33
5.57
5.55
5.14
5.06
5.40
4.96
4.64
4.90
5.24
4.42
4.04
5.04
5.06
5.00
5.39
5.82
5.42
5.19
5.15
5.09
4.96
5.27
5.02
5.18
5.48
5.22
5.02
5.26
4.92
4.80
5.70
5.34
4.92
4.76
4.20
3.86
5.58
6.31
5.88
5.78
5.73
5.57
5.67
5.33
5.29
5.04
5.14
5.37
5.45
5.45
5.22
4.75
5.10
5.00
4.65
4.24
5.49
5.61
5.35
5.56
6.02
5.55
5.43
5.22
4.90
4.80
5.15
4.93
4.76
5.03
4.86
4.72
4.83
4.34
4.45
5.03
4.78
4.83
4.28
4.08
3.69
5.34
6.08
5.47
5.53
5.33
5.33
5.33
5.25
5.19
4.92
4.89
5.06
5.09
5.23
4.89
4.47
4.69
4.78
4.33
4.06
5.11
5.19
5.03
5.66
6.11
5.86
5.49
5.20
5.33
5.34
5.57
4.97
4.42
5.60
4.60
4.00
3.60
4.50
4.83
5.80
4.60
4.80
4.60
4.80
4.40
5.47
6.20
5.60
5.60
6.00
5.60
5.80
5.00
5.00
4.50
4.50
5.73
5.80
5.60
5.80
5.35
5.40
5.80
5.40
4.80
5.29
5.00
5.20
6.69
7.00
6.75
7.00
6.00
6.00
5.75
7.00
4.67
4.44
4.36
5.09
4.36
3.73
4.09
3.53
4.45
3.64
3.73
3.55
2.91
2.91
4.64
5.55
4.36
4.45
5.09
4.73
4.64
4.55
5.26
3.82
3.73
4.30
4.36
4.36
4.18
3.77
4.00
4.27
3.73
3.09
4.82
4.70
4.91
5.86
6.36
6.18
5.64
5.27
5.61
5.09
6.00
5.75
4.67
5.33
5.00
4.50
4.17
4.33
3.89
4.17
4.00
4.33
4.00
3.33
3.50
5.12
6.33
4.67
4.83
6.00
5.33
5.33
4.50
6.17
4.17
4.17
4.22
3.83
4.67
4.17
4.13
4.00
4.83
4.00
3.67
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.38
5.67
5.33
5.17
5.33
5.14
5.33
5.17
4.60
5.16
5.53
5.24
5.06
5.06
4.94
4.54
5.35
4.41
4.88
4.82
4.29
3.47
5.37
5.35
5.47
4.88
4.65
5.29
6.12
5.29
4.71
6.35
5.31
5.53
4.96
5.06
5.06
4.76
4.38
4.76
4.65
4.29
3.82
5.94
5.94
5.94
6.35
6.47
6.41
6.41
6.12
6.09
6.18
6.24
5.69
4.87
5.83
5.33
4.50
3.67
5.00
4.42
4.67
4.67
5.00
4.17
4.00
4.00
5.67
6.80
5.67
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.33
5.33
6.67
5.17
4.67
5.22
4.83
5.83
5.00
4.42
4.67
4.67
4.50
3.83
5.42
5.50
5.33
6.42
6.83
6.50
6.50
5.83
6.00
6.33
6.00
5.40
4.36
4.80
4.80
4.60
3.60
4.00
3.60
4.80
3.80
4.20
3.40
3.00
2.40
4.67
5.40
5.20
5.20
4.40
4.00
5.00
4.40
5.20
4.40
3.40
4.40
4.20
4.60
4.40
3.10
3.60
3.40
3.00
2.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.90
6.40
6.20
6.20
4.80
5.63
5.00
6.20
5.50
4.70
4.86
4.73
4.83
4.54
4.56
4.24
4.77
4.56
4.42
4.18
3.92
3.51
4.85
5.45
4.96
4.81
5.05
4.87
4.74
4.70
5.04
4.44
4.26
4.68
4.66
4.70
4.64
3.91
4.22
4.02
3.83
3.50
4.93
4.85
4.99
5.33
5.78
5.24
5.07
5.18
4.46
4.35
4.43
4.69
4.90
4.97
5.05
5.10
4.70
4.70
4.36
5.06
4.55
4.57
4.52
3.94
3.54
5.05
5.82
5.17
5.13
5.25
5.17
4.96
4.88
5.20
4.58
4.43
4.70
4.56
4.96
4.58
4.24
4.60
4.45
4.10
3.81
5.06
5.09
5.04
5.36
5.87
5.27
5.14
5.21
4.74
4.72
4.74
4.73
5.04
5.38
4.97
5.03
4.87
4.95
4.65
5.16
4.96
4.74
4.54
4.47
4.03
5.18
5.95
5.26
5.09
5.46
5.33
4.97
5.11
5.01
5.59
4.80
4.61
4.93
4.93
5.01
4.86
4.19
4.48
4.47
4.02
3.78
5.23
5.19
5.30
5.50
6.02
5.39
5.28
5.35
5.11
5.06
5.14
5.09
5.00
5.29
5.02
4.98
4.93
4.78
4.51
5.17
4.97
4.58
4.42
4.02
3.89
5.16
5.86
5.34
5.18
5.29
5.23
5.03
5.13
5.04
5.22
4.72
4.68
4.97
4.97
5.04
4.90
4.20
4.46
4.33
4.11
3.88
5.29
5.32
5.25
5.44
5.99
5.49
5.26
5.04
4.89
4.89
4.92
4.94
4.74
4.99
4.77
4.73
4.64
4.60
4.38
4.93
4.67
4.56
4.29
4.13
3.69
5.02
5.60
5.20
5.15
5.12
5.08
5.03
5.01
4.92
4.91
4.61
4.56
4.81
4.85
4.84
4.74
4.11
4.37
4.37
4.05
3.63
5.12
5.23
5.01
5.58
6.11
5.64
5.32
5.26
5.15
5.27
5.24
4.86
56
EBI Factor & Item Analysis by Program
Art Ed
ECE
FCSE
SOE UNIT
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
N=7
N=8
N=10
N=10
N=4
N=53
N=41
N=62
N=55
N=50
N=35
N=5
N=11
N=6
N=17
N=6
N=5
N=174
N=142
N=156
N=121
N=75
F10: Support Services
3.33
5.54
5.23
5.38
5.75
5.15
5.50
5.25
5.42
5.27
5.63
5.30
5.30
4.95
5.83
5.44
4.90
4.99
5.27
5.54
5.29
5.52
Q65. Quality of library resources
4.86
6.14
5.80
5.67
6.25
5.44
5.97
5.48
5.65
5.67
5.94
5.60
5.55
5.50
6.29
6.17
5.00
5.47
5.51
5.75
5.64
5.85
Q66. Availability of Education School’s computers
2.83
5.38
5.11
5.25
5.67
5.26
5.43
5.45
5.64
5.39
5.47
5.25
5.55
6.00
5.69
5.50
4.00
5.10
5.40
5.67
5.43
5.37
Q67. Training to utilize Education School’s computing resources
2.14
5.38
4.56
4.89
5.00
4.74
4.89
4.84
5.11
4.61
5.19
4.80
4.90
3.60
5.14
4.67
4.25
4.37
4.89
5.16
4.66
4.98
F11: Fellow Students in Program
5.21
5.41
5.00
5.18
6.00
5.08
5.78
5.59
5.54
5.35
5.54
6.00
4.70
5.33
5.51
5.50
5.25
5.34
5.41
5.43
5.35
5.54
Q70. Level of camaraderie
5.57
5.63
5.20
5.40
6.00
5.05
5.83
5.64
5.49
5.69
5.63
6.25
5.00
5.17
5.69
5.00
5.20
5.48
5.51
5.54
5.53
5.66
Q71. Commitment to teaching profession
5.57
5.38
5.20
5.00
6.00
5.19
5.68
5.69
5.49
5.41
5.60
6.00
5.00
5.67
5.35
5.50
5.60
5.24
5.47
5.42
5.44
5.58
Q68. Academic quality
4.43
5.38
4.50
5.20
6.25
4.95
5.78
5.58
5.60
5.22
5.43
5.75
4.45
5.50
5.59
6.17
5.20
5.26
5.32
5.31
5.20
5.49
Q69. Ability to work in teams
5.29
5.25
5.10
5.10
5.75
5.12
5.84
5.53
5.59
5.08
5.51
6.00
4.36
5.00
5.47
5.00
5.00
5.35
5.39
5.48
5.21
5.45
F12: Student Teaching Experience
5.21
5.69
5.65
5.58
6.25
5.75
5.50
5.76
5.81
5.76
6.05
6.29
5.66
5.75
6.05
5.86
4.97
5.49
5.78
5.69
5.58
5.89
Q76. Quality of university supervision
5.29
5.75
5.60
5.60
7.00
5.82
5.41
5.68
6.06
5.96
6.32
7.00
5.56
6.50
6.59
6.60
6.00
5.61
5.94
5.78
5.80
6.16
Q77. Support from teachers in school
5.86
6.00
5.80
5.90
6.50
6.25
6.34
6.15
5.94
6.18
6.11
7.00
5.38
5.33
6.24
4.80
5.20
5.89
6.03
5.99
5.89
6.16
Q74. Quality of learning experience
5.43
6.25
6.20
5.50
6.75
6.09
5.97
6.10
5.96
6.00
6.23
6.00
6.00
6.17
5.94
6.33
4.60
5.68
5.99
5.92
5.77
5.99
Q75. Quality of cooperating teacher
5.29
6.38
6.30
6.00
6.25
6.23
6.16
6.18
6.20
6.10
6.06
6.50
6.11
5.17
5.88
5.80
5.00
5.82
6.11
5.92
6.00
5.93
Q72. Process of securing a position
4.67
5.00
4.80
5.00
5.00
4.91
4.97
5.25
5.33
5.30
5.91
6.00
5.27
5.50
5.82
6.00
4.60
5.06
5.34
5.24
5.00
5.59
Q73. Choice of assignments
4.57
4.75
5.20
5.50
6.00
5.18
4.97
5.34
5.33
5.00
5.66
5.25
5.90
5.83
5.76
5.00
4.40
5.02
5.34
5.29
5.01
5.47
F13: Career Services
2.10
4.75
3.56
4.44
2.85
3.42
4.29
3.99
4.21
4.03
4.10
4.20
3.86
4.38
3.85
4.32
3.92
3.83
4.23
4.25
4.06
3.77
Q79. Assistance in preparation for permanent job search
2.60
5.00
4.67
4.00
3.25
3.98
4.67
4.20
4.27
4.27
4.44
5.20
3.70
4.40
3.71
4.67
3.67
4.23
4.31
4.35
4.32
4.02
Q80. Notice of job openings
2.20
4.88
4.20
4.86
3.25
3.75
4.52
4.27
4.69
4.46
4.37
4.80
5.27
4.20
4.67
5.33
4.00
4.18
4.67
4.75
4.54
3.88
Q83. Number of interviews had with employers
2.00
4.57
3.11
4.33
2.75
3.00
3.65
3.12
4.24
3.70
3.55
3.80
3.63
2.33
3.70
4.00
2.50
3.57
3.91
4.07
3.82
3.57
Q81. Number of schools recruiting on campus
1.80
4.57
2.80
4.17
2.50
2.97
4.04
3.51
3.90
3.63
3.60
3.40
3.00
3.50
3.15
3.83
3.33
3.34
3.62
3.69
3.58
3.25
Q82. Quality of schools recruiting
1.67
5.14
3.50
4.33
3.00
3.11
4.25
3.55
3.97
3.66
3.42
4.50
3.67
4.00
3.42
3.50
3.00
3.51
3.81
4.02
3.62
3.15
F14: Overall Satisfaction with Your Program
3.24
3.67
4.00
3.80
3.83
4.67
4.08
4.73
4.91
4.92
4.91
5.66
4.76
5.06
5.49
5.50
4.13
4.07
4.51
4.80
4.48
4.41
2.86
3.75
4.30
3.90
4.25
5.05
4.16
4.97
5.31
5.17
5.24
6.00
5.64
5.33
5.94
6.00
4.60
4.27
4.76
5.11
4.77
4.66
3.33
3.50
3.90
3.60
3.75
4.52
4.22
4.83
4.92
5.11
4.85
5.40
4.36
5.00
5.53
5.17
4.00
4.00
4.54
4.81
4.44
4.42
3.43
3.75
3.80
3.90
3.50
4.43
3.81
4.39
4.50
4.57
4.58
5.60
4.27
4.83
5.00
5.33
3.80
3.91
4.23
4.45
4.24
4.11
Q88. How inclined are you to recommend your Education program
to a close friend
Q86. Extent that the Education program experience fulfilled your
expectations
Q87. Comparing the experience to the quality of education, rate the
value of the investment made in your Education program
57
EBI Factor & Item Analysis by Program
F1: Quality of Instruction
Q17. Teaching
Q18. Feedback on assignments (other than grades)
F2: Learning Theories, Teaching Pedagogy/Techniques
Q24. Teaching methods (pedagogy)
Q19. Theories of human development
Q21. Learning theories
Q20. Classroom management
Q31. Impact of technology on schools
F3: Research Methods, Professional Development, Societal Implication
Q27. Professional development
Q30. Professional ethics
Q32. Impact of societal changes on schools
Q23. Inquiry/research skills
Q29. Educational policy
Q28. School law
F4: Aspects of Student Development
Q34. Effectively develop a lesson plan
Q35. Foster intellectual development of students
Q36. Foster social development of students
Q46. Actively engage students in the learning process
Q44. Encourage positive social interaction among students
Q45. Encourage self motivation in students
Q37. Foster student’s personal development
Q33. Foster classroom collaboration
Q38. Develop curricula
Q41. Foster holistic learning
Q40. Manage behavior of students
F5: Classroom Equity & Diversity
Q52. Teach children from diverse academic backgrounds
Q42. Establish equity in the classroom
Q51. Teach children from diverse ethnic backgrounds
F6: Management of Education Constituencies
Q48, Work with colleagues in your school
Q50. Work effectively with parents
Q49. Work with school administrators
Q47. Deal with school politics
F7: Assessment of Student Learning
Q56. Informally assess student learning
Q55. Formally assess student learning
F8: Satisfaction with Faculty & Courses
Q61. Average size of classes
Q58. Accessibility of instructors outside of class.
Q59. Instructor’s responsiveness to student concerns
Q60. Amount of work required of student
F9: Administrative Services
Q64. Availability of courses
Q62. Academic advising by faculty
Q63. Academic advising by non-faculty
03/04
N=13
5.19
5.31
5.08
5.07
5.50
4.17
5.08
5.08
5.50
4.68
5.25
5.25
4.75
4.75
4.33
3.75
5.01
5.92
4.83
4.75
5.33
5.00
4.75
4.83
5.42
4.83
4.75
4.50
4.33
4.83
4.33
4.00
4.42
3.83
4.08
3.64
5.06
5.00
5.08
6.11
6.18
6.27
6.27
5.73
5.71
5.36
6.00
5.70
04/05
N=13
5.42
5.25
5.46
5.58
6.15
4.77
5.38
5.62
6.00
5.23
6.08
5.54
5.38
5.23
5.08
4.08
5.32
5.58
5.23
5.31
5.75
5.46
5.23
5.23
5.77
4.54
5.08
5.18
5.08
5.15
5.31
4.63
5.08
4.77
4.69
4.00
5.77
5.67
5.77
5.81
6.15
6.08
5.23
5.46
4.97
4.38
5.42
5.44
MBE
05/06 06/07
N=12 N=12
4.92
5.09
5.08
5.00
4.75
5.18
5.22
5.02
5.50
5.92
4.75
4.00
5.33
4.50
5.17
4.92
5.33
5.75
4.85
4.64
5.33
5.25
5.42
5.08
4.92
4.73
5.08
4.75
4.42
4.18
3.92
3.83
5.31
5.30
5.75
5.08
5.25
5.42
5.42
5.08
5.58
5.00
5.50
5.17
5.33
5.58
5.17
5.08
5.08
5.83
5.58
4.92
5.33
4.67
5.17
5.20
5.47
5.25
5.33
5.08
5.33
5.25
5.75
4.98
4.46
5.00
4.83
5.25
4.17
5.08
4.58
4.58
4.25
5.42
5.33
5.50
5.33
5.33
5.64
5.65
5.85
6.08
6.42
5.58
6.00
5.83
5.67
5.08
5.33
4.97
5.33
4.50
4.92
5.25
5.67
5.18
5.27
07/08
N=7
5.64
5.43
5.86
5.57
5.86
4.86
5.71
5.43
6.00
4.64
4.86
5.57
5.00
4.57
4.14
3.71
5.37
6.29
5.29
5.43
5.86
5.43
5.14
4.86
5.00
5.14
5.14
5.24
5.00
5.43
5.29
4.39
4.86
4.43
4.57
3.71
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.71
6.14
6.14
5.43
5.14
5.19
5.14
5.43
5.00
08/09
N=7
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.66
5.86
5.29
5.43
5.71
6.00
5.24
6.14
5.57
5.14
5.14
5.00
4.43
5.57
6.14
5.57
5.29
5.86
5.86
5.14
5.00
6.14
5.43
5.29
5.24
5.14
5.14
5.43
4.21
4.57
4.29
4.14
3.86
5.93
6.00
5.86
5.54
5.86
5.43
5.14
5.71
5.48
5.57
5.71
5.14
03/04
N=12
4.83
4.92
4.75
4.53
4.67
4.42
4.50
4.25
4.83
4.67
4.83
5.25
4.67
4.25
4.67
4.33
4.79
4.83
5.08
4.83
5.18
5.09
5.09
4.92
4.36
4.36
4.45
5.15
5.55
4.82
5.00
4.64
4.73
5.09
4.36
4.36
5.09
4.91
5.00
5.47
6.10
5.30
5.10
5.40
5.30
5.70
5.20
4.78
04/05
N=13
4.65
5.23
4.08
4.55
4.08
4.42
4.83
5.33
4.08
4.01
3.92
4.67
4.17
3.67
3.83
3.83
4.58
4.67
4.50
4.75
4.75
4.83
4.58
4.82
4.08
4.08
4.92
4.86
5.00
4.58
5.00
3.81
4.33
3.58
3.67
3.67
4.63
4.67
4.28
5.65
6.25
5.50
5.08
5.75
4.75
5.00
4.67
4.30
SPED
05/06 06/07
N=11 N=12
4.82
5.71
5.50
5.83
4.30
5.58
5.08
5.23
5.70
5.67
4.82
4.92
5.18
5.33
5.18
5.33
4.82
4.92
4.89
5.35
5.36
5.25
4.91
5.67
5.00
5.67
4.36
5.33
5.00
4.92
4.73
5.25
5.12
5.51
5.09
5.75
5.27
6.00
5.18
5.73
5.00
5.73
5.30
6.09
4.90
5.82
6.09
5.18
5.40
5.00
5.75
4.82
6.00
5.00
6.00
4.88
5.82
4.82
6.27
5.09
5.64
4.73
5.55
4.61
5.09
5.00
5.36
4.64
5.55
4.45
4.91
4.36
4.55
4.95
5.91
4.82
5.91
5.09
5.91
5.68
6.27
6.18
6.82
5.36
6.00
5.45
6.25
5.73
6.42
5.30
5.68
5.27
5.82
5.36
5.67
5.10
5.70
07/08
N=14
5.18
5.43
4.93
5.60
6.08
5.75
6.00
5.69
4.54
4.95
5.23
5.46
4.62
4.67
4.92
4.85
5.60
5.69
5.38
5.46
5.75
5.77
5.46
5.77
5.46
5.54
5.62
5.46
5.77
5.38
5.23
4.88
4.75
5.15
4.77
4.77
5.69
5.85
5.54
5.77
6.08
5.77
5.92
5.31
5.26
4.82
5.33
5.30
08/09
N=14
4.89
5.29
4.50
4.74
5.14
4.50
4.64
4.71
4.77
4.64
4.71
5.00
4.50
4.64
4.71
4.29
4.86
5.14
5.21
5.29
5.07
5.00
5.21
4.93
4.00
4.07
4.36
4.74
5.07
4.43
4.69
4.34
4.64
4.86
4.36
3.50
5.39
5.71
5.07
5.75
6.43
5.29
5.50
5.79
5.26
5.71
5.07
4.91
03/04
N=37
4.38
4.46
4.30
4.72
5.13
4.53
4.78
4.16
5.00
4.10
4.75
4.41
4.80
4.50
3.66
3.16
4.55
5.59
4.72
4.31
4.78
4.38
4.38
4.26
5.22
4.19
3.81
4.38
4.31
4.53
4.28
3.55
3.78
3.56
3.50
3.34
4.81
4.84
5.06
5.11
5.44
5,06
4.97
5.00
4.10
3.72
4.25
4.29
04/05
N=52
4.06
4.47
3.64
4.54
4.80
4.10
4.63
4.35
4.80
4.11
4.59
4.25
4.33
4.26
3.84
3.25
4.56
5.20
4.73
4.43
4.61
4.49
4.24
4.49
5.10
4.47
4.04
4.64
4.74
4.61
4.57
3.62
3.86
3.51
3.65
3.44
4.86
4.69
5.04
4.91
5.15
4.72
4.87
4.89
3.66
3.58
3.52
4.13
TECED
05/06 06/07
N=41 N=48
4.42
4.59
4.64
4.70
4.16
4.47
4.84
4.90
4.72
5.06
4.67
4.83
5.10
4.96
4.64
4.53
5.05
5.13
4.18
4.40
4.49
4.62
4.36
4.64
4.51
4.51
4.44
4.26
3.90
4.47
3.41
3.91
4.50
4.71
5.47
4.49
4.66
4.77
4.39
4.55
4.47
3.89
4.55
4.53
4.37
5.47
4.53
4.37
4.36
4.79
5.60
4.18
4.38
3.87
4.83
4.44
4.45
4.29
4.43
4.68
4.54
4.34
4.40
3.78
3.55
4.18
3.85
3.51
3.65
3.76
3.34
3.63
3.34
5.04
5.12
5.00
5.02
5.08
5.21
5.00
4.97
5.68
5.70
4.89
4.68
4.58
4.55
4.84
4.95
4.51
4.66
4.59
4.60
4.41
4.51
4.52
4.86
07/08
N=34
4.35
4.45
4.22
4.65
4.74
4.62
4.74
4.74
4.41
4.11
4.65
4.44
4.06
4.06
3.59
3.85
4.54
5.21
4.74
4.50
4.47
4.15
4.59
4.62
4.91
4.12
4.00
4.29
4.18
4.45
4.29
3.25
3.53
3.15
3.15
3.18
4.84
4.71
4.97
4.85
5.75
4.94
4.44
4.36
4.44
4.58
4.30
4.53
08/09
N=9
3.67
3.78
3.56
4.38
4.33
4.56
4.56
4.00
4.44
3.61
4.11
3.56
3.67
3.78
3.44
3.11
3.97
4.89
3.89
3.44
3.89
4.00
3.33
3.89
4.67
3.78
3.89
3.89
3.78
4.00
3.89
3.06
3.22
3.11
3.11
2.78
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.11
5.89
5.56
4.33
4.67
4.33
4.56
4.33
4.11
04/05
N=174
4.37
4.67
4.06
4.70
4.86
4.73
4.83
4.54
4.56
4.24
4.77
4.56
4.42
4.18
3.92
3.51
4.85
5.45
4.96
4.81
5.05
4.87
4.74
4.70
5.04
4.44
4.26
4.68
4.66
4.70
4.64
3.91
4.22
4.02
3.83
3.50
4.93
4.85
4.99
5.33
5.78
5.24
5.07
5.18
4.46
4.35
4.43
4.69
SOE UNIT
05/06
06/07
07/08
N=142 N=156 N=121
4.65
4.93
4.90
4.86
5.11
5.08
4.44
4.74
4.70
4.90
5.04
5.00
4.97
5.38
5.29
5.05
4.97
5.02
5.10
5.03
4.98
4.70
4.87
4.93
4.70
4.95
4.78
4.36
4.65
4.51
5.06
5.16
5.17
4.55
4.96
4.97
4.57
4.74
4.58
4.52
4.54
4.42
3.94
4.47
4.02
3.54
4.03
3.89
5.05
5.18
5.16
5.82
5.95
5.86
5.17
5.26
5.34
5.13
5.09
5.18
5.25
5.46
5.29
5.17
5.33
5.23
4.96
4.97
5.03
5.11
5.13
4.88
5.01
5.04
5.20
5.59
5.22
4.58
4.80
4.72
4.43
4.61
4.68
4.70
4.93
4.97
4.56
4.93
4.97
4.96
5.01
5.04
4.58
4.86
4.90
4.24
4.19
4.20
4.60
4.48
4.46
4.45
4.47
4.33
4.10
4.02
4.11
3.81
3.78
3.88
5.06
5.23
5.29
5.09
5.19
5.32
5.04
5.30
5.25
5.36
5.50
5.44
5.87
6.02
5.99
5.27
5.39
5.49
5.14
5.28
5.26
5.21
5.35
5.04
4.74
5.11
4.89
4.72
5.06
4.89
4.74
5.14
4.92
4.73
5.09
4.94
08/09
N=75
4.83
5.03
4.64
4.74
4.99
4.77
4.73
4.64
4.60
4.38
4.93
4.67
4.56
4.29
4.13
3.69
5.02
5.60
5.20
5.15
5.12
5.08
5.03
5.01
4.92
4.91
4.61
4.56
4.81
4.85
4.84
4.74
4.11
4.37
4.37
4.05
3.63
5.12
5.23
5.01
5.58
6.11
5.64
5.32
5.26
5.15
5.27
5.24
4.86
58
MBE
EBI Factor & Item Analysis by Program
SPED
TECED
SOE UNIT
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
N=13
N=13
N=12
N=12
N=7
N=7
N=12
N=13
N=11
N=12
N=14
N=14
N=37
N=52
N=41
N=48
N=34
N=9
N=174
N=142
N=156
N=121
N=75
F10: Support Services
5.73
4.73
5.33
5.72
5.90
6.10
5.57
5.31
5.46
6.18
5.36
5.54
5.12
4.73
5.23
5.39
5.14
4.89
4.99
5.27
5.54
5.29
5.52
Q65. Quality of library resources
5.82
5.00
5.17
5.55
6.00
6.29
5.90
5.36
5.73
6.36
5.62
6.00
5.28
5.10
5.51
5.49
5.45
5.22
5.47
5.51
5.75
5.64
5.85
Q66. Availability of Education School’s computers
6.09
5.44
5.42
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.38
5.27
5.50
6.30
5.00
5.50
5.39
4.79
5.22
5.58
5.55
4.62
5.10
5.40
5.67
5.43
5.37
Q67. Training to utilize Education School’s computing resources
5.27
4.64
5.42
5.62
5.71
5.83
5.30
4.70
4.80
6.00
4.80
4.73
4.72
4.05
4.86
5.03
4.37
4.25
4.37
4.89
5.16
4.66
4.98
F11: Fellow Students in Program
6.16
6.12
5.58
5.88
5.61
5.64
6.13
5.34
5.66
6.40
5.62
6.21
4.76
4.85
4.95
4.95
5.24
4.39
5.34
5.41
5.43
5.35
5.54
Q70. Level of camaraderie
6.45
6.54
5.50
6.25
5.43
5.57
6.10
5.50
5.82
6.50
5.69
6.36
4.94
4.98
5.16
5.12
5.36
4.89
5.48
5.51
5.54
5.53
5.66
Q71. Commitment to teaching profession
5.91
5.69
5.33
5.50
6.14
5.43
6.11
5.27
5.55
6.58
6.00
6.36
4.72
4.73
5.08
5.02
5.28
4.22
5.24
5.47
5.42
5.44
5.58
Q68. Academic quality
6.00
6.15
5.67
5.67
5.14
6.00
6.10
5.50
5.64
6.08
5.46
6.14
4.44
4.82
4.63
4.70
4.91
4.11
5.26
5.32
5.31
5.20
5.49
Q69. Ability to work in teams
6.27
6.08
5.83
6.08
5.71
5.57
6.10
5.33
5.64
6.42
5.31
6.00
4.94
4.87
4.95
4.98
5.34
4.33
5.35
5.39
5.48
5.21
5.45
F12: Student Teaching Experience
5.23
5.42
5.69
5.28
5.21
5.79
5.72
6.03
5.78
6.11
5.84
6.10
5.75
5.26
5.81
5.40
5.24
5.33
5.49
5.78
5.69
5.58
5.89
Q76. Quality of university supervision
5.27
5.42
5.67
4.92
6.14
6.00
5.70
6.36
5.64
5.92
6.15
6.00
5.71
5.68
6.41
5.32
5.23
5.67
5.61
5.94
5.78
5.80
6.16
Q77. Support from teachers in school
5.55
5.85
6.18
5.83
4.71
6.57
6.20
6.18
6.00
6.67
5.92
6.43
6.00
5.51
5.89
5.83
5.81
6.00
5.89
6.03
5.99
5.89
6.16
Q74. Quality of learning experience
5.18
5.17
5.42
5.92
5.86
6.14
5.80
6.45
6.00
5.83
5.85
6.14
6.10
5.40
5.86
5.79
5.41
5.11
5.68
5.99
5.92
5.77
5.99
Q75. Quality of cooperating teacher
5.27
5.42
5.92
5.92
6.14
6.14
6.10
5.82
5.91
6.08
6.46
6.07
6.42
5.48
6.16
5.41
5.78
5.44
5.82
6.11
5.92
6.00
5.93
Q72. Process of securing a position
4.91
5.17
5.58
4.00
3.86
5.00
5.20
5.92
5.27
6.08
5.25
6.07
5.13
4.81
5.38
5.07
4.53
4.89
5.06
5.34
5.24
5.00
5.59
Q73. Choice of assignments
5.18
5.17
5.50
4.92
4.57
4.86
5.30
5.83
5.80
6.08
5.36
5.92
5.13
4.59
5.16
4.98
4.81
4.89
5.02
5.34
5.29
5.01
5.47
F13: Career Services
4.52
4.07
3.59
3.60
3.01
3.42
4.43
4.04
4.60
4.80
4.53
3.70
3.46
3.46
4.34
4.61
4.09
3.41
3.83
4.23
4.25
4.06
3.77
Q79. Assistance in preparation for permanent job search
4.45
4.44
3.67
3.55
3.29
3.17
4.56
4.83
4.78
5.25
4.89
4.40
3.55
3.82
4.17
4.50
4.39
3.00
4.23
4.31
4.35
4.32
4.02
Q80. Notice of job openings
4.82
5.00
4.33
4.00
3.14
4.00
4.33
4.00
5.00
4.55
4.78
3.60
3.42
3.79
5.08
5.22
4.75
2.57
4.18
4.67
4.75
4.54
3.88
Q83. Number of interviews had with employers
3.78
3.83
1.75
2.67
2.33
3.80
4.67
3.75
5.40
4.80
4.33
3.67
3.86
3.31
4.61
4.18
3.33
4.40
3.57
3.91
4.07
3.82
3.57
Q81. Number of schools recruiting on campus
4.40
3.38
2.67
2.67
3.14
2.83
4.22
3.60
4.13
4.70
4.11
3.67
3.00
2.97
3.45
3.78
3.28
1.80
3.34
3.62
3.69
3.58
3.25
Q82. Quality of schools recruiting
4.25
3.00
2.83
3.00
3.29
3.00
4.25
3.30
4.50
5.00
4.71
3.25
3.07
3.34
3.69
4.53
4.00
2.00
3.51
3.81
4.02
3.62
3.15
F14: Overall Satisfaction with Your Program
5.43
4.71
4.64
4.79
4.86
4.24
4.87
4.42
4.62
5.25
4.79
4.36
4.34
3.71
4.13
4.42
3.66
3.15
4.07
4.51
4.80
4.48
4.41
6.09
4.92
4.92
4.75
5.29
4.00
5.50
4.67
4.82
5.42
5.00
4.64
4.50
3.89
4.45
4.73
4.06
3.22
4.27
4.76
5.11
4.77
4.66
5.55
4.50
4.55
4.55
4.43
4.71
4.60
4.58
4.78
5.27
4.77
4.43
4.22
3.85
4.11
4.53
3.55
3.11
4.00
4.54
4.81
4.44
4.42
4.64
4.69
4.42
4.92
4.86
4.00
4.50
4.00
4.45
5.08
4.62
4.00
4.31
3.62
3.78
3.98
3.36
3.11
3.91
4.23
4.45
4.24
4.11
Q88. How inclined are you to recommend your Education program
to a close friend
Q86. Extent that the Education program experience fulfilled your
expectations
Q87. Comparing the experience to the quality of education, rate the
value of the investment made in your Education program
59
Art Ed
Questions That Do Not Comprise a Factor
ECE
FCSE
SOE UNIT
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
N=7
N=8
N=10
N=10
N=4
N=53
N=41
N=62
N=55
N=50
N=36
N=5
N=11
N=6
N=17
N=6
N=5
N=174
N=142
N=156
N=121
N=75
Q22. Assessment of learning
5.29
4.38
4.80
4.70
4.50
4.42
4.87
4.95
5.10
5.24
4.69
4.40
4.82
5.17
5.41
6.00
5.00
4.80
5.14
5.25
5.13
4.92
Q25. Collaboration with colleagues
3.14
4.25
3.80
4.30
4.75
4.02
4.92
5.30
5.66
5.48
4.78
4.40
4.36
3.67
5.44
4.50
4.20
4.47
4.85
5.12
4.83
4.68
Q26. State standards
5.29
5.88
6.60
5.70
5.50
4.76
5.76
6.31
6.20
5.98
5.78
6.40
5.27
5.67
6.29
6.67
5.20
5.13
5.76
5.91
5.65
5.47
Q39. Write effective
4.57
4.63
4.90
4.50
4.75
4.62
5.32
5.20
5.52
5.12
5.06
4.20
4.45
5.00
5.53
5.17
4.20
4.84
5.01
5.20
4.97
4.88
Q43. Use of multimedia technology in the classroom
3.71
4.63
4.90
4.90
5.25
4.07
4.92
4.75
4.92
4.92
4.78
5.60
5.00
5.33
5.59
6.33
4.60
4.76
5.07
5.27
5.07
4.73
-
-
-
-
5.25
-
-
-
-
-
5.36
-
-
-
-
-
5.20
-
-
-
-
5.28
Q54. Teach areas in content field*
5.33
4.75
5.30
5.30
5.00
4.98
5.46
5.34
5.65
5.71
5.37
5.40
5.45
5.83
6.00
6.17
5.60
5.09
5.24
5.51
5.41
5.29
Q57. Identify child abuse
5.00
4.63
3.50
4.90
3.50
4.89
5.34
4.56
4.92
5.54
5.00
4.20
4.18
3.83
4.18
4.50
5.00
4.42
4.31
4.40
4.82
4.71
-
-
-
-
4.50
-
-
-
-
-
5.12
-
-
-
-
-
4.40
-
-
-
-
4.97
4.00
4.75
3.90
3.80
3.50
4.09
4.77
5.07
5.62
4.76
4.88
6.00
4.82
4.50
4.71
5.00
3.50
4.24
4.75
4.97
4.68
4.70
3.86
4.63
4.20
4.56
3.75
4.95
4.77
5.37
5.38
5.84
5.71
6.00
4.82
5.00
5.56
5.33
4.25
4.75
5.03
5.09
5.18
5.21
Q53. Teach children with diverse leaning styles
Q78 Opportunities to collaborate with other student
teachers
Q84. How academically challenging were Education
courses in comparison to Non-Education courses on this
campus
Q85. Quality of teaching in your Education courses
compared to quality of teaching in your Non-Education
courses on this campus
MBE
Questions That Do Not Comprise a Factor
SPED
SOE UNIT
TECED
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
N=13
N=13
N=12
N=12
N=7
N=7
N=12
N=13
N=11
N=12
N=14
N=14
N=37
N=52
N=41
N=48
N=34
N=9
N=174
N=142
N=156
N=121
N=75
Q22. Assessment of learning
5.089
5.77
5.75
5.08
5.57
6.00
5.08
4.50
5.09
5.50
5.62
5.15
5.06
4.80
5.41
5.38
4.74
4.78
4.80
5.14
5.25
5.13
4.92
Q25. Collaboration with colleagues
5.50
5.46
4.83
5.08
4.29
5.71
5.00
4.58
4.64
6.00
5.38
4.71
4.66
4.06
4.49
4.47
4.03
3.67
4.47
4.85
5.12
4.83
4.68
Q26. State standards
5.83
6.98
5.75
6.25
5.71
6.14
4.17
4.58
5.70
5.50
5.85
5.29
4.19
4.41
4.97
5.32
4.94
4.11
5.13
5.76
5.91
5.65
5.47
Q39. Write effective
4.92
5.23
5.33
4.92
5.43
6.00
4.64
4.58
4.91
5.91
5.23
4.71
4.47
4.62
4.68
4.72
4.64
4.00
4.84
5.01
5.20
4.97
4.88
Q43. Use of multimedia technology in the classroom
5.25
6.00
5.58
5.92
6.43
5.86
4.64
3.75
5.00
5.18
4.46
4.43
5.39
4.64
5.47
5.44
5.09
4.00
4.76
5.07
5.27
5.07
4.73
-
-
-
-
-
5.71
-
-
-
-
-
5.43
-
-
-
-
-
4.44
-
-
-
-
5.28
Q54. Teach areas in content field*
5.08
5.75
5.58
5.67
6.14
6.29
5.36
5.08
5.27
6.55
6.00
5.54
4.53
4.82
4.97
4.94
4.44
3.78
5.09
5.24
5.51
5.41
5.29
Q57. Identify child abuse
3.67
4.50
4.58
4.50
4.29
4.43
4.18
4.42
4.73
5.64
5.42
5.21
3.66
3.86
3.64
3.79
3.85
3.33
4.42
4.31
4.40
4.82
4.71
-
-
-
-
-
4.71
-
-
-
-
-
5.29
-
-
-
-
-
4.67
-
-
-
-
4.97
5.64
4.69
3.75
4.50
5.14
5.14
4.90
5.17
5.18
4.42
4.64
4.92
5.03
4.77
4.49
4.86
4.73
4.44
4.24
4.75
4.97
4.68
4.70
5.64
4.69
4.58
4.50
5.00
5.00
4.90
5.17
5.55
5.33
5.36
5.54
5.03
4.77
4.50
4.90
4.39
4.11
4.75
5.03
5.09
5.18
5.21
Q53. Teach children with diverse leaning styles
Q78 Opportunities to collaborate with other student
teachers
Q84. How academically challenging were Education
courses in comparison to Non-Education courses on this
campus
Q85. Quality of teaching in your Education courses
compared to quality of teaching in your Non-Education
courses on this campus
Scale= 1-7 with 1= not at all, 4= moderately and 7= extremely
*This item was included in Factor 7: Assessment of Student Learning in 2004 Note: EBI question numbers changed in 2007-08
60
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
61
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
62
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.
63