B.S. in Marketing and Business Education Assessment in the Major Report By Dr. Urs Haltinner, Program Director
2008 Submitted October 18, 2009
Table of Contents
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................1 PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test .................................................................................................................................................................1 Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) .........................................................................................................................................................11 Disposition of Teaching Summary at Benchmarks I, II and III .............................................................................................................................16 Disposition Summary.........................................................................................................................................................................................19 Benchmark Interview Data ....................................................................................................................................................................................19 Reflections .............................................................................................................................................................................................................23 Student Teaching Performance Ratings .................................................................................................................................................................24 Pre-Student Teaching Performance .......................................................................................................................................................................25 Alumni Follow-up Survey .....................................................................................................................................................................................26 Program specific survey .........................................................................................................................................................................................31 Additional Program Comments and Descriptions .................................................................................................................................................31 Program Improvement Progress since the Prior AIM Report ................................................................................................................................33 Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies.........................................................................................................................................33 Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program ..................................................................................................................34 Introduction The UW-Stout Marketing and Business Education (MBE) program prepares all of its graduates for the WI teaching Marketing Education (ME) 285
licensure and the optional Business Education (BE) 250 and 281 licensures. Teachers of these Career and Technical Education content areas are
required to be academically proficient and are expected to contribute substantially towards the development of k-12 academic achievement gains in
the areas of analytic reasoning, social and behavioral sciences, and communications. The University of Wisconsin-Stout conducts program follow-up
studies form all graduates at 2 and 5 years post graduation. Data collected informs the general education, technical, and professional education
components of each program of study at the university. The Marketing and Business education program housed in the College of Education, Health
and Human Sciences and specifically within the School of Education (SOE).
The SOE has gathered assessment data additional information specific to its teacher education programs since the fall of 2003. The data is gathered
from several sources to inform unit and program decisions. Data in this report is used to develop program goals, inform curriculum changes, and
enhance course delivery in order to improve teacher candidate learning. This report contains data from the PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test,
PRAXIS II: Content Test, Student Artifact Reflections, Candidate Dispositions, Pre-Student Teaching and Student Teacher Performances, and the
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI). This report also describes how assessment data is used to set programmatic goals, improve the program,
program curriculum, and delivery of courses.
PRAXIS I: Pre­Professional Skills Test The Pre-professional Skills Test (PPST) is one indicator that the program uses to assure its graduates’ general education skill set. It is a critical
benchmark exam that students must pass prior to full acceptance to the program. Table 1 highlights that pass rates across test sections (Math,
Reading, and Writing) have increased significantly since the last reported findings with writing being the laggard (71%). Anecdotally, program
faculty is aware that students retake the writing component of the test most frequently. This may be attributable to students delaying their test
taking until the sophomore year. It is also possible that the programs’ non-traditional student population impact the score. There is some
evidence that the more time passes between high school graduation and taking the PPST diminishes the probability of passing the test without
significant energy spent on test preparation. Note that all candidates are required to pass the PPST to be admitted to the School of
Education as part of Benchmark I so the pass rate is 100% upon Benchmark I approval.
Table 1. Marketing Teacher Education Program PPST Attempts and Pass Rates
Teacher
Education
Program
PPST
Test
MBE
(MKTED)
Math
Reading
2004
# test
attempts
23
31
2004
# (and %)
passed
20 = 87%
23 = 74%
2005
# test
attempts
9
7
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 2005
# (and %)
passed
8 = 89%
5 = 71%
2006
# test
attempts
15
19
2006
# (and %)
passed
9 = 60%
12 = 63%
2007
# test
attempts
22
22
2007
# (and %)
passed
20
19
2008
# test
attempts
11
11
2008
# (and %)
passed
11 = 100%
11 = 100%
Page 1 Teacher
Education
Program
2004
# test
attempts
38
2004
# (and %)
passed
24 = 63%
2005
# test
attempts
11
2005
# (and %)
passed
7 = 64%
2006
# test
attempts
14
2006
# (and %)
passed
10 = 71%
2007
# test
attempts
24
2007
# (and %)
passed
17
2008
# test
attempts
12
2008
# (and %)
passed
10 = 83%
Math
266
215 = 80.8%
189
151 = 80.0%
204
148 = 72.5%
226
191 = 84.5%
130
102 = 78.5%
Reading
368
214 = 58.2%
239
138 = 57.7%
280
145 = 51.8%
243
184 = 75.7%
150
119 = 79.3%
Writing
425
206 = 48.5%
277
136 = 49.1%
296
161 = 54.4%
257
200 = 77.8%
138
104 = 75.4%
PPST
Test
Writing
SOE UG
TOTALS
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 2 PRAXIS II: Content Test Summary
Over 98 percent of all MBE program students choose to earn both their Wisconsin Marketing Education 285 and the Business Education 250 and
281-licensure status. As a result, all students encounter two distinct content area exams prior to student teaching (Benchmark II). Note that all
candidates are required to pass the Praxis II to be admitted to student teaching as part of Benchmark II so the pass rate is 100% upon
Benchmark II approval.
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
2004*
21
810
480
600
14/21
67%
2004
6
820
660
600
6/6
100%
2005
13
810
580
600
12/13
92%
2006
13
820
610
600
13/13
100%
2007
5
780
610
600
5/5
100%
2008
11
780
590
600
11/11
100%
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%
2008
8
680
580
580
8/8
100%
* - scores from no-fault year – “grandfathered in” as passing
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
* - scores from no-fault year – “grandfathered in” as passing
Business Education Praxis Test Code - 10100
An analysis of the BE content exam indicates that program students succeed in passing the Praxis II for Business Education (see Table 2).
Table 2. Business Education data from ETS
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
30
18
15
7
17
760
750
730
670
770
520
450
610
620
580
630
635
660
620
630
610-680 600-660 650-680 620-660 610-650
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 3 WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
580
25/30
83%
580
17/18
94%
580
15/15
100%
580
7/7
100%
580
17/17
100%
The Business Education Praxis II scores are also broken out by content categories (see Table 3 and 3a). This test is in its last year of use as a new
test was developed that will be implemented during the Fall of 2010. The programs technical curriculum conforms to both state and national
Business Education standards and therefore does not emphasize some of the outdated technical content areas being measured by the current test.
Content of the future test has been modified significantly to better reflect technical knowledge of Business Education. According to the latest
dataset available (07/08) program students lag in one or both state and national averages in US Economic Systems, Money Management, Business
and Its Environment, and Process Information and meets or surpass the national or state levels for Office Procedures, Management and
Communications and Accounting and Marketing. Of concern are the content areas of US Economic Systems, Money Management, and especially
Business and its Environment (see Table 4). This is concerning as data, over two reporting cycles, indicates a trend. It is interesting to note that
all program students take both a Macro and Micro Economics course that forms the theoretical foundation for these content areas.
Table 3. Business Education Content Test Breakdown from ETS
Stout past years
Stout
Points
Business Educ Test Category
03/04 04/05 07/08 06/07 07/08 08/09
Available
%
%
%
%
%
%
US Econ Sys
11-13
64
63
67
52%
59
Money Mgmt
15-17
66
62
67
61%
58
Bus & Its Envirnm
12-15
60
61
63
56%
49
Prof Bus Ed
22-25
82
79
78
79%
77
Process Info
19-21
83
77
78
77%
70
Off Pro & Mgt, Comm, Employ
16-18
81
79
79
80%
76
Account & Mrkt
16-18
55
56
66
59%
71
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 4 Table 3a. Business Education Content Test Breakdown from ETS
State
National
Points
Business Educ Test Category
03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09
Available
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
72% 69%
US Econ Sys
11-13
70
70
69
66
67
65
65
65
71% 70%
Money Mgmt
15-17
67
70
70
66
67
66
66
69
Bus & Its Envirnm
12-15
67
67
65
68
63
71% 68%
66
64
64
Prof Bus Ed
22-25
78
79
80
77
78
77% 75%
73
72
72
Process Info
19-21
85
81
84
82
78
83% 81%
79
79
75
Off Pro & Mgt, Comm, Employ
16-18
83
84
81
80
79
81% 82%
79
77
76
Account & Mrkt
16-18
59
66
65
67
71
60% 59%
60
62
64
Table 4. Comparison 07/08
Category
US Econ Sys
Money Mgmt
Bus & Its Envirnm
Prof Bus Ed
Process Info
Off Pro & Mgt, Comm, Employ
Account & Mrkt
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Nat
65
69
64
72
75
76
64
State
67
67
63
78
78
79
71
Stout
59
58
49
77
70
76
71
Page 5 Figure 3 BE Praxis II Comparisons
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 6 Marketing Education Praxis Test Code – 10560
This Praxis test has been reformulated for the 2008/09 academic year to be consistent with the national standards for Marketing Education
(Figure 1). The new test item structure and weights will now be in line with the program’s technical marketing core curriculum. Current
Marketing Education Praxis scores do not reflect the new Praxis Exam.
Figure 4 (Praxis II, ME 561)
The pass rates (2007) for the ME Praxis II content exam are 87 percent based on 15 program students taking the exam during the 2007/08
academic year. This represents two students not passing the exam (Table 5). Comparing the highest and lowest observed scores between the
years illustrates that the highest observed score has increased. This score has increased by 60 points. Individuals not passing the Praxis exam are
of concern; however, the Marketing Education Praxis II exam has been reformulated to better meet the national standards. Data is not yet
available for 08/09 that represents the new Marketing Praxis 561 exam categories presented in (Figure 1). Reviewing UW Stout data suggests
that all students having taken the exam for student teaching placement during this time period have passed the exam.
Table 5. Marketing Education data from the ETS report and Datatel (Based Test ME560)
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance
Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
29
810
450
660
14
820
570
685
15
820
610
720
6
720
610
705
15
780
590
630
550-720
660-750
660-750
690-720
610-720
600
600
600
600
600
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 08/09
Page 7 Number with WI Passing
Score:
Percent with WI Passing
Score:
18/29
12/14
15/15
6/6
13/15
62%
86%
100%
100%
87%
The Marketing Education Praxis II scores are also broken out by content categories (see Table 6 and 6a). This test is in its last year of use as a
new test was developed that will be implemented during the Spring of 2009. Analysis of the current test highlights that program that student’s
lag slightly in the state or national averages across all but Advertising and Sales Promotion and the Personal Selling test category (see table 7). Of
specific concern is the content area of General Marketing which has seen a decline of 12 points and lags the national average by 8 points. It is
interest to note is merchandising, a content area that the UW-Stout Marketing Education program students do not encounter any specified courses
in yielded average scores only slightly below the national average.
Table 6. Marketing Education Praxis II Average Percent Correct
Stout past years
Marketing Ed
Points
03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
Test Category
Available
%
%
%
%
M Ed, Curr
Instr, Career
23-25
74
79
80
73
Planning
General
21-23
69
79
82
82
Marketing
Merchandising
14-21
61
67
64
69
Mktg Math
11-12
56
64
68
64
Comm & HR
16
77
83
84
82
Ad & Sales Pro
13-14
66
74
76
72
Personal Selling
14-15
73
77
82
73
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 07/08
%
Stout
08/09
%
71
70
67
60
81
74
80
Page 8 Table 6a. Marketing Education Praxis II Item Analysis by Mean
State
National
Points
Marketing Ed Test Category
03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09
Available
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
M Ed, Curr Instr, Career Planning
23-25
74
79
80
77
71
77
77
77
76
75
General Marketing
21-23
74
78
83
82
77
80
80
79
78
70
Merchandising
14-21
67
67
69
70
67
71
69
69
68
68
Mktg Math
11-12
62
65
70
61
60
66
66
66
66
64
Comm & HR
16
79
84
83
86
83
85
83
84
83
81
Ad & Sales Pro
13-14
70
74
79
72
74
76
74
75
75
73
Personal Selling
14-15
75
77
83
79
80
80
79
79
80
80
Table 7. ME Praxis Comparison 07/08
Content Category M Ed, Curr Instr, Career Planning
General Marketing
Merchandising
Mktg Math
Comm & HR
Ad & Sales Pro
Personal Selling
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Nat 75
78
68
64
83
73
80
State Stout 71
70
67
60
81
74
80
71
70
67
60
81
74
80
Page 9 Figure 4 ME Praxis II Comparisons
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 10 Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) MBE students complete the EBI (Scale= 1-7 with 1= not at all, 4= moderately and 7= extremely) at the conclusion of their student teaching
experience. Marketing and Business Education program ratings compare favorably with SOE unit data. A comparison of the prior AIM indicates
no significant trend directional changes.
Figure 5. Factors rated above other education programs
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 11 Figure 6.Factors below the unit average rating
Based on the EBI data MBE program students report overall satisfaction with the program rating 9 of the 13 factors higher that the SOE unit
average. In addition all of those factors were rated at or above 5 on a seven-point scale. The highest rated was Factor 10 Support Services 6/10/7
with the second highest being Factor 7 Assessment of Student Learning rated at 5.93/7.
Students rate Factor 13 Career Services at 3.42/7.0 lowest. This factor measure’s elements of job seeking support that students in education
programs access differently than do non-education majors. In part this is due to the way teachers become aware of teaching jobs directly through
the Department of Public instruction and WECAN. Those students that may have taken advantage of University Career Services may also be
comparing their experience with Business Administration students (some MBE program students seek to exercise their minor in Business
Administration in order to meet the licenser work-hour documentation requirements prior t entering teaching) that depend on this service as their
primary job seeking tool. Marketing and Business Education program student’s continue to report employment in their major or related area in
the institutional follow-up study suggesting this factor may not be an accurate portrayal of career services that they desire.
Factors surfacing as ongoing improvement opportunities are number 6 Management of Education Constituencies. Questions related to this factor
indicate teacher candidates perceive school, teachers, parents, and politics needing added attention within their teacher preparation. Teaching
about these elements (while it happens to a significant level within MBE 301, 355, 401, and 411 courses) may be developmentally challenging
outside of the pre-student teaching and student teaching contexts. Program faculty has also taken a deliberate soft approach with this content in
an effort to push on retention. This strategy may need to be rethought.
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 12 It is noteworthy to realize that respondents rated their capstone experience, Student Teaching, highly, specifically Quality of learning experience,
6.14/7.0, Quality of university supervision, 6.0/7.0, and support from teachers in school 6.57/7. The Process of securing a student teaching
placement was also rated significantly higher than in the past year, advancing from 3.86/7 to 5.0/7 but still lags the unit 5.59/7.
Table 7 EBI Factor & Item Analysis by Program
03/04
N=13
5.19
5.31
5.08
5.07
5.50
4.17
5.08
5.08
5.50
04/05
N=13
5.42
5.25
5.46
5.58
6.15
4.77
5.38
5.62
6.00
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
07/08
N=7
5.64
5.43
5.86
5.57
5.86
4.86
5.71
5.43
6.00
08/09
N=7
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.66
5.86
5.29
5.43
5.71
6.00
04/05
N=174
4.37
4.67
4.06
4.70
4.86
4.73
4.83
4.54
4.56
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
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
4.85
5.33
5.42
4.92
5.08
4.42
3.92
5.31
5.75
5.25
5.42
5.58
5.50
5.33
5.08
5.83
4.92
4.67
5.20
5.25
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
5.24
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
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
EBI Factor & Item Analysis
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
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 4.64
5.25
5.08
4.73
4.75
4.18
3.83
5.30
5.08
5.42
5.08
5.00
5.17
5.58
5.17
5.08
5.58
5.33
5.17
5.47
5.33
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
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
4.65
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
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
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
Page 13 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
F10: Support Services
Q65. Quality of library resources
Q66. Availability of Education School’s computers
Q67. Training to utilize Education School’s computing resources
F11: Fellow Students in Program
Q70. Level of camaraderie
Q71. Commitment to teaching profession
Q68. Academic quality
Q69. Ability to work in teams
F12: Student Teaching Experience
Q76. Quality of university supervision
Q77. Support from teachers in school
Q74. Quality of learning experience
Q75. Quality of cooperating teacher
Q72. Process of securing a position
Q73. Choice of assignments
F13: Career Services
Q79. Assistance in preparation for permanent job search
Q80. Notice of job openings
Q83. Number of interviews had with employers
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 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
5.73
5.82
6.09
5.27
6.16
6.45
5.91
6.00
6.27
5.23
5.27
5.55
5.18
5.27
4.91
5.18
4.52
4.45
4.82
3.78
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
4.73
5.00
5.44
4.64
6.12
6.54
5.69
6.15
6.08
5.42
5.42
5.85
5.17
5.42
5.17
5.17
4.07
4.44
5.00
3.83
5.08
5.25
4.98
5.00
5.25
5.08
4.58
5.42
5.50
5.33
5.65
6.08
5.58
5.83
5.08
4.97
4.50
5.25
5.18
5.33
5.17
5.42
5.42
5.58
5.50
5.33
5.67
5.83
5.69
5.67
6.18
5.42
5.92
5.58
5.50
3.59
3.67
4.33
1.75
5.33
5.75
4.46
4.83
4.17
4.58
4.25
5.33
5.33
5.64
5.85
6.42
6.00
5.67
5.33
5.33
4.92
5.67
5.27
5.72
5.55
6.00
5.62
5.88
6.25
5.50
5.67
6.08
5.28
4.92
5.83
5.92
5.92
4.00
4.92
3.60
3.55
4.00
2.67
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
5.90
6.00
6.00
5.71
5.61
5.43
6.14
5.14
5.71
5.21
6.14
4.71
5.86
6.14
3.86
4.57
3.01
3.29
3.14
2.33
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
6.10
6.29
6.00
5.83
5.64
5.57
5.43
6.00
5.57
5.79
6.00
6.57
6.14
6.14
5.00
4.86
3.42
3.17
4.00
3.80
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
4.99
5.47
5.10
4.37
5.34
5.48
5.24
5.26
5.35
5.49
5.61
5.89
5.68
5.82
5.06
5.02
3.83
4.23
4.18
3.57
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
5.27
5.51
5.40
4.89
5.41
5.51
5.47
5.32
5.39
5.78
5.94
6.03
5.99
6.11
5.34
5.34
4.23
4.31
4.67
3.91
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
5.54
5.75
5.67
5.16
5.43
5.54
5.42
5.31
5.48
5.69
5.78
5.99
5.92
5.92
5.24
5.29
4.25
4.35
4.75
4.07
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
5.29
5.64
5.43
4.66
5.35
5.53
5.44
5.20
5.21
5.58
5.80
5.89
5.77
6.00
5.00
5.01
4.06
4.32
4.54
3.82
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
5.52
5.85
5.37
4.98
5.54
5.66
5.58
5.49
5.45
5.89
6.16
6.16
5.99
5.93
5.59
5.47
3.77
4.02
3.88
3.57
Page 14 Q81. Number of schools recruiting on campus
Q82. Quality of schools recruiting
F14: Overall Satisfaction with Your Program
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 experiencthe investment made in your Education
program
4.40
4.25
5.43
3.38
3.00
4.71
2.67
2.83
4.64
2.67
3.00
4.79
3.14
3.29
4.86
2.83
3.00
4.24
3.34
3.51
4.07
3.62
3.81
4.51
3.69
4.02
4.80
3.58
3.62
4.48
3.25
3.15
4.41
6.09
4.92
4.92
4.75
5.29
4.00
4.27
4.76
5.11
4.77
4.66
5.55
4.50
4.55
4.55
4.43
4.71
4.00
4.54
4.81
4.44
4.42
4.64
4.69
4.42
4.92
4.86
4.00
3.91
4.23
4.45
4.24
4.11
Questions That Do Not Comprise a Factor
Q22. Assessment of learning
Q25. Collaboration with colleagues
Q26. State standards
Q39. Write effective
Q43. Use of multimedia technology in the classroom
Q53. Teach children with diverse leaning styles
Q54. Teach areas in content field*
Q57. Identify child abuse
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
SOE UNIT
MBE
03/04
N=13
5.089
5.50
5.83
4.92
5.25
5.08
3.67
-
04/05
N=13
5.77
5.46
6.98
5.23
6.00
5.75
4.50
-
05/06
N=12
5.75
4.83
5.75
5.33
5.58
5.58
4.58
-
06/07
N=12
5.08
5.08
6.25
4.92
5.92
5.67
4.50
-
07/08
N=7
5.57
4.29
5.71
5.43
6.43
6.14
4.29
-
08/09
N=7
6.00
5.71
6.14
6.00
5.86
5.71
6.29
4.43
4.71
04/05
N=174
4.80
4.47
5.13
4.84
4.76
5.09
4.42
-
05/06
N=142
5.14
4.85
5.76
5.01
5.07
5.24
4.31
-
06/07
N=156
5.25
5.12
5.91
5.20
5.27
5.51
4.40
-
07/08
N=121
5.13
4.83
5.65
4.97
5.07
5.41
4.82
-
08/09
N=75
4.92
4.68
5.47
4.88
4.73
5.28
5.29
4.71
4.97
5.64
4.69
3.75
4.50
5.14
5.14
4.24
4.75
4.97
4.68
4.70
5.64
4.69
4.58
4.50
5.00
5.00
4.75
5.03
5.09
5.18
5.21
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 15 Disposition of Teaching Summary at Benchmarks I, II and III Dispositions are one means to meet the teacher licensure requirements dealing with the affective domain of teacher competency. Within the
Marketing and Business Education program, dispositions are measured in specified courses that all program students take as they journey through
the program. Tables 8 through 16 provide an indication of teacher candidate progress towards becoming tactful, compassionate, dedicated, and
dependable professionals desired within the public school system. There is little evidence that this is an area of concern for the program.
Currently there is no data that compares MBE program students with those of other programs. Such a data set would be interesting and could
have the potential to uncover additional improvement opportunities.
Being present within the learning community is a valued attribute of a teacher. As such, table 8 supports that program students are making steady
progress towards this end. While data from year to year indicates some directional movement, it also supports that students take their active
learning role serious as they move through each of the benchmarks.
Table 8 supports that program students take increasing responsibility for learning as demonstrated through their consistently higher ratings
illustrated through the progressive benchmarks. There are no significant changes from 2006 in this measured area. Means calculated on a 4-point scale
where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and 4=advanced basic.
Table 8. Attendance
Mean (N) Mean (N) Mean (N) Mean (N)
Level
2004
2005
2006
2007
3.23 (39) 2.25 (36) 3.00 (43) 2.84 (49)
Benchmark I
3.60 (48) 3.31 (45) 3.37 (30) 3.69 (42)
Benchmark II
Benchmark III 3.75 (24) 3.91 (23) 3.91 (11) 3.87 (15)
Teaching candidates are thought to be more desirable if they can demonstrate an ability to learn from their prior learning. Program students
demonstrate solid growth in this factor. While at Benchmark I teacher candidates demonstrate this significantly less, it is critical to notice that
this skill is developed as student’s progress through the program. This is, in part, attributed to student attrition and increased maturity as their
teacher identity begins to solidify (see Table 9).
Table 9. Preparedness
Level
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2004
2.59 (39)
3.46 (48)
3.67 (24)
Mean (N)
2005
2.53 (36)
3.33 (45)
3.57 (23)
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Mean (N)
2006
3.05 (43)
3.25 (32)
3.55 (11)
Mean (N)
2007
2.67 (49)
3.29 (42)
3.67 (15)
Page 16 Program students demonstrate a level of positivity desirable of an emerging teacher candidate as they move through the program. Table 10
highlights positive movement on this factor. The trend remains consistent with 2006 data with the exception of a slight decline highlighted
within benchmark one data. However, the 2007 data are consistent with those reported during 2004 and 2005.
Table 10. Continuous Learning
Mean (N)
Level
2004
2.56 (39)
Benchmark I
3.35 (48)
Benchmark II
3.50 (24)
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2005
2.50 (36)
3.47 (45)
3.39 (23)
Mean (N)
2006
2.93 (43)
3.16 (32)
3.45 (11)
Mean (N)
2007
2.59 (49)
3.40 (42)
3.73 (15)
Table 11 provides a glimpse at the student’s ability to demonstrate reflection within the learning and teaching environment. Predictably, student
ability to demonstrate this factor is tied to their maturity stage in the program. It is encouraging to see this factor remain consistent over the
years. While a rating of 4 would be most desirable, developmentally this may not be realistic. Growth is likely explained by student’s encounters
with teaching through in class teaching demonstrations, pre-student teaching, and student teaching.
Table 11. Positive Climate
Mean (N)
Level
2004
2.69 (39)
Benchmark I
3.52 (48)
Benchmark II
3.58 (24)
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2005
2.94 (36)
3.44 (45)
3.78 (23)
Mean (N)
2006
3.42 (43)
3.47 (32)
3.36 (11)
Mean (N)
2007
3.06 (49)
3.62 (42)
3.80 (15)
Being a thoughtful and responsive listener is a valued attribute of a teaching candidate. Marketing and Business Education students demonstrate
steady progress in this area. It is important to note that Benchmark III is ranked progressively higher than the preceding benchmarks. Table 12
illustrates a 1.17 increase in this rating from program entry through program completion.
Table 12. Reflective
Program
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2004
2.49 (39)
3.38 (48)
3.46 (24)
Mean (N)
2005
2.58 (36)
3.45 (44)
3.57 (23)
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Mean (N)
2006
2.98 (43)
3.19 (32)
3.36 (11)
Mean (N)
2007
2.80 (49)
3.19 (42)
3.47 (15)
Page 17 The factor (cooperative/collaborative) was the lowest ranked factor across disposition factors. It is also the only factor that decreases as teacher
candidate’s progress through the program. While is has not changed significantly since the last reported year, it does signify an opportunity for
improvement. This finding suggests that there may be a significant disconnect between teacher educator and cooperating teacher perception of
what constitutes proficiency in this factor (Table 13).
Table 13. Thoughtful & Responsive Listener
Mean (N)
Mean (N)
Level
2004
2005
2.67 (39)
2.89 (36)
Benchmark I
3.52 (48)
3.41 (44)
Benchmark II
3.50 (24)
3.65 (23)
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2006
3.00 (43)
3.25 (32)
3.55 (11)
Mean (N)
2007
2.63 (49)
3.36 (42)
3.80 (15)
Based on average reported disposition ratings on 8 factors within Benchmark III, MBE students had the highest mean rating (3.87/4.00) for
attendance and the lowest (3.40/4.00) in demonstrating cooperation and collaboration (Table 14). These findings are not significantly different
from 2006.
Table 14. Cooperative / Collaborative
Mean (N)
Level
2004
2.82 (39)
Benchmark I
3.83 (48)
Benchmark II
3.42 (24)
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2005
2.63 (35)
3.43 (44)
3.52 (23)
Mean (N)
2006
3.51 (43)
3.59 (32)
3.36 (11)
Mean (N)
2007
2.67 (49)
3.60 (42)
3.40 (15)
Table 15 highlights an interesting finding. Data indicate higher ratings than Benchmark III with the exception of the 2005 reporting year. While
this is interesting, it is not significant. However, this may suggest that teacher education faculty and lecturers may not be in agreement on what
constitutes demonstration of this factor. It is also possible that student teaching and the complex relationships between student teachers and
cooperating teachers may need to be analyzed. There is no significant change between 2006 and 2007 findings that requires immediate action.
Table 15. Respectful
Level
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2004
3.10 (39)
3.77 (48)
3.67 (24)
Mean (N)
2005
3.19 (36)
3.59 (44)
3.96 (23)
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Mean (N)
2006
3.67 (43)
3.88 (32)
3.45 (11)
Mean (N)
2007
3.12 (49)
3.88 (42)
3.73 (15)
Page 18 Disposition Summary It is encouraging to see that all disposition factors were rated significantly higher at benchmark 3 levels. This may be an indication that the
program, through its course sequence and advisement processes, is retaining the type of student that has the disposition required of a teacher
candidate. It may also indicate that benchmark 1 and 2 course instructors are more conservative in rating dispositions in comparison to
cooperating teachers (BIII).
Benchmark Interview Data Marketing and Business Education teacher candidates successfully move fro pre-education to MBE program students (see Table 16). The 16
students that migrated to full program student represents that 15 to 18 students have either chosen to postpone their BI transition or have migrated
to another program. Anecdotally it is clear that approximately 12 students remain in the prospective MBE program teacher candidate pool that
will be migrating during the Fall of 2009.
Table 16. Benchmark I Interview Data
Benchmark I Interview Results Calendar Year 2008 Question Explain personal and professional growth between your initial resume and updated resume. Response Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory Explain your philosophy of education. Explain three personal characteristics that will make you an effective teacher. Describe yourself as a learner and how that will impact your future teaching. Describe experiences that have impacted your understanding of diversity and human relations and how these might aid you as you work with students and families Explain two subject matter/content artifacts and how Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
MBE SP08 N=12 0
0%
12 100%
0
0%
12 100%
0
0%
12 100%
0
0%
12 100%
0
FA08 N=4 0 0%
4 100%
0 0%
4 100%
0 0%
4 100%
0 0%
4 100%
0% 0 0%
SOE UNIT SP08 FA08 N=96 N=37 0
0% 0
0%
96 100% 37 100%
0
0% 0
0%
96 100% 37 100%
0
0% 0
0%
96 100% 37 100%
0
0% 0
0%
96 100% 37 100%
0
0%
0
0%
12 100% 4 100% 96 100% 37 100%
0
0% 0 0%
0
0%
0
0%
Page 19 these examples illustrate your understanding of the content you will be teaching Completed Alignment Summary Satisfactory 12 100% 4 100% 96 100% 37 100%
Unsatisfactory 0
0% 0 0% 0
0% 0
0%
Satisfactory 12 100% 4 100% 96 100% 37 100%
Table 16a highlights that MBE program students are moving though Benchmark II successfully. Given the programs small cohort of BII students
and small class sizes it is natural that those students that lack the capacity, desire, or dispositions to move through this benchmark have been
counseled into other programs prior to the Benchmark II interview. The 2008 cohort represents the smallest number of students that have moved
through to student teaching in recent years. Anecdotally program faculty knows that there are two students that chose to graduate without
certification and three students that postponed their student teaching due to personal reasons. The data has an insufficient response number to be
useful for a trend analysis.
Table 16a. Benchmark II Interview Data
Benchmark II Interview Results Calendar Year 2008 Question MBE FA08 SP08 Response N=3 N=9 Unsatisfactory 1 33% 0 0%
Emerging 1 33% 4 44%
Describe your Philosophy of Education and how it has evolved Basic 1 33% 5 56%
n/a 0
0% 0 0%
Unsatisfactory 1 33% 0 0%
Emerging 1 33% 4 44%
Describe what it means to be a "Reflective Practitioner" Basic 1 33% 5 56%
n/a 0
0% 0 0%
Unsatisfactory 1 33% 0 0%
Emerging 0
0% 8 89%
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain you feel most competent in Basic 2 67% 1 11%
n/a 0
0% 0 0%
Unsatisfactory 0
0% 0 0%
1 33% 8 89%
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain you have Emerging experienced the greatest growth Basic 1 33% 1 11%
n/a 1 33% 0 0%
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence that: Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 SOE UNIT FA08 SP08 N=76 N=52 1 1% 1 2%
28 37% 22 44%
47 62% 29 58%
0 0% 0 0%
1 1% 0 0%
22 29% 21 42%
53 70% 31 62%
0 0% 0 0%
1 1% 0 0%
17 22% 16 32%
58 76% 36 72%
0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 0 0%
23 30% 20 40%
52 68% 32 64%
1 1% 0 0%
Page 20 Unsatisfactory
Emerging demonstrates your content knowledge Basic n/a Unsatisfactory
demonstrates your knowledge of how children grow and Emerging learn Basic n/a Unsatisfactory
Emerging demonstrates your ability to create instructional opportunities adapted to diverse learners Basic n/a Unsatisfactory
Emerging demonstrates your ability to teach effectively Basic n/a Unsatisfactory
demonstrates your ability to manage a classroom effectively, including organizing physical space, managing Emerging procedures and student behavior, and creating a culture Basic of respect, rapport, and learning n/a Unsatisfactory
Emerging demonstrates your ability to communicate effectively with students, parents, and colleagues Basic n/a Unsatisfactory
Emerging demonstrates your ability to assess student learning Basic n/a Unsatisfactory
demonstrates your professionalism, including ongoing Emerging professional development; fostering relationships with colleagues, families, and the community; and displaying Basic ethical behavior expected of education professionals n/a Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 0
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
3
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
33%
33%
33%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
67%
0%
33%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
2 22% 9 12% 7 14%
1 11% 25 33% 16 32%
6 67% 42 55% 29 58%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 5 7% 4 8%
0 0% 10 13% 2 4%
9 100% 61 80% 46 92%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
2 22% 15 20% 10 20%
0 0% 27 36% 13 26%
7 78% 34 45% 29 58%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
3 33% 4 5% 8 16%
1 11% 6 8% 3 6%
5 56% 66 87% 41 82%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
1 11% 13 17% 10 20%
2 22% 21 28% 12 24%
6 67% 42 55% 30 60%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
0 0% 3 4% 4 8%
0 0% 9 12% 4 8%
9 100% 64 84% 44 88%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
5 56% 12 16% 10 20%
0 0% 18 24% 11 22%
4 44% 46 61% 31 62%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
2 22% 12 16% 7 14%
1 11% 24 32% 10 20%
6 67% 40 53% 35 70%
Page 21 Table 16b highlights that MBE program students are successfully completing their student teaching experiences. This supports that the
Benchmark II interviews are reliable predictors of student teaching success. Data from SP2008 and FA2008 highlights significant rating changes
between the basic and proficient levels. This change can be explained by a philosophical shift in explaining the rating process to cooperating
teachers. Prior to the Fall 2008 it was explained that only 3 to 5 year teachers generally attain a proficient rating and therefore it would require
extraordinary performance to achieve that. Since Fall of 2008 this has been revised at the request of cooperating teachers. Program students lag
the unit average ratings across emerging, Basic and proficient ratings. However, program students are successfully transitioning through to
licensure.
Table 16b. Benchmark III Interview Data
Benchmark III Interview Results Calendar Year 2008 Question Artifacts from student teaching, reflection ratings Final Student Teaching Assessments and Recommendations from Cooperating Teachers Disposition ratings from student teaching from cooperating & University Supervisors Alignment Summary of artifacts meeting all 10 Wisconsin Teaching Standards & 4 Domains/ Components & reflections/ reflection ratings Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 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 MBE SP08 FA08 N=8 N=9 0 0% 0 0% 3 38% 2 22% 3 38% 5 56% 2 25% 2 22% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 25% 1 11% 5 63% 8 89% 1 13% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 25% 0 0% 3 38% 5 56% 3 38% 4 44% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 33% 0 0% 2 22% 8 100% 4 44% 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%
Page 22 All numbers exclude any add‐on certification candidates *Does not include carry‐over candidates Reflections Based on average reported reflection ratings of 3 factors Benchmark I and Benchmark II students ranked lower on each of the factors (Intended
Learning, Unanticipated, New Learning, and Connections to Domains, Components, and Wisconsin Teacher Standards) than did Benchmark III
student teachers.
It is encouraging to see reflection ratings completed by course instructors and cooperating teachers illustrating growth over time across each of
the 3 factors. In part, this can be explained by student attrition and program advisement as well as student experience in reflection over-time. It
is the intent that teacher candidates, upon program completion, have developed an appreciation of reflection as part of their continuous
improvement philosophy. At this point, it is difficult to ascertain specific improvement opportunities or trends relative to this aspect of the
program evaluation process (see tables 17 through 19). In addition, the School of Education has adopted a new disposition rating process whereby
each program area faculty reviews all students annually and identifies those students that have disciplinary referrals, have demonstrated
dispositions inconsistent with the SOE accepted code of professionalism. During the 2008 academic year there were no disciplinary referral and
there were no teacher candidates that were identified with a disposition infraction.
Table 17. Intended Learning
Mean (N)
Level
2004
3.00 (91)
Benchmark I
3.30 (61)
Benchmark II
3.32 (50)
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2005
2.56 (43)
2.48 (40)
3.53 (60)
Mean (N)
2006
2.90 (61)
3.06 (70)
2.97 (36)
Mean (N)
2007
2.53 (73)
2.89 (76)
3.13 (45)
Table 18 New and Unanticipated Learning
Mean (N)
Mean (N)
Level
2004
2005
2.86 (91)
2.67 (43)
Benchmark I
2.77 (61)
2.60 (40)
Benchmark II
3.44 (50)
3.52 (60)
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2006
2.80 (61)
3.07 (70)
2.86 (36)
Mean (N)
2007
2.70 (73)
2.87 (76)
2.91 (45)
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 23 Table 19. Connections to Domains, Components and Wisconsin Teacher Standards
Mean (N)
Mean (N)
Mean (N)
Mean (N)
Level
2004
2005
2006
2007
2.16 (91)
2.07 (43)
2.44 (61)
Benchmark I
2.56 (73)
2.64 (61)
2.13 (40)
2.61 (70)
Benchmark II
2.44 (52)
3.26 (50)
3.67 (60)
2.64 (36)
Benchmark III
3.00 (45)
Student Teaching Performance Ratings An analysis of cooperating teacher student ratings across domains and the domain components suggests that MBE student teachers are perceived
competent in each of the 4 domains and 22 domain components based on average ratings above 3 out of a possible 4.0 (see Table 20). All ratings
have improved over the 2007 findings. While this appears to be a positive finding it must be noted that the rating scale was modified in that it
allowed cooperating teachers to provide a rating of 4 where appropriate. The prior scale, while it allowed for that—the directions stipulated that a
rating of 4 would be the equivalent to a 3rd or fourth year teaching experience, thus minimizing a cooperating teacher to chose to rate a student
teacher at that level.
Table 20 Student Teaching Final Evaluation Rating by WI Teacher Standard
MBE
Student Teacher Competency Final Ratings
SOE UNIT
2006
2007
2008
2006
2007
2008
N=12
N=12
N=26
N=294
N=348
N=284
WI Teacher Standards
2.84
3.18
3.59
3.24
3.44
3.66
#1: Teachers know the subjects they are teaching
2.92
3.25
3.62
3.25
3.40
3.71
#2: Teachers know how children grow
#3: Teachers understand that children learn
differently
#4: Teachers know how to teach
2.75
3.08
3.46
3.23
3.33
3.69
2.73
3.00
3.62
3.16
3.27
3.71
2.83
3.17
3.58
3.15
3.32
3.63
#5: Teachers know how to manage a classroom
2.75
3.25
3.62
3.29
3.41
3.60
#6: Teachers communicate well
#7: Teachers are able to plan different kinds of
lessons
#8: Teachers know how to test for student
2.92
3.25
3.69
3.24
3.37
3.67
2.83
3.33
3.50
3.27
3.41
3.65
3.00
3.08
3.54
3.13
3.23
3.60
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 24 progress
#9: Teachers are able to evaluate themselves
#10: Teachers are connected with other teachers
and the community
2.83
3.25
3.69
3.34
3.44
3.72
2.83
3.08
3.58
3.37
3.43
3.66
Pre­Student Teaching Performance The MBE program utilizes a pre-student teaching model that places students into elementary, middle, and high school classrooms (MBE 312 Prestudent Teaching). Students experience observation of classroom teaching, facilities, and interaction with students to the tune of 50 plus hours.
Students are concurrently enrolled in MBE 311 Project Methods (a course designed to prepare them to teach within contextualized
environments). Pre-student teachers also encounter their core methods course (MBE 301, 4 Credits) during this semester. In addition, all
students encounter and document student and teacher interaction experiences through their EDUC 376 Cross Cultural Field Experience and SPED
430 Inclusion course prior to student teaching.
While the data collected through the assessment system does not allow for a program specific analysis it does support that students are
interacting, planning, and instructing within a real classroom. The MBE program has clearly defined outcomes of its MBE 312 Pre-student
teaching course. All students experience multi-level teaching experiences facilitated by certified cooperating teachers under the supervision of a
UW-Stout supervisor. A qualitative analysis of the MBE pre-student teaching experience continues to support that program students encounter a
developmentally appropriate teaching experience that prove to be a great segue to their senior-level pedagogy coursework and capstone student
teaching experience. Pre-student teaching cooperating teachers continue to agree to support this experience thought their continued work with the
MBE program. Pre-student teaching university supervisor observations support that program students are positively impacting their assigned
student populations. Pre-student teachers highlight this coordinated learning experience as a deciding factor that influences their desire to move
through to degree completion. In the past year 100 percent of pre-student teachers migrated through Benchmark III, teacher licensure.
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 25 Alumni Follow­up Survey Program students (One year Follow-up, 2006 and 5 year follow-up, 2002) appear to attribute some of their present competency to the general
education curriculum (Table 21). One and five year follow-up responses of Marketing and Business Education program graduates are also
significantly higher than the average university graduate with the exception of the following factors; 1) MBE respondent ratings of appreciating
the value of arts and literature which was rated slightly lower than the overall university respondent mean (3.1 versus instructional average of
3.31/4.0); appreciating the natural and physical sciences (2.9 versus instructional average of 3.28/4.0); appreciating history within the context of
current issues (2.9 versus instructional average of 3.17/4.0); and maintaining a sense of well being (3.4 versus instructional average of 3.3.7/4.0).
MBE respondents rated speaking or presenting ideas effectively significantly higher than the average university graduate (4.4 versus instructional
average of 3.88/4.0). Both of these factors remain consistent with the historical data since 1997. It is interesting to note that subjects five years
post graduation slightly higher means responses across most factors.
Table 21. General Education Core Competencies
MBE Program Specific Follow‐up Survey (1=Not at all 2= Moderately 3=Extremely) 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? 3. Create instructional experiences adapted for students who learn differently? 4. Use a variety of learning strategies to encourage critical thinking and problem solving? 5. Create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning and self‐motivation? 6. Use effective verbal and nonverbal communication techniques, media and technology to foster active inquiry, collaboration and supportive interaction in the classroom? 7. Plan instruction based on knowledge of subject matter, students, the community and curriculum goals? 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, parents and the community to support student learning and wellbeing? Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Year Graduated 2002 2006 N 6 Mean 2.50 N 6 Mean 2.50 6 2.67 6 2.50 6 6 2.33 2.83 6 6 2.33 2.50 6 2.50 6 2.67 6 2.33 6 2.67 6 2.67 6 2.50 6 2.50 6 2.67 6 2.50 6 2.67 6 2.67 6 2.33 Page 26 Figure 7. GenEd Competency Comparison
Red 2002
Blue 2006
The figure that follows reports on the personal development factors that program graduates attribute to their education at UW-Stout. These factors
report that MBE graduates perceive their competence higher than the University mean. Again, it is interesting to note that the five year cohort
rates all of these factors higher that one year graduates. This has been true historically. It is possible that appreciation of knowledge and skills
development in this area grows with reflection and engagement in professional employment.
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 27 Figure 8. General Education Personal Development Competencies
Red 2002
Blue 2006
Marketing and Business Education program graduates indicate satisfaction with both the university and the program. An analysis of the
institutional research data indicates that MBE graduates attribute a value added experience across all factors with slightly higher mean responses
than all university graduates with few exceptions. The belief that learning extends beyond the structured classroom curriculum is supported by
program graduates. While there is a significant difference between reported means across one and five year cohorts, all perceived the cocurricular experiences as contributing significantly to their preparedness for employments. The five year cohort validates that the program has
prepared them to be competent to carry out the jobs that they entered (Table 22).
Figure 9. Education at UW-Stout
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 28 Red 2002
Blue 2006
Reviewing job satisfaction data, 100 percent of the respondents were employed with 71 percent reporting employment directly related to the
major.
Based on communication with graduates and data from the program faculty’s longitudinal follow-up study, Tracking the Career Paths of
Marketing and Business Education Graduates, Mooney, Haltinner, Stanislawski highlight that those not entering teaching directly indicate that
their education clearly supported them in their current business and industry career. In addition, it likely that many of the graduates entered
business and industry careers as a means to bolster their applied knowledge and skills required to teach in these Career and Technical Education
content areas. While 28 percent historically indicate that they remained in business the balance demonstrated movement between business and
education careers (Mooney et al, 2006). The same report states graduates choosing education and business and industry marketing and business
focused careers in almost equal proportions over the programs 35 year history (2006). A review of employment satisfaction suggests that a
positive trend continues.
When asked about their education at UW-Stout MBE respondents rated their education compared to other hires at 67 percent, this was a 20
percent increase over 2004. Also, 71 percent of program respondents rated the program’s effectiveness high to very high, 11% below the overall
university respondent. Additional questions relating to program faculty availability, course availability, academic advisement, laboratory
facilities and equipment, and the digital environment ranked significantly higher than the overall graduate responses.
Responses specific to the program indicate that less than 30 percent (a decline of 10% since 2004) of the program graduates were happy with the
general education instruction. The five year cohort indicated that almost 60 percent where happy with the general education instruction,
consistent with overall university findings. While over 70 percent were happy with the program instruction, a decline of 2% since 2004. This is
an area of concern as historical responses on these factors were generally between 80 and 100 percent.
Figure 10. Education at UW-Stout
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 29 Additional questions were developed for the 2004 follow-up survey relating to senior year coursework. Findings highlight some interesting data.
Program respondents rate the programs ability to promote connections between program and careers (MBE 2006, 4.3 and MBE 2002, 4.4) along
with preparation for community, civic, and political roles (MBE 2006, 3.5 and MBE 2002, 4.3). On the other hand, MBE respondents rated the
following factors low; financial management (MBE 2006, 3.5 and MBE 2002, 3.3); continuing education (MBE 2006, 3.9 and MBE 2002, 3.7),
and finding employment (MBE 2006, 4.0 and MBE 2002, 4.4.).
Employer’s satisfaction with program graduates yielded an n of 1 for both the one and five year follow-up. In both cases the employers rated
graduates 5/5 across all questions. The provide data does not allow program faculty to gain meaningful insight. Historical data from employers
suggests that there is a high level of employer’s satisfaction with the programs graduates as presented through the 1998 through 2006 findings.
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 30 Program specific survey In 2004 the Marketing and Business Education program adopted the School of Education teacher education assessment framework. As a result,
all graduates report on their perceived competence across the Wisconsin 10 teacher standards. An analysis of these 10 factors highlights that
students attribute their competence to the Marketing and Business Education across all factors at above 2.33/3.00. One year graduates reported a
slightly lower mean across standards 2, 4, 7, and 10. This same cohort reported slightly higher mean ratings on 5 6 8, and 9 than did the five year
cohort.
Additional Program Comments and Descriptions Figure 11 and highlight student enrollment in the program. While the Marketing and Business Education program has relatively stable
enrollment it is continually addressing recruitment and retention opportunities. The program has the capacity to serve 100 to 120 students.
Recent supply and demand trends suggest that the program would benefit from additional students that are retained through to licensure.
Figure 11. 2007 Enrollment
MARKETING & BUSINESS ED 2007
75
2008
85
2009
80
The program does attract and graduate a minority student populating it has an opportunity and a responsibility to serve an increasingly diverse
population (see Figure 11a).
Figure 11a. 2007 Enrollment by Major and Race/Ethnicity
Marketing &
Bus Educ
African
Amer.
Amer.
Indian
Southeast
Asian
Asian
Amer.
Hispanic/
Latino
Minority
total
White
Total
1(.01%)
0(0%)
1(.01%)
0(0%)
2(.03%)
4(5%)
71(95%)
75
Pre-Benchmark I and Benchmark I Observations
The MBE program continues to attract “marketing and business passionate” individuals that see the program as a viable option to attain their
career objective. These students seek a flexible career pathway that prepares them to becoming marketing and business educators and
business/marketing professionals. Some MBE program students, not quite ready to accept the additional work of a teacher education preparation
program (in accordance to PI34 requirements operationalized through the UW-Stout teacher education Bench-mark system), are opting into other
UW-Stout non-teaching majors to meet their career goals.
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 31 To assure healthy enrollments, the MBE program needs to recruit a significant number of freshmen and transfer students (ideally 50 students per
year). The following strategies have been set in motion to accomplish this end. The program is therefore promoting teaching marketing and
business education through secondary and post-secondary level business and marketing educators in WI and MN schools about the need for
teachers.
Benchmark II Observations
Students encountered within the courses supporting this stage of MBE preparation continue to be passionate about their impending teaching
career. Portfolio artifacts support technical and pedagogy preparedness achieved through the program’s courses and affiliated professional
experiences. Program faculty is pushing students to select general education artifacts that support their ability to make curricular connections
between technical and academic knowledge learning integration. This is critical as career and technical education programs must increasingly
prove their value added within the required and tested academic curriculum
Post Benchmark II (Student Teaching)
The program’s student teachers are well received and easily placed within both Marketing and Business Education programs in the WI and MN
schools. Student teachers are working very hard during their student teaching to meet the requirements of a dual certification student teaching
experience. With the K-12 licensure of all CTE disciplines in WI, student teaching experiences in the dual licensure program (MBE) continues to
be demanding and complex to facilitate (logistically, relative to time demands, maintaining communications across two distinct teacher
communities, and teaching between 3 to 5 preps per day to meet the content experiences valued by both ME and BE cooperating teachers).
However, program student teaching supervisors and cooperating teachers have worked diligently to make it a quality experience for students.
This is supported by the fact that 100 percent of the program’s 2007 student teachers successfully met benchmark three requirements.
Improvement Goals for 2008/09
1. Continue to build student awareness in the area of understanding and coping with the political nature of becoming a public school teacher.
This effort has been in place since the 2007 academic year and continues to be an opportunity to improve.
2. Implement program curriculum changes that will facilitate student Praxis II exam component scores to be positively impacted in the
following areas: US Economic Systems, Money Management, Business and its Environment, and General Marketing
3. Continue increased utilization of career services within MBE Program courses.
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 32 Program Improvement Progress since the Prior AIM Report 1. Increase student awareness in the area of understanding and coping with the political nature of becoming a public school teacher.
2. Investigate opportunities to improve MBE students’ school law and educational policy knowledge and skills.
Goal 1 and 2 have been addressed by a modified its MBE 355 Seminar course to push on this aspect of teacher preparation. An explicit
unit of instruction and a series of guest speakers have been part of the Junior and Senior level courses (MBE 301, 401, 411) to further
develop student capacity in coping with this. In addition, students have also engaged in the teaching professional organizations and
conferences (WBEA and WMEA) that provide practitioner insights and provide a network of professional that student may have at their
disposal.
3. Investigate opportunities to improve MBE students’ core economics, money management, and business environment knowledge and
skills. Program faculty has just concluded a study of all technical content courses, their objectives and their consistency with supporting
the Praxis II and the National Business and Marketing standards. It has become apparent that the program needs to consider adding a
personal finance and a course that more aggressively focuses on building the general business literacy that is prerequisite of the
contemporary Business and Marketing teacher.
4. Plan ways to improve utilization of career services within MBE Program courses. Program faculty have developed overt opportunities
and expectations of students to intersect with career services. Specific courses are MBE 311 (Resume review) and MBE 401 (resume
review and expectation of being registered with career services prior to beginning student teaching.
Other Efforts The MBE program continues to work on student retention and recruitment efforts. At present the program enrollments have remained stable at
80 to 85 program students. Program faculty continued to promote the MBE program through faculty presentations at three regional technical
colleges. In addition, the program director presented to the UW-Stout Business Administration program introductory course student population
about the teaching option through this program. The program director also continues to contact students that have moved from their declared
programs to undeclared (via email communication). In addition, program faculty work with University Recruitment personnel on ways to better
convey the MBE program to prospective student populations.
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies Data will be communicated to faculty members through informal and formal means. Program faculty meet during scheduled discipline area work
group meetings (DAWG) designed to support ongoing program improvement. In addition, the AIM findings will be shared across program
vested publics including technical content instructors. Action plans resulting in desired change will become the artifacts resulting from work
group meetings. Each MBE faculty member charged to lead an area of improvement.
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 33 Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program The findings of the AIM process and report are analyzed and connected with specific program elements (courses, projects, assignments,
experiences) that are seen as direct and indirect contributors to the current and future desired outcomes.
The following are changes or improvements planned for the upcoming year. The program will continue to refine curriculum, the program course
sequence, and advisement processes based on the researched findings of this assessment report.
In conclusion, it is likely that small survey populations are impacting assessment data in a heightened way. It is therefore important to attend to
ongoing program improvement in a manner that pays attention to program details impacting the overall student learning and real or perceived
student experiences.
Marketing and Business Education AIM Report 2009 Page 34