B.S. in Special Education Assessment in the Major Report By Dr. Amy Schlieve, Program Director 2008 Submitted October 1, 2009 Table of Contents Overview ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test .................................................................................................................................................................1 PRAXIS II: Middle School Content Test Summary ...............................................................................................................................................2 Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) ...........................................................................................................................................................3 Summary at Benchmark I, II and III ........................................................................................................................................................................7 Student Teaching Performance Ratings .................................................................................................................................................................11 Alumni Follow-up Survey .....................................................................................................................................................................................12 Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies.........................................................................................................................................15 Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program ..................................................................................................................15 Advisory Board Members Spring 2008 .................................................................................................................................................................15 Recruitment Plan....................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Advisement Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Retention Plan ........................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Overview The University of Wisconsin-Stout School of Education (SOE) has gathered assessment data gathered from fall semester 2003 through December
2008. In the School of Education, data is gathered from several sources to inform unit and program decisions. Data in this report is used to develop
program goals, inform curriculum changes, and enhance course delivery in order to improve teacher education candidate learning. This report
contains data from the PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test, PRAXIS II: Middle School Content Test, Benchmark Interviews, 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 data for the PRAXIS I: PPST is summarized below. The strongest area for students in SE and VR/SE in 2008 was Reading and Writing. The data
does not delineate between individuals who are sitting the exam for the first time to those who are repeating – thus, it is impossible to determine the
first time passing rate. 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. See the full SOE unit assessment report for further information.
SPED
Math
Reading
Writing
2004
# test
attempts
-------------
VR
(SPED
certificate)
Math
Reading
Writing
32
33
32
Teacher
Education
Program
Undergraduate
TOTALS
PPST
Test
2004
# (and %)
passed
-------------
2005
# test
attempts
8
9
11
2005
# (and %)
passed
7 = 88%
4 = 44%
6 = 55%
2006
# test
attempts
15
28
24
2006
# (and %)
passed
12 = 80%
11 = 39%
13 = 54%
2007
# test
attempts
20
23
23
2007
# (and %)
passed
13
10
14
2008
# test
attempts
16
22
18
2008
# (and %)
passed
14 = 88%
18 = 82%
12 = 67%
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
2
2
1
1
--
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
226
191 = 84.5%
130
102 = 78.5%
243
184 = 75.7%
150
119 = 79.3%
257
200 = 77.8%
138
104 = 75.4%
Math
266
215 = 80.8%
189
151 = 80.0%
204
Reading
368
214 = 58.2%
239
138 = 57.7%
280
Writing
425
206 = 48.5%
277
136 = 49.1%
296
148 =
72.5%
145 =
51.8%
161 =
54.4%
--
Special Education AIM Report 2008 Page 1 PRAXIS II: Middle School Content Test Summary For the students in the Special Education (SE), as well as those students with Vocational Rehabilitation with Special Education Certification in
Cognitive Disabilities must take and pass the PRAXIS II Middle School Content test prior to being allowed to student teach. Four areas are covered
in the PRAXIS II Middle School Content Test: literature, mathematics, history/social studies, and science. The score needed to pass the Content Test
is 146.
The most recent data shows the lowest score for SE and VR/SE students was 122 and the highest score was 176. No comparisons were conducted
among the UW-Stout teaching majors, as this is the only major required to take this exam. Most of the other majors are actually being tested on the
content within their major. According to data from Datatel, 18 students sat the exam with a 89% passing rate. As with the PRAXIS I, the data does
not delineate between individuals who are taking the test for the first time from those who are repeating the test – thus, it is impossible to determine
the first time passing rate. 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. Please see Table 1 for a summary of these results.
Special Education(Middle School Content test)
-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
2008
49
184
101
146
29/49
59%
1
151
151
146
1/1
100%
9
170
130
146
7/9
78%
28
185
122
146
15/28
54%
22
173
131
146
21/22
96%
18
176
122
146
16/18
89%
* - 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:
Score Needed to Pass:
Number with Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
Special Education AIM Report 2008 03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
59
184
101
149
136-163
146
34/59
58%
-
15
185
128
148
143-159
146
9
60%
27
177
134
151
148-162
146
21/27
78%
34
174
122
152
147-158
146
28/34
82%
08/09
Page 2 Average Percent Correct
Middle School
Content Test
Category
Literature
Mathematics
History / Social
Studies
Science
Middle School
Content Test
Category
Literature
Mathematics
History / Social
Studies
Science
Stout
Points
03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09
Available
%
%
%
%
%
%
27-30
59
65
66
64
29-30
53
58
62
60
28-30
53
-
56
53
53
28-30
59
-
58
60
58
Points
03/04
Available
%
27-30
63
29-30
63
04/05
%
-
State
05/06 06/07
%
%
72
70
71
69
07/08
%
72
70
28-30
54
-
58
59
57
28-30
63
-
63
62
63
08/09
%
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) Fourteen factors are assessed through the EBI (Scale= 1-7 with 1= not at all, 4= moderately and 7= extremely) at the conclusion of candidates’ student
teaching experiences. The tables below report the data on the 14 factors. Beginning with the Fall semester 2007 an evening and summer rotation
(one per semester) began for all required special education courses. This rotation supports non-traditional undergraduate students who are often
limited in the number of courses they are able to take during the day. Special Education continues to offer a Post-bachelorette add-on certification
for those interested in Cross-Categorical licensure (and who hold a current WI k-12 CD License) in an evening and weekend format for the 6
remaining courses. Previous graduates of UW-Stout and other universities are enrolled in this program.
When analyzing this year’s data it became clear that the “N” is incorrect. EBI reports 28 respondents and the total number possible was 22.
Reviewing the data collected beginning in 2004 – the year the stand-alone Special Education major began - and comparing it with that collected
since, Factors areas have trended upwards or remained statistically unchanged.
Special Education AIM Report 2008 Page 3 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
Special Education AIM Report 2008 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Page 4 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
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
Special Education AIM Report 2008 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
5.57
5.90
5.38
5.30
6.13
6.10
6.11
6.10
6.10
5.72
5.70
6.20
5.80
6.10
5.20
5.30
4.43
4.56
4.33
4.67
4.22
4.25
4.87
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
5.31
5.36
5.27
4.70
5.34
5.50
5.27
5.50
5.33
6.03
6.36
6.18
6.45
5.82
5.92
5.83
4.04
4.83
4.00
3.75
3.60
3.30
4.42
4.36
4.95
4.82
5.09
5.68
6.18
5.36
5.45
5.73
5.30
5.27
5.36
5.10
5.46
5.73
5.50
4.80
5.66
5.82
5.55
5.64
5.64
5.78
5.64
6.00
6.00
5.91
5.27
5.80
4.60
4.78
5.00
5.40
4.13
4.50
4.62
4.55
5.91
5.91
5.91
6.27
6.82
6.00
6.25
6.42
5.68
5.82
5.67
5.70
6.18
6.36
6.30
6.00
6.40
6.50
6.58
6.08
6.42
6.11
5.92
6.67
5.83
6.08
6.08
6.08
4.80
5.25
4.55
4.80
4.70
5.00
5.25
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
5.36
5.62
5.00
4.80
5.62
5.69
6.00
5.46
5.31
5.84
6.15
5.92
5.85
6.46
5.25
5.36
4.53
4.89
4.78
4.33
4.11
4.71
4.79
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
5.54
6.00
5.50
4.73
6.21
6.36
6.36
6.14
6.00
6.10
6.00
6.43
6.14
6.07
6.07
5.92
3.70
4.40
3.60
3.67
3.67
3.25
4.36
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
3.34
3.51
4.07
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
3.62
3.81
4.51
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
3.69
4.02
4.80
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
3.58
3.62
4.48
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
3.25
3.15
4.41
5.50
4.60
4.67
4.58
4.82
4.78
5.42
5.27
5.00
4.77
4.64
4.43
4.27
4.00
4.76
4.54
5.11
4.81
4.77
4.44
4.66
4.42
Page 5 Q87. Comparing the experience to the quality of education, rate the value of
the investment made in your Education program
4.50
4.00
4.45
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 NonEducation 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
5.08
4.62
4.00
3.91
4.23
4.45
4.24
4.11
SOE UNIT
SPED
03/04
N=12
5.08
5.00
4.17
4.64
4.64
5.36
4.18
-
04/05
N=13
4.50
4.58
4.58
4.58
3.75
5.08
4.42
-
05/06
N=11
5.09
4.64
5.70
4.91
5.00
5.27
4.73
-
06/07
N=12
5.50
6.00
5.50
5.91
5.18
6.55
5.64
-
07/08
N=14
5.62
5.38
5.85
5.23
4.46
6.00
5.42
-
08/09
N=14
5.15
4.71
5.29
4.71
4.43
5.43
5.54
5.21
5.29
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
4.90
5.17
5.18
4.42
4.64
4.92
4.24
4.75
4.97
4.68
4.70
4.90
5.17
5.55
5.33
5.36
5.54
4.75
5.03
5.09
5.18
5.21
Special Education AIM Report 2008 Page 6 Summary at Benchmark I, II and III For Benchmark I “meeting the intended learning”, SE and VR/SE students continue to score at the satisfactory level. All students must satisfactorily
complete BMI to advance to BMII. For Benchmarks II the mean scores were at the emerging and basic level. All students must successfully
complete BMII to student teach. For Benchmark III the mean scores were primarily basic, with some scores in the emerging and proficient levels.
Please see below for a summary of the results.
Benchmark I Interview Results Calender Year 2008 SPED Question Explain personal and professional growth between your initial resume and updated resume. Explain your philosophy of education. Response Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Explain three personal characteristics that will Unsatisfactory make you an effective teacher. Satisfactory Describe yourself as a learner and how that will Unsatisfactory impact your future teaching. Satisfactory Describe experiences that have impacted your understanding of diversity and human relations Unsatisfactory and how these might aid you as you work with students and families Satisfactory Explain two subject matter/content artifacts Unsatisfactory and how these examples illustrate your understanding of the content you will be teaching Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Completed Alignment Summary Satisfactory SP08 FA08 N=5 N=7 0
0% 0
0%
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
SOE UNIT SP08 FA08 N=96 N=37 0 0% 0
0%
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
96 0 96 0 96 0 96 100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
37
0
37
0
37
0
37
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0% 0
0%
0 0%
0
0%
5 100% 7 100% 96 100% 37 100%
0
0% 0
0%
0 0%
0
0%
5 100% 7 100% 96 100% 37 100%
0
0% 0
0% 0 0% 0
0%
5 100% 7 100% 96 100% 37 100%
Special Education AIM Report 2008 Page 7 Benchmark II Interview Results Calender Year 2008
SPED Question Describe your Philosophy of Education and how it has evolved Describe what it means to be a "Reflective Practitioner" Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain you feel most competent in Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain you have experienced the greatest growth Response Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic n/a Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic n/a Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic n/a Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic n/a SP08 N=8 0
0%
1 13%
6 75%
1 13%
0
0%
2 25%
5 63%
1 13%
0
0%
4 50%
3 38%
1 13%
0
0%
4 50%
3 38%
1 13%
FA08 N=12 0
0%
6 50%
6 50%
0
0%
0
0%
7 58%
5 42%
0
0%
0
0%
6 50%
6 50%
0
0%
0
0%
6 50%
6 50%
0
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%
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence that: demonstrates your content knowledge demonstrates your knowledge of how children grow and learn demonstrates your ability to create Special Education AIM Report 2008 Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic n/a Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic n/a Unsatisfactory 0
2
5
1
0
4
1
3
0
0%
25%
63%
13%
0%
50%
13%
38%
38%
0
5
6
1
0
2
4
6
0
0%
42%
50%
8%
0%
17%
33%
50%
0%
0 7 25 39 0 6 6 59 0 0%
10%
35%
55%
0%
8%
8%
83%
0%
0
9
25
42
0
5
10
61
0
0%
12%
33%
55%
0%
7%
13%
80%
0%
Page 8 instructional opportunities adapted to diverse learners demonstrates your ability to teach effectively demonstrates your ability to manage a classroom effectively, including organizing physical space, managing procedures and student behavior, and creating a culture of respect, rapport, and learning demonstrates your ability to communicate effectively with students, parents, and colleagues demonstrates your ability to assess student learning demonstrates your professionalism, including ongoing professional development; fostering relationships with colleagues, families, and the community; and displaying ethical behavior expected of education professionals Special Education AIM Report 2008 Emerging Basic n/a Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic n/a Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic 4
1
0
0
4
1
3
0
4
1
50%
13%
0%
0%
50%
13%
38%
0%
50%
13%
3
5
4
0
2
5
5
0
4
4
25%
42%
33%
0%
17%
42%
42%
0%
33%
33%
12 18 41 0 10 5 56 0 14 18 17%
25%
58%
0%
14%
7%
79%
0%
20%
25%
15
27
34
0
4
6
66
0
13
21
20%
36%
45%
0%
5%
8%
87%
0%
17%
28%
n/a Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic n/a Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic n/a Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic 3
0
2
5
1
0
3
4
1
0
2
5
38%
0%
25%
63%
13%
0%
38%
50%
13%
0%
25%
63%
4
0
1
4
7
0
3
4
5
0
2
3
33%
0%
8%
33%
58%
0%
25%
33%
42%
0%
17%
25%
39 0 3 9 59 0 13 16 42 0 11 18 55%
0%
4%
13%
83%
0%
18%
23%
59%
0%
15%
25%
42
0
3
9
64
0
12
18
46
0
12
24
55%
0%
4%
12%
84%
0%
16%
24%
61%
0%
16%
32%
n/a 1
13%
7
58%
42 59%
40
53%
Page 9 Benchmark III Interview Results Calender Year 2008 Question Response Unsatisfactory Emerging Artifacts from student teaching, reflection Basic ratings Proficient n/a Unsatisfactory Emerging Final Student Teaching Assessments and Basic Recommendations from Cooperating Teachers Proficient n/a Unsatisfactory Emerging Disposition ratings from student teaching from Basic cooperating & University Supervisors Proficient n/a Unsatisfactory Alignment Summary of artifacts meeting all 10 Emerging Wisconsin Teaching Standards & 4 Domains/ Basic Components & reflections/ reflection ratings Proficient n/a 0
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
1
8
0
0
0
1
8
0
SPED SP08 FA08 N=9 N=6 0% 0 0%
0% 0 0%
11% 3 50%
89% 3 50%
0% 0 0%
0% 0 0%
0% 1 17%
0% 2 33%
100% 3 50%
0% 0 0%
0% 0 0%
0% 1 17%
11% 2 33%
89% 3 50%
0% 0 0%
0% 0 0%
0% 2 33%
11% 2 33%
89% 3 50%
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%
Special Education AIM Report 2008 Page 10 Student Teaching Performance Ratings The table below indicates the final ratings for student teacher competencies in the ten Wisconsin Teacher Standards for 2008. After completion of
their student teaching experience, each student should be at the emerging or basic level. It is rare that students would be at the advanced basic state in
their development. The means for the reported standards were 3.78 to 4.00 for Spring 2008 and a range of 3.5 to 4.0 for Fall 2008. Based on the data,
all student teachers are satisfactorily prepared for licensure. It is also evident that the Special Education Candidates consistently rate at or above the
Unit means. See table below.
Student Teacher Course Evaluations Calendar Year 2008 Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient SPED SOE UNIT SP08 FA08 SP08 FA08 N=9 N=4 N=88 N=47 Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Teachers know the subjects they are teaching Teachers know how children grow 3.89 3.89 0.33
0.33
4.00 4.00 0.00
0.00
3.63 3.52 0.47 0.51 3.79
3.70
0.30
0.50
Teachers understand that children learn differently Teachers know how to teach 4.00 3.89 0.00
0.33
4.00 4.00 0.00
0.00
3.63 3.54 0.50 0.47 3.72
3.68
0.40
0.50
Teachers know how to manage a classroom Teachers communicate well 3.78 3.89 0.44
0.33
3.75 3.50 0.50
0.58
3.48 3.55 0.46 0.47 3.60
3.66
0.50
0.40
Teachers are able to plan different kinds of lessons 3.78 0.44
3.75 0.50
3.54 0.63 3.74
0.40
Teachers know how to test for student progress Teachers are able to evaluate themselves 3.89 0.33
4.00 0.00
3.59 0.54 3.71
0.40
3.78 0.44
3.75 0.50
3.68 0.52 3.70
0.40
Teachers are connected with other teachers and the community 3.78 0.44
3.45 0.53
3.61 0.52 3.74
0.40
Special Education AIM Report 2008 Page 11 Alumni Follow­up Survey The Alumni survey completed by 2006 graduates reflects graduates from the VR-SE (certification) program. The stand alone major for Special
Education began in the Fall of 2004. While this information will be shared with VR, the data from future alumni surveys will prove to be more
meaningful. The N was zero for the five year follow-up. Therefore, this data was not reported.
Student Data 1 Year Appreciating and Understanding Diversity Year Graduated 1998 (Degree of Influence 1=None 5=Strong) 2000 2002 2004 2006 Vocational Rehabilitation – Special Education N ‐ Mean ‐ N ‐ Mean ‐ N ‐ Mean ‐ N ‐ Mean ‐ N 3 Mean 3.3 All UG Initial Teacher Programs Combined ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 58 3.74 N 3 2006 Mean 3.3 59 3.47 N 3 2006 Mean 3.0 59 3.31 Student Data 1 Year Developing a Global Perspective (Degree of Influence 1=None 5=Strong) Vocational Rehabilitation – Special Education N ‐ All UG Initial Teacher Programs Combined ‐ 1998 Mean ‐ ‐ N ‐ ‐ 2000 Mean ‐ ‐ Year Graduated 2002 N Mean N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2004 Mean ‐ ‐ Student Data 1 Year Writing Effectively (Degree of Influence 1=None 5=Strong) Vocational Rehabilitation – Special Education N ‐ All UG Initial Teacher Programs Combined ‐ Special Education AIM Report 2008 1998 Mean ‐ ‐ N ‐ ‐ 2000 Mean ‐ ‐ Year Graduated 2002 N Mean N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2004 Mean ‐ ‐ Page 12 Student Data 1 Year Speaking or Presenting Ideas Effectively (Degree of Influence 1=None 5=Strong) Vocational Rehabilitation – Special Education N ‐ All UG Initial Teacher Programs Combined ‐ 1998 Mean ‐ ‐ N ‐ ‐ 2000 Mean ‐ ‐ Year Graduated 2002 N Mean N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2004 Mean ‐ ‐ N 3 2006 Mean 4.0 59 3.76 N 3 2006 Mean 3.7 59 3.49 Employer Data 1 Year Listening Effectively (Degree of Influence 1=None 5=Strong) Vocational Rehabilitation – Special Education N ‐ All UG Initial Teacher Programs Combined ‐ 1998 Mean ‐ ‐ N ‐ ‐ 2000 Mean ‐ ‐ Year Graduated 2002 N Mean N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2004 Mean ‐ ‐ Student Data 1 Year Utilization of Technologies (Degree of Influence 1=None 5=Strong) Vocational Rehabilitation – Special Education N ‐ All UG Initial Teacher Programs Combined ‐ Special Education AIM Report 2008 1998 Mean ‐ ‐ N ‐ ‐ 2000 Mean ‐ ‐ Year Graduated 2002 N Mean N ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2004 Mean ‐ ‐ N ‐ 2006 Mean 4.0 59 3.61 Page 13 VR‐SE 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? Year Graduated 2006 N Mean 4 2.25 4 2.25 4 2.25 4 2.25 4 2.50 4 2.25 4 2.25 4 2.25 4 2.50 4 2.75 Special Education AIM Report 2008 Page 14 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. Program faculty and staff then discuss ways to better meet the needs of
students throughout the program. Action plans for desired change result from work group meetings. Each SPED faculty member is charged to lead an
area of improvement. Program advisory board members also receive a copy of and discuss the assessment in the major report. At the fall meeting of
each year the document is summarized and discussed as to their recommendations for improvement. Supervising teachers are in charge of informing
their cooperating teachers of the document and requesting feedback from them regarding improvements they recommend for the program.
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program With feedback from program faculty and staff, advisory board members, and cooperating teachers, there are continuous improvements being made to
the program. The program plan sheet for Special Education – Cross-Categorical was again modified to reflect when the courses are offered. Since the
faculty and staff allocations are small (although the program is experiencing steady growth) some courses are offered once a year. Beginning in
Spring ’08 a course rotation was developed to offer 1 special education course per semester in evening format. Students are being advised of changes
– with special attention to when once-a-year courses will be offered to better plan their progress to completing the major.
The following are changes or improvements planned for the upcoming year.
 There is continued need for hiring of SE graduates. Of the 35 students enrolled in Introduction to Special Education none had declared
VR/SE as their major – all incoming students have chosen B.S. Special Education.
 Fall ’07 began a shift in two C & I Methods and field experience courses. These four courses combined (two fall semester; two spring
semester), thus combining a methods and field experience course in a block manner. Students rotated between coursework on campus and
direct teaching experience in the field. Informal data gathered from students indicated an increase in satisfaction in both the content and
more authentic field experiences. Feedback from the field experience teachers clearly indicated an increase in satisfaction with the
students planning, preparation, and delivery of content to the students. In the 2008-09 academic years, this model was replicated in the
Early Childhood-Special Education certification program.
 The stand-alone major in Special Education in Cross-Categorical, better meets school needs throughout the state and region.
Advisory Board Members Spring 2008 Dr. Kevin McDonald, College of Technology, Engineering, and Management
Stephanie Hotujec, alumni and graduate student in the program. Teacher at Durand High school
Carrie Thomas, student ambassador for special education
Vicky Thomas, advisement
Dr. Mary Hopkins-Best, alumni of the program and Interim Dean of the School of Education
Michael Nicolai, College of Arts and Sciences
Special Education AIM Report 2008 Page 15 Sue Curtis, Director of Special Education – New Richmond School District
Robyn Criego, Assistant Director of Special Education – Eau Claire Area School District
Sharon Fox, alumni and certification student in the program. Teacher (and cooperating teacher) with the Spring Valley School District.
Significant recommendation from the spring 2008 Advisory Board meeting was to combine a one-day advisory meeting with all education majors and then breakout into individual advisory boards. This suggestion has been forwarded to the Coordinating Chair and School of Education Director.
Recruitment Plan An update of the glossy fliers will be sent to every school district in the area, as well as to alumni. Many alumni have shown interest in coming back
for courses to enhance their degree in Special Education. In fall of 2005 we started a cohort program to directly respond to the alumni by offering
evening and weekend courses to accommodate their full-time working schedules. Working with Dr. Schlieves’ and Celene Fry’s offices to
coordinate efforts will continue. Brochures have been sent to all of the conferences where faculty members have attended (i.e. WI Indian Education
Association, WI School Counselor Association, Council for Exception Children national conference).
Advisement Plan Each semester during the scheduled Advisement Day, students sign up for an hour block of time to meet with faculty advisors in a group format.
Questions are raised and answered, program plans sheets are updated, students are informed of changes in scheduling, offerings, prerequisites, and
program. Students can work individually with a faculty advisor during this time or with peers to determine their schedules. If substitutions and a full
evaluation of their program plans are needed, appointments are made with the program director. Students are expected to attend each Advisement
Day. Beginning in Spring ’07 students now register for advisement via the internet in class ranking blocks. This method has increased the number of
Advisement Day participants and class rank schedule has allowed Drs Amy Schlieve and Ruth Nyland to directly and effectively deal with class rank
specific issues more efficiently and effectively. Dr. Ruth Nyland, Dr. Amy Schlieve, Dr. Amy Gillett, and Renee Chandler, ABD were the program
faculty with Bonnie Shaw (retired principal and special education teacher) and Vicki Dowell (retired special education teacher) serving as adjunct
faculty.
Retention Plan Through advisement and class interactions, retention should remain high for the major. Due to the requirements of the e-portfolio, the content exam,
and benchmark interviews, there has been some movement away from all teaching majors on campus. Also, the Wisconsin required Middle School
Content test being a broad middle level exam, rather than specific to the major, passing of this exam will continue to be problematic for many of our
students as it is for other Special Education majors in the state.
Students’ program plan sheets are updated each semester to verify their progress toward graduation. When there has been an academic problem, the
student has been advised of his/her options for remediation of the problem and how the program faculty has helped. In some instances, students have
been counseled out of the program and referred to other majors and program directors on campus.
Special Education AIM Report 2008 Page 16