B.S. Technology Education Assessment in the Major Report By Dr. Sylvia Tiala, Program Director 2008 Submitted October 1, 2009 Table of Contents Overview ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test .................................................................................................................................................................2 PRAXIS II: Content Test Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................4 Benchmark Interview Ratings................................................................................................................................................................................13
Educational Benchmarking Inventory ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………22
Disposition of Teaching Summary at Benchmark I, II and III ..............................................................................................................................37 Reflection Summary at Benchmark I, II and III ....................................................................................................................................................41 Student Teaching Performance Ratings .................................................................................................................................................................44 Alumni Follow-up Survey .....................................................................................................................................................................................46 Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies.........................................................................................................................................54 Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program ..................................................................................................................54 Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 1 Overview The University of Wisconsin-Stout School of Education (SOE) has gathered assessment data gathered from fall semester 2003 through December
2008. In the School of Education, data is gathered from several sources to inform unit and program decisions. Data in this report is used to develop
program goals, inform curriculum changes, and enhance course delivery in order to improve teacher education candidate learning. This report
contains data from the PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test, PRAXIS II: Content Test, Student Artifact Reflections, Candidate Dispositions, PreStudent Teaching and Student Teacher Performances, and the Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI). This report also describes how assessment
data is used to set programmatic goals, improve the program, program curriculum, and delivery of courses.
PRAXIS I: Pre­Professional Skills Test The PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test (PPST) is required for teacher certification by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Students
are considered pre-Technical Education majors until they have passed the PPST. Educational Testing Service (ETS) administers the three tests
(reading, writing and mathematics) in either a written format or via computer.
Table 1 shows the number of students taking the PPST test from 2004 to 2007. The percentage of students passing each year is used for comparison
since the number of students enrolled in the Technology Education program changes from year-to-year. 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: Percentage of Technology Education and all education students passing the PPST 2004 to 2007
Teacher
Education
Program
TECED
PPST
Test
Math
Reading
Writing
Math
undergraduate
TOTALS
2004
# test
attempts
79
109 c
172 c
266
Reading
368
Writing
425
2004
# (and %)
passed
73 = 92%
72 = 66%
61 = 35%
215 =
81%
214 =
58%
206 =
49%
2005
# test
attempts
47
64
96
2005
# (and %)
passed
42 = 89%
44 = 69%
42 = 44%
2006
# test
attempts
47
72
92
2006
# (and %)
passed
44 = 94%
43 = 60%
45 = 49%
2007
# test
attempts
39
38
49
189
151 = 80%
204
148 = 73%
239
138 = 58%
280
145 = 52%
243
277
136 = 49%
296
161 = 54%
257
226
2007
# (and %)
passed
36 = 92%
33 = 87%
39 = 80%
191 = 85%
184 = 76%
200 = 78%
2008
# test
attempts
21
25
27
2008
# (and %)
passed
20 = 95%
21 = 84%
20 = 74%
130
102 = 79%
150
119 = 79%
138
104 = 75%
To be included in the above chart, the student must have a current major as of fall 2004, fall 2005, fall 2006, or fall 2007 and have taken the Praxis I test during that calendar
year.
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 2 Twenty-one pre-Technology Education majors took the
Figure 1: Percent passing PPST by year
Math portion of the PPST. Twenty-five pre-Technology
Education majors took the reading portion of the PPST.
Twenty-seven pre-Technology Education majors took the
writing portion of the PPST. Students taking the PPST are
typically freshman or sophomores. Higher-level Technology
Education courses are not available for students who have
not met essential competencies as established by the state of
Wisconsin.
Results from the PPST over the past 5 years (see Figure 1)
show that the Technical Education majors follow a
consistent pattern with the Praxis I tests. On average the
Technology Education majors show consistent performance
in the math portion of the PPST with a passing rate around
90%. This passing rate on the math portion of the PPST is
approximately ten percent higher than the rate for all of
UW-Stout’s education majors. A lower percentage of preTechnical Education majors pass the reading and writing
portions of the PPST. The percentage of Pre-Technology
Education majors passing the reading portion of the PPST
was 84% compared to 79% for all Education majors. This
passing rate of 84% is not as high as the 87% passing rate demonstrated in 2007 but it is still much higher than the passing rates demonstrated from
2004 through 2006. The passing rate for pre-Technology Education majors was 74% and is comparable to the passing rate of all education majors
who passed this portion of the PPST at 75%. The passing rate for students in the pre-Technology Education program follows a trend similar to that
of all students in education. The passing rates rose between 5% and 10% each year from 2004 to 2006. Students’ passing rate for the writing portion
of the PPST increased to 78% in 2007 and was at a similar level of 75% in 2008.
The increase in passing rates for the reading and writing portions of the PPST may be attributed to several factors. EDUC 010: PPST Writing Prep
Laboratory, first offered in 2007, is now a regularly scheduled course that is designed to help education majors pass the written portion of the PPST.
ASPIRE, a student support program for first-generation college students, provides help with the PPST. A tutor has been hired by the School of
Education for those students needing help beyond the online tutorials and practice exams. Incoming freshman are advised to study for the PPST and
obtain remediation if their reading/writing skills are weak. These strategies appear to be effective as students in the Technology Education program
pass the PPST at similar or higher rates than all students in education majors.
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 3 PRAXIS II: Content Test Summary All students seeking a Wisconsin teaching license in Technology Education must pass a content test (Praxis II) in the area for which they will be
certified. Table 2 summarizes Technology Education students’ PRAXIS II results. Students “grandfathered” in during the 2004 no-fault year passed
the Praxis II at a rate of 94% and at a rate of 100% for the remainder of 2004. The number of examinees dropped in half during 2005 and passed the
Praxis II at a rate of 95%. During the 2006 school year the number of students taking the Praxis II increased and passed at a rate of 97%. During the
2007 school year the number of students taking the Praxis II dropped in half from 2006 and passed at a rate of 91%. 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.
Table 2: Technology Education PRAXIS II Test Code 10050 results by year
Technology Education – PRAX10050 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
84
10
750
700
560
600
590
590
79/84
10/10
94%
100%
* - scores from no-fault year – “grandfathered in” as passing
2005
2006
2007
2008
42
730
580
590
40/42
95%
69
750
580
590
67/69
97%
35
720
550
590
32/35
91%
34
720
570
590
33/34
97%
Technology Education students’ passing rates (see Table 2 and Figure 2 next page) have been above 90% for the past five years. A downward trend
in scores observed in 2007 was reversed in 2008. While looking at the data for trends in passing rates, one must be aware of the fact that the
percentage rate is calculated on a relatively small sample size. Thus, a difference in one person passing the PPST will throw percentages off by
several percentage points. Over time the percentage of Technology Education students passing the Praxis II test for Technology Education has
remained over ninety percent.
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 4 Proactive measures will be used to insure a high passing rate on the Praxis
II for Technology Education majors. Program directors will continue to
counsel students failing the Praxis II by guiding them to resources and
services that may best benefit their individual needs. Program directors
will also examine how program revisions might impact students’
preparation for the Praxis II. Past efforts for Praxis II preparation will be
compared to current practices as there have been significant changes in
Technology Education faculty during the last 4 years. The integration of
Project Lead the Way curriculum into current course offerings combined
with additional math and science requirements are intended to increase the
rigor of UW-Stout’s Technology Education Program. Continued data
collection will help determine if these program changes make a difference
in students’ Praxis II scores.
Figure 2: Percent passing Praxis II by year
Praxis II median scores and score ranges for Technology Education
majors are compiled in Table 3. Seven students didn’t pass when the
content test in 2003-2004. One student failed in 2004/05 as well as in the 2005/06 school year. Three students failed the Praxis II during the 06/07
school year while 2 failed during the 2007/08 school year. Data is not currently available for the 2008/09 academic year. Figure 3 shows the range of
lowest to highest scores on the Praxis II tests as well as the high and low values for the average range of scores on the Praxis II tests for years 20032008. The data shows that from 2004 through the 2007/08 academic years between one and three students did not pass the Praxis II test. Median
scores were at or near 650 between 2003 and 2007. The median passing score rose to 670 during the 2007/08 academic year. It should also be noted
that the low end of average performance has remained consistently at 630. The high end of average performance varied between 680 and 690 from
2003 to 2007 rising to 700 during the 2007/08 academic year. The high end of the passing scores seems to be decreasing with time. Lowest
observed scores are also dropping over time. The data indicates that the rate of passing scores and average Praxis II scores remain relatively stable
over time. Data will continue to be tracked to look for trends over time. Individuals who do poorly on the content test will be advised on resources
to use for studying for the Praxis II test and for other options relative to their personal situation.
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 5 Table 3: Praxis II median score and score ranges
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
104
750
560
650
610-680
590
97/104
93%
45
740
580
650
630-690
590
44/45
98%
56
750
580
655
630-680
590
55/56
98%
38
720
560
650
630-680
590
35/38
92%
39
720
550
670
630-700
590
37/39
95%
Figure 3: Performance ranges for Praxis II content tests years 2003-2008
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 6 Examination of the average percent correct for each category on the Praxis II tests, shown in Table 4 and Figure 4, indicates that scores fluctuate
yearly between 68% and 82%. Percentages fluctuate by four percent for Pedagogy and Construction categories and by five percent for
Information and communication and manufacturing categories. Percentages fluctuate by eight percent for the Energy/Power/Transportation
category. Some of the fluctuation can be accounted for by the number of students taking the exam. Several percentage points are the result of one
or two individuals doing poorly on a test. It should be noted that the highest average scores in the communication area is lower than the scores
for all other areas and the gap between the average scores for the Information category and other categories is increasing. A program revision
completed during the 2008-2009 resulted in the reduction of credits in Power and Energy and an increase in Communication-related courses.
Trends in Praxis II data will be observed over time to indicate if this change helps performance on the Information & Communication portion of
the Praxis II test. Data will continue to be collected over time to further inform decisions related to the Technology Education program.
Table 4: Average percent correct by year
Tech Ed Test
Category
Pedagogy &
Professional
(T Ed)
Information &
Communication
Technology
Construct Tech
Manufacturing
Tech
Energy /
Power/
Transportation
Technology
Figure 4: Percentage correct over time
Stout
03/04
%
04/05
%
05/06
%
06/07
%
07/08
%
32-36
78
78
82
76
82
21-23
70
71
73
68
68
15-17
77
78
80
76
78
20-24
75
78
76
77
80
22-23
74
78
74
76
82
Points
Available
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 7 Technology Education students’ scores from 2003 through 2008 compare well against state and national scores as shown in Table 5. Chart 5
plots the UW-Stout’s technology education average percent correct agains state and national percentages. The trends seen in state percentages
are similar to those of UW-Stout’s percentages. This is logical since UW-Stout has the largest Technology Education program in the state.
Students’ scores at UW-Stout will be highly reflected in state percentages. National percentages are similar to the trends seen in UW-Stout’s
scores with several exceptions. Percentage correct for the Energy and Power category as well as for the Construction category at UW-Stout are
consistently higher than the national average. There is a widening gap between the percentage correct at UW-Stout and in the state of Wisconsin
for the manufacturing area. This is due to a decrease in national percentage correct in the manufacturing category. The high percentages shown
by UW-Stout students in the manufacturing area reflects an emphasis on manufacturing at Wisconsin’s higher education institutions and thus
higher scores in this category. It will be important to continue observing the national trend. The decrease in manufacturing scores may indicate
that the nation as a whole, and thus other higher education institutions, are moving away from manufacturing as and emphasized area of need.
The Praxis test and Wisconsin’s higher education institutions need to be aware of the shifting needs of society and make sure content taught and
measured relates to clients’ needs.
Table 5: Technology education category average scores for state and nation
Tech Ed Test
Category
Pedagogy &
Professional (T Ed)
Information &
Communication
Technology
Construct Tech
Manufacturing Tech
Energy / Power/
Transportation Tech
Points
03/04
Available
%
04/05
%
State
05/06 06/07 07/08
%
%
%
National
03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
%
%
%
%
%
32-36
78
80
81
77
80
78
77
79
76
78
21-23
70
72
73
67
69
70
69
73
68
69
15-17
20-24
76
75
81
80
80
75
76
76
79
80
76
75
74
80
78
75
73
74
74
73
22-23
74
78
75
75
81
72
70
71
70
73
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 8 Figure 5: UW-Stout, state and national average percent correct for technology content test areas
Pedagogy and Professional
Construction Technology
Technology Education AIM 2008 Information and Communication Technologies
Manufacturing Technologies
Page 9 Figure 5 (continued)
Energy/Power/Transportation
Examination of students’ scores by quartiles, Table 6, helps add detail to patterns being established within content categories. Figure 6 shows the
quartile patterns for each category area for technology education students on the Praxis II test from 2003 to 2008. Data for the 2008-09 academic
year is not available. The percentage of students scoring in the lower quartile of the Pedagogy and Professionalism category has decreased over
the last five years while increasing in the 3rd and 4th quartiles. Scores have remained consistent in the second quartile over the past 3 years. The
program will need to concentrate on moving the 25% of students scoring in the second quartile to the third quartile. Part of this may be facilitated
by having teaching staff in the major content area be consistent over time. This was facilitated in the 2009-2010 by hiring tenure-track faculty
who will be teaching the Pedagogy and Professional courses. Over fifty percent of the technology education students score in the lower two
quartiles for the Information and Communication category. Students scoring in the upper two quartiles for the Information and Communication
category remained at approximately 40% for the past two years. A new program revision that includes communication and information content is
in place for the 2009-2010 academic year. In 2005 over 60% of technology education students scored in the upper two quartiles in the
Construction category of the Praxis II content test. This dropped to 40% in 2005/2006 and has increased steadily back to 60% over the past two
years. Students have consistently scored at 60% for the upper two quartiles in the Manufacturing category for the past three years. This trend is
also true for the Power/Energy/Transportation category of the Praxis II test. Program directors and technology education instructors will work
with content area teachers to keep students scores high and increase them where necessary. This will be necessary as program revisions and
course revisions are implemented. Data trends will also be tracked at Project Lead the Way courses are integrated into the technical content area.
Adjustments to program and courses will be made as data indicates.
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 10 Table 6: Quartile scores for technology education content test
Tech Ed
Test
Category
Ped & Prof
(T Ed)
Inform &
Comm Tech
Construct
Tech
Manuf Tech
Energy/Power/
Trans Tech
1st Q
Lowest
03/04
04/05
27
26%
13
13%
17
16%
27
26%
12
12%
7
16%
9
20%
4
9%
5
11%
2
4%
Energy/Power/
Trans Tech
06/07
07/08
03/04
04/05
9
24%
3
8%
1
3%
7
18%
4
11%
4
10%
8
21%
6
15%
3
8%
2
5%
36
35%
47
45%
34
3%
17
16%
44
42%
15
33%
12
27%
12
27%
15
33%
13
29%
3rd Q
Tech Ed
Test
Category
Ped & Prof
(T Ed)
Inform &
Comm Tech
Construct
Tech
Manuf Tech
05/06
6
11%
5
9%
7
13%
10
18%
5
9%
2nd Q
03/04
04/05
28
27%
27
26%
33
32%
44
42%
23
22%
14
31%
13
29%
21
47%
12
27%
15
33%
Technology Education AIM 2008 05/06
24
43%
18
43%
17
30%
17
30%
26
46%
05/06
16
29%
24
43%
26
46%
12
21%
18
32%
06/07
11
29%
20
53%
16
42%
7
18%
9
24%
07/08
11
28%
16
41%
9
23%
13
33%
7
18%
4th Q
Highest
06/07
07/08
03/04
04/05
10
26%
9
24%
11
29%
10
26%
16
42%
8
21%
9
23%
19
49%
9
23%
18
46%
13
13%
17
16%
20
19%
16
15%
25
24%
9
20%
11
24%
8
18%
13
29%
15
33%
05/06
10
18%
9
16%
6
11%
17
30%
7
13%
06/07
8
21%
6
16%
10
26%
14
37%
9
24%
07/08
16
41%
6
15%
5
13%
14
36%
12
31%
Page 11 Figure 6: Quartile patterns for category area
Pedagogy and Professionalism
Construction
Technology Education AIM 2008 Information and Communication
Manufacturing
Page 12 Figure 6: Quartile patterns for category area (continued)
Energy/Power/Transporation
Benchmark Interview Ratings The UW-Stout School of Education Assessment System is designed to review candidates’ progress at three intervals during the program. Benchmark
I is the introductory level. Students are considered pre-education majors until they have passed the Benchmark I review. The review determines a
student’s readiness to become a teacher candidate in one of the education programs within the School of Education at the University of WisconsinStout. Technology Education candidates are reviewed during the Benchmark II interview to determine whether they may proceed to the student
teaching portion of the program. Benchmark III is completed at the end of student teaching and before a candidate is recommended for licensure.
This includes the presentation of a capstone “Best Practices” unit, artifacts from student teaching, and recommendations by cooperating teachers.
Benchmark I
In order to be eligible for a Benchmark I review, pre-Technology Education majors must have passed the Wisconsin background check; have passing
scores on the PPST (reading 175/322, Math 173/318 and Writing 174/320); completed required English, Speech, Foundations of Education (EDUC326) and introduction to the major (TECED 160) courses with a minimum grade of “C” or better.
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 13 The Benchmark I review identifies seven items on which pre-Technology Education majors are assessed. Pre-Technology Education majors are
asked to:
1. Explain personal and professional growth
2. Explain a personal philosophy of education
3. Explain three personal characteristics that will make them an effective teacher.
4. Describe themselves as a learner and how it will impact their future teaching.
5. Describe experiences that have increased their understanding of diversity and human relations and how it might aid them in working with
students and families.
6. Explain two subject matter artifacts and the examples illustrate their understanding of the content they will be teaching.
Students are scored by two reviewers at a satisfactory or unsatisfactory level. Results from the 2008 calendar year are shown in Table 7 on the
following page. During the 2008 calendar year 100% of the Technology Education students passed the Benchmark I interview. The same was true
for all students in the School of Education. The high success rate may be attributed to the fact that the Benchmark I interview is an introductory
assessment of teacher candidates. It is recognized that students will be able to show growth as they continue within the Technology Education
program. The questions and grading rubric for the Benchmark I interview are posted on UW-Stout’s School of Education website. Information
sessions are provided on a regular basis for all School of Education students. Mock interviews are held for Technology Education students during
TECA (Technology Education Collegiate Association) sessions when requested.
Table 7: Benchmark I interview results – calendar year 2008
TECED Question Explain personal and professional growth between your initial resume and updated resume. Explain your philosophy of education. Explain three personal characteristics that will make you an effective teacher. Describe yourself as a learner and how that will impact your future teaching. Technology Education AIM 2008 SOE UNIT SP08 FA08 N=96 N=37 0
0%
0
0%
Response Unsatisfactory SP08 N=16 0
0%
FA08 N=7 0
0% Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory 16 100%
0
0%
16 100%
0
0%
7 100% 0
0% 7 100% 0
0% 96 100%
0
0%
96 100%
0
0%
37 100%
0
0%
37 100%
0
0%
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory 16 100%
0
0%
16 100%
7 100% 0
0% 7 100% 96 100%
0
0%
96 100%
37 100%
0
0%
37 100%
Page 14 Table 7 (continued)
TECED Question Describe experiences that have impacted your understanding of diversity and human relations and how these might aid you as you work with students and families Explain two subject matter/content artifacts and how these examples illustrate your understanding of the content you will be teaching Completed Alignment Summary SOE UNIT SP08 FA08 Response N=16 N=7 Unsatisfactory 0
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory 0%
16 100%
0
0%
16 100%
0
0%
16 100%
0
FA08 N=96
0% 7 100% 0
SP08 0% 7 100% 0
0% 7 100% 0
0%
96 100%
0
0%
96 100%
0
0%
96 100%
N=37
0
0%
37 100%
0
0%
37 100%
0
0%
37 100%
Benchmark II
In order to be considered for a Benchmark II review, Technology Education majors must have completed or be currently enrolled in a pre-student
teaching field experience (TECED 360); have completed or be currently enrolled in core education courses and obtained at least a “C” in these same
courses which includes: Education Psychology (EDUC -303), Multiculturalism (EDUC -336), Cross-Cultural Field Experience (EDUC 376/576),
Secondary Reading and Language Development (EDUC -382), Inclusion (SPED 430), and Lab and Classroom Management (TECED 390). In
addition students must have a cumulative GPA of 2.75 at UW-Stout.
The Benchmark II review identifies seven items on which pre-Technology Education majors are assessed. Pre-Technology Education majors are
asked to:
1. Describe their philosophy of education and how it has evolved.
2. Describe what it means to be a reflective practitioner.
3. Describe the Wisconsin teaching standard and domain they feel most competent in.
4. Describe the Wisconsin teaching standard and domain where they feel they have experienced the greatest growth.
5. Interviewers ask for a minimum of two other items from the following list where students will demonstrate:
a. Content knowledge
b. Knowledge of how children grow and learn
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 15 c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Ability to adapt instruction for diverse learners
Ability to teach effectively
Ability to manage a classroom effectively
Ability to communicate effectively
Ability to assess student learning
Professionalism
Students are scored by two reviewers at an unsatisfactory, emerging, or basic level. Results from the 2008 calendar year Benchmark II interviews are
reported in Table 8.
Table 8: Student ratings for benchmark II interview
Question Response Unsatisfactory Describe your Philosophy of Education and how it Emerging has evolved Basic n/a Unsatisfactory Emerging Describe what it means to be a "Reflective Practitioner" Basic n/a Unsatisfactory Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain you Emerging feel most competent in Basic n/a Unsatisfactory Describe the WI Teacher Standard and Domain you Emerging have experienced the greatest growth Basic n/a Technology Education AIM 2008 TECED FA08 SP08 N=22 N=8 0 0% 0
0% 6 27% 4
50% 16 73% 4
50% 0 0% 0
0% 0 0% 0
0% 4 18% 2
25% 18 82% 6
75% 0 0% 0
0% 0 0% 0
0% 4 18% 2
25% 18 82% 6
75% 0 0% 0
0% 0 0% 0
0% 7 32% 2
25% 15 68% 6
75% 0 0% 0
0% 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 16 Table 8: (continued)
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence that: TECED SP08 FA08 Question Response N=22 N=8 Unsatisfactory 0 0% 0
0% Emerging 2 9% 1
13% demonstrates your content knowledge Basic 10 45% 5
63% n/a 10 45% 2
25% Unsatisfactory 0 0% 0
0% Emerging 1 5% 0
0% demonstrates your knowledge of how children grow and learn Basic 2 9% 0
0% n/a 19 86% 8 100% Unsatisfactory 0 0% 0
0% Emerging 4 18% 2
25% demonstrates your ability to create instructional opportunities adapted to diverse learners Basic 8 36% 2
25% n/a 10 45% 4
50% Unsatisfactory 0 0% 0
0% Emerging 1 5% 1
13% demonstrates your ability to teach effectively Basic 1 5% 1
13% n/a 20 91% 6
75% Unsatisfactory 0 0% 0
0% demonstrates your ability to manage a classroom Emerging 5
23%
1
13% effectively, including organizing physical space, managing procedures and student behavior, and Basic 7 32% 3
38% creating a culture of respect, rapport, and learning n/a 10 45% 4
50% Unsatisfactory 0 0% 0
0% Emerging 1 5% 0
0% demonstrates your ability to communicate effectively with students, parents, and colleagues Basic 2 9% 0
0% n/a 19 86% 8 100% Technology Education AIM 2008 SOE UNIT SP08 N=76 N=52 0 0% 0 0%
9 12% 7 14%
25 33% 16 32%
42 55% 29 58%
0 0% 0 0%
5 7% 4 8%
10 13% 2 4%
61 80% 46 92%
0 0% 0 0%
15 20% 10 20%
27 36% 13 26%
34 45% 29 58%
0 0% 0 0%
4 5% 8 16%
6 8% 3 6%
66 87% 41 82%
0 0% 0 0%
13 17% 10 20%
21 28% 12 24%
42 55% 30 60%
0 0% 0 0%
3 4% 4 8%
9 12% 4 8%
64 84% 44 88%
Page 17 Table 8: (continued)
demonstrates your ability to assess student learning demonstrates your professionalism, including ongoing professional development; fostering relationships with colleagues, families, and the community; and displaying ethical behavior expected of education professionals Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic n/a Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic 0
1
5
16
0
4
11
n/a 0%
5%
23%
73%
0%
18%
50%
0
1
2
5
0
2
1
7 32% 5
0% 13% 25% 63% 0% 25% 13% 0
12
18
46
0
12
24
0%
16%
24%
61%
0%
16%
32%
0
10
11
31
0
7
10
0%
20%
22%
62%
0%
14%
20%
63% 40 53% 35 70%
Figure 7: Levels of proficiency for benchmark II questions by semester
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 18 Figure 7: continued
Looking for trends in the data is difficult since there were 22 students (4.5% per individual student rating) in the spring semester and 8 students
(12.5% per student rating) in the fall semester. One hundred percent of the students in the Technology Education program passed the Benchmark II
interview during the 2008 calendar year. General trends related to the required questions suggest that students do as well or slightly better in the
fall Benchmark II interviews than they do during the spring Benchmark II interviews. Student maturation or more time to prepare for interviews
during the summer months may be reasons for this trend since the interviewers for the Technology Education program remained fairly consistent
during the year.
It should be noted that the following graphs represent data collected from students as they answered two of a possible eight questions selected by
the interviewers. Since the questions asked during the interview varied with each candidate, the results will not add to one hundred percent. The
data in Table 8 indicates how many students addressed each question and the percentage of students passing at each level of proficiency.
Technology education majors split score evenly (a difference of one person) between the basic and emerging category for the ability to manage a
classroom.
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 19 Figure 7: continued
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 20 Figure 7: continued
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 21 One hundred percent of the students scored at the emerging or basic level on the two questions selected by the Benchmark II interviewers. Questions
relating to content knowledge, diverse learners, managing a classroom and professionalism were addressed in at least fifty percent of the interviews.
Students scored at the higher basic level than at the emerging level in content knowledge. This is expected since they are demonstrating expertise in
the area that they will be teaching. There was a rise in the percentage of students scoring at the basic level for professionalism from the spring to the
fall 2008 semester. The data is impacted by the small number of students addressing the question. It may also be indicative of that professionalism
was stressed within the program during the year and was reflected in students’ preparations to address the question. Differences in student
proficiency ratings addressing diverse learners cannot be addressed as a different rating for one student during the spring of 2008 would make
performance percentages equal.
Benchmark III
Benchmark III is the culminating assessment for students in the Technology Education program. Benchmark III must be completed before a preservice teacher can be recommended for licensure. The assessment requires that all coursework is completed, that all program-specific requirements
are met, a satisfactory student teaching assessment is achieved, and that a complete electronic portfolio receiving a basic or higher proficiency rating
is submitted. In order to facilitate this students complete a student teaching experience at both the middle school and high school level. Four
portfolio artifacts (student teaching observations) with accompany reflections and evaluations of the reflections accompany evaluations from
cooperating teachers. Student teachers also prepare and present a “Best Practices” unit that is evaluated on planning and preparation, knowledge of
resources, use of instructional technologies, use of assessment systems, and reflection on instruction. These artifacts are combined with alignment
summaries in the portfolio and disposition ratings from the cooperating teacher/university supervisor to demonstrate that the 10 Wisconsin teaching
standards and four Danielson domains have been addressed. Table 9, below, indicates the number and percentage of students in both the Technology
Education program and the School of Education receiving unsatisfactory, emerging, basic, and proficient ratings during the 2008 calendar year.
Table 9: Benchmark III interview results for calendar year 2008
Question Artifacts from student teaching, reflection ratings Technology Education AIM 2008 Response Unsatisfactory Emerging Basic Proficient n/a TECED SP08 FA08 N=19 N=9 0 0% 0 0%
1 5% 0 0%
SOE UNIT SP08 FA08 N=87 N=56 0 0% 0 0%
5 6% 2 4%
4 21% 5 56% 31 36% 25 45%
14 74% 4 44% 51 59% 25 45%
0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 5%
Page 22 Table 9: continued
TECED Question Response 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 SP08 N=19 0
0%
0
0%
5 26%
14 74%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
5 26%
14 74%
0
0%
0
0%
1
5%
1
5%
17 89%
0
0%
FA08 N=9 0 0%
0 0%
5 56%
4 44%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
5 56%
4 44%
0 0%
0 0%
1 11%
5 56%
3 33%
0 0%
SOE UNIT SP08 N=87 0 0% 4 5% 27 31% 56 64% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2% 29 33% 56 64% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 9 10% 77 89% 0 0% FA08 N=56
0 0%
3 5%
20 36%
32 57%
0 0%
0 0%
2 4%
17 30%
34 61%
2 4%
0 0%
7 13%
10 18%
38 68%
0 0%
All numbers exclude any add‐on certification candidates *Does not include carry‐over candidates During the 2008 calendar year one Technology Education major ranked at the emerging level for student teaching artifacts and two student teachers
ranked at the emerging level for their alignment summaries. Twenty-six student teachers met the requirements to be recommended for licensure.
When necessary, university supervisors, cooperating teachers and student teachers work to remediate deficiencies, when possible, to facilitate
progress toward recommendation for licensure.
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) The Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) has been administered via computer to exiting student teachers during the fall and spring terms since
2003. Eighty-eight questions and fourteen EBI factors are collected for the purpose of unit assessment and are rated on a scale from 1 to 7 with 1=
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 23 not at all, 4= moderately and 7= extremely). Six-year (Technology Education) and five-year (School of Education) trends for 14 categories are
indicated in Table 10. Fourteen categories reported include:
 F1: Quality of Instruction
 F2: Learning Theories, Teaching Pedagogy/Techniques
 F3: Research Methods, Professional Development, Societal Implications
 F4: Aspects of Student Development
 F5: Classroom Equity and Diversity
 F6: Management of Education Constituencies
 F7: Assessment of Student Learning
 F8: Faculty and Courses
 F9: Administrative Services
 F10: Support Services
 F11: Fellow Students in Program
 F12: Student Teaching Experience
 F13: Career Services
 F14: Overall Satisfaction
Table 10: EBI scores for 14 categories and sub-categories by year
EBI Factor & Item
Analysis by Program
F1: Quality of Instruction
TECED
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
N=37
N=52
N=41
N=48
N=34
N=9
4.38
4.06
4.42
4.59
4.35
3.67
4.46
4.47
4.64
4.7
4.45
4.3
3.64
4.16
4.47
4.22
TECED
Difference
from past
year
SOE UNIT
SOE
Difference
from past
year
TECED/
SOE
Difference
2009
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
N=174
N=142
N=156
N=121
N=75
‐0.68 4.37
4.65
4.93
4.9
4.83
-0.07
-1.16
3.78
‐0.67 4.67
4.86
5.11
5.08
5.03
-0.05
-1.25
3.56
‐0.66 4.06
4.44
4.74
4.7
4.64
-0.06
-1.08
Q17. Teaching
Q18. Feedback on assignments
(other than grades)
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 24 Table 10: continued
EBI Factor & Item
Analysis by Program
TECED
SOE UNIT
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
TECED
Difference
from past
year
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
N=174
N=142
N=156
N=121
N=75
SOE
Difference
from past
year
TECED/
SOE
Difference
2009
N=37
N=52
N=41
N=48
N=34
N=9
F2: Learning Theories,
Teaching Pedagogy/Techniques
4.72
4.54
4.84
4.9
4.65
4.38
‐0.27 4.7
4.9
5.04
5
4.74
-0.26
-0.36
Q24. Teaching methods
(pedagogy)
5.13
4.8
4.72
5.06
4.74
4.33
‐0.41 4.86
4.97
5.38
5.29
4.99
-0.3
-0.66
Q19. Theories of human
development
4.53
4.1
4.67
4.83
4.62
4.56
‐0.06 4.73
5.05
4.97
5.02
4.77
-0.25
-0.21
Q21. Learning theories
4.78
4.63
5.1
4.96
4.74
4.56
‐0.18 4.83
5.1
5.03
4.98
4.73
-0.25
-0.17
Q20. Classroom management
4.16
4.35
4.64
4.53
4.74
4
‐0.74 4.54
4.7
4.87
4.93
4.64
-0.29
-0.64
Q31. Impact of technology on
schools
5
4.8
5.05
5.13
4.41
4.44
0.03 4.56
4.7
4.95
4.78
4.6
-0.18
-0.16
F3: Research Methods,
Professional Development,
Societal Implication
4.1
4.11
4.18
4.4
4.11
3.61
‐0.5 4.24
4.36
4.65
4.51
4.38
-0.13
-0.77
Q27. Professional development
4.75
4.59
4.49
4.62
4.65
4.11
‐0.54 4.77
5.06
5.16
5.17
4.93
-0.24
-0.82
Q30. Professional ethics
4.41
4.25
4.36
4.64
4.44
3.56
‐0.88 4.56
4.55
4.96
4.97
4.67
-0.3
-1.11
Q32. Impact of societal changes
on schools
4.8
4.33
4.51
4.51
4.06
3.67
‐0.39 4.42
4.57
4.74
4.58
4.56
-0.02
-0.89
Q23. Inquiry/research skills
4.5
4.26
4.44
4.26
4.06
3.78
‐0.28 4.18
4.52
4.54
4.42
4.29
-0.13
-0.51
Q29. Educational policy
3.66
3.84
3.9
4.47
3.59
3.44
‐0.15 3.92
3.94
4.47
4.02
4.13
0.11
-0.69
Q28. School law
3.16
3.25
3.41
3.91
3.85
3.11
‐0.74 3.51
3.54
4.03
3.89
3.69
-0.2
-0.58
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 25 Table 10: continued
EBI Factor & Item
Analysis by Program
TECED
SOE UNIT
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
TECED
Difference
from past
year
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
N=174
N=142
N=156
N=121
N=75
SOE
Difference
from past
year
TECED/
SOE
Difference
2009
N=37
N=52
N=41
N=48
N=34
N=9
F4: Aspects of Student
Development
4.55
4.56
4.5
4.71
4.54
3.97
‐0.57 4.85
5.05
5.18
5.16
5.02
-0.14
-1.05
Q34. Effectively develop a lesson
plan
5.59
5.2
5.47
4.49
5.21
4.89
‐0.32 5.45
5.82
5.95
5.86
5.6
-0.26
-0.71
Q35. Foster intellectual
development of students
4.72
4.73
4.66
4.77
4.74
3.89
‐0.85 4.96
5.17
5.26
5.34
5.2
-0.14
-1.31
Q36. Foster social development
of students
4.31
4.43
4.39
4.55
4.5
3.44
‐1.06 4.81
5.13
5.09
5.18
5.15
-0.03
-1.71
Q46. Actively engage students in
the learning process
4.78
4.61
4.47
3.89
-
-
NA 5.05
5.25
5.46
5.29
5.12
-0.17
NA
Q44. Encourage positive social
interaction among students
4.38
4.49
4.55
4.53
4.47
3.89
‐0.58 4.87
5.17
5.33
5.23
5.08
-0.15
-1.19
Q45. Encourage self motivation
in students
4.38
4.24
4.37
5.47
4.15
4
‐0.15 4.74
4.96
4.97
5.03
5.03
0
-1.03
Q37. Foster student’s personal
development
-
-
-
4.53
4.59
3.33
‐1.26 -
-
5.11
5.13
5.01
-0.12
-1.68
Q33. Foster classroom
collaboration
4.26
4.49
4.37
4.36
4.62
3.89
‐0.73 4.7
4.88
5.01
5.04
4.92
-0.12
-1.03
Q38. Develop curricula
5.22
5.1
4.79
5.6
4.91
4.67
‐0.24 5.04
5.2
5.59
5.22
4.91
-0.31
-0.24
Q41. Foster holistic learning
4.19
4.47
4.18
4.38
4.12
3.78
‐0.34 4.44
4.58
4.8
4.72
4.61
-0.11
-0.83
Q40. Manage behavior of
students
3.81
4.04
3.87
4.83
4
3.89
‐0.11 4.26
4.43
4.61
4.68
4.56
-0.12
-0.67
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 26 Table 10: continued
EBI Factor & Item
Analysis
TECED
SOE UNIT
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
TECED/
SOE
SOE
Difference
08/09
from past Difference
2009
year
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
TECED
Difference
from past
year N=37
N=52
N=41
N=48
N=34
N=9
N=174
N=142
N=156
N=121
N=75
F5: Classroom Equity &
Diversity
Q52. Teach children from diverse
academic backgrounds
4.38
4.64
4.44
4.45
4.29
3.89
‐0.4 4.68
4.7
4.93
4.97
4.81
-0.16
-0.92
4.31
4.74
4.29
4.43
4.18
3.78
‐0.4 4.66
4.56
4.93
4.97
4.85
-0.12
-1.07
Q42. Establish equity in the
classroom
4.53
4.61
4.68
4.54
4.45
4
‐0.45 4.7
4.96
5.01
5.04
4.84
-0.2
-0.84
Q51. Teach children from diverse
ethnic backgrounds
4.28
4.57
4.34
4.4
4.29
3.89
‐0.4 4.64
4.58
4.86
4.9
4.74
-0.16
-0.85
F6: Management of Education
Constituencies
Q48, Work with colleagues in
your school
3.55
3.62
3.78
3.55
3.25
3.06
‐0.19 3.91
4.24
4.19
4.2
4.11
-0.09
-1.05
3.78
3.86
4.18
3.85
3.53
3.22
‐0.31 4.22
4.6
4.48
4.46
4.37
-0.09
-1.15
Q50. Work effectively with
parents
3.56
3.51
3.51
3.65
3.15
3.11
‐0.04 4.02
4.45
4.47
4.33
4.37
0.04
-1.26
Q49. Work with school
administrators
3.5
3.65
3.76
3.34
3.15
3.11
‐0.04 3.83
4.1
4.02
4.11
4.05
-0.06
-0.94
Q47. Deal with school politics
3.34
3.44
3.63
3.34
3.18
2.78
‐0.4 3.5
3.81
3.78
3.88
3.63
-0.25
-0.85
F7: Assessment of Student
Learning
Q56. Informally assess student
learning
4.81
4.86
5.04
5.12
4.84
4
‐0.84 4.93
5.06
5.23
5.29
5.12
-0.17
-1.12
4.84
4.69
5
5.02
4.71
4
‐0.71 4.85
5.09
5.19
5.32
5.23
-0.09
-1.23
Q55. Formally assess student
learning
5.06
5.04
5.08
5.21
4.97
4
‐0.97 4.99
5.04
5.3
5.25
5.01
-0.24
-1.01
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 27 Table 10: continued
EBI Factor & Item
Analysis
TECED
SOE UNIT
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
TECED/
SOE
SOE
Difference
08/09
from past Difference
2009
year
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
TECED
Difference
from past
year N=37
N=52
N=41
N=48
N=34
N=9
N=174
N=142
N=156
N=121
N=75
F8: Satisfaction with Faculty &
Courses
Q61. Average size of classes
5.11
4.91
5
4.97
4.85
5.11
0.26 5.33
5.36
5.5
5.44
5.58
0.14
-0.47
5.44
5.15
5.68
5.7
5.75
5.89
0.14 5.78
5.87
6.02
5.99
6.11
0.12
-0.22
Q58. Accessibility of instructors
outside of class.
5.06
4.72
4.89
4.68
4.94
5.56
0.62 5.24
5.27
5.39
5.49
5.64
0.15
-0.08
Q59. Instructor’s responsiveness
to student concerns
4.97
4.87
4.58
4.55
4.44
4.33
‐0.11 5.07
5.14
5.28
5.26
5.32
0.06
-0.99
Q60. Amount of work required of
student
5
4.89
4.84
4.95
4.36
4.67
0.31 5.18
5.21
5.35
5.04
5.26
0.22
-0.59
F9: Administrative Services
4.1
3.66
4.51
4.66
4.44
4.33
‐0.11 4.46
4.74
5.11
4.89
5.15
0.26
-0.82
Q64. Availability of courses
3.72
3.58
4.59
4.6
4.58
4.56
‐0.02 4.35
4.72
5.06
4.89
5.27
0.38
-0.71
Q62. Academic advising by
faculty
4.25
3.52
4.41
4.51
4.3
4.33
0.03 4.43
4.74
5.14
4.92
5.24
0.32
-0.91
Q63. Academic advising by nonfaculty
4.29
4.13
4.52
4.86
4.53
4.11
‐0.42 4.69
4.73
5.09
4.94
4.86
-0.08
-0.75
F10: Support Services
Q65. Quality of library resources
5.12
4.73
5.23
5.39
5.14
4.89
‐0.25 4.99
5.27
5.54
5.29
5.52
0.23
-0.63
5.28
5.1
5.51
5.49
5.45
5.22
‐0.23 5.47
5.51
5.75
5.64
5.85
0.21
-0.63
Q66. Availability of Education
School’s computers
5.39
4.79
5.22
5.58
5.55
4.62
‐0.93 5.1
5.4
5.67
5.43
5.37
-0.06
-0.75
Q67. Training to utilize Education
School’s computing resources
4.72
4.05
4.86
5.03
4.37
4.25
‐0.12 4.37
4.89
5.16
4.66
4.98
0.32
-0.73
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 28 Table 10: continued
EBI Factor & Item
Analysis
TECED
SOE UNIT
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
TECED/
SOE
SOE
Difference
08/09
from past Difference
2009
year
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
TECED
Difference
from past
year N=37
N=52
N=41
N=48
N=34
N=9
N=174
N=142
N=156
N=121
N=75
F11: Fellow Students in
Program
Q70. Level of camaraderie
4.76
4.85
4.95
4.95
5.24
4.39
‐0.85 5.34
5.41
5.43
5.35
5.54
0.19
-1.15
4.94
4.98
5.16
5.12
5.36
4.89
‐0.47 5.48
5.51
5.54
5.53
5.66
0.13
-0.77
Q71. Commitment to teaching
profession
4.72
4.73
5.08
5.02
5.28
4.22
‐1.06 5.24
5.47
5.42
5.44
5.58
0.14
-1.36
Q68. Academic quality
4.44
4.82
4.63
4.7
4.91
4.11
‐0.8 5.26
5.32
5.31
5.2
5.49
0.29
-1.38
Q69. Ability to work in teams
4.94
4.87
4.95
4.98
5.34
4.33
‐1.01 5.35
5.39
5.48
5.21
5.45
0.24
-1.12
5.75
5.26
5.81
5.4
5.24
5.33
0.09 5.49
5.78
5.69
5.58
5.89
0.31
-0.56
5.71
5.68
6.41
5.32
5.23
5.67
0.44 5.61
5.94
5.78
5.8
6.16
0.36
-0.49
F12: Student Teaching
Experience
Q76. Quality of university
supervision
Q77. Support from teachers in
school
6
5.51
5.89
5.83
5.81
6
0.19 5.89
6.03
5.99
5.89
6.16
0.27
-0.16
Q74. Quality of learning
experience
6.1
5.4
5.86
5.79
5.41
5.11
‐0.3 5.68
5.99
5.92
5.77
5.99
0.22
-0.88
Q75. Quality of cooperating
teacher
6.42
5.48
6.16
5.41
5.78
5.44
‐0.34 5.82
6.11
5.92
6
5.93
-0.07
-0.49
Q72. Process of securing a
position
5.13
4.81
5.38
5.07
4.53
4.89
0.36 5.06
5.34
5.24
5
5.59
0.59
-0.7
Q73. Choice of assignments
5.13
4.59
5.16
4.98
4.81
4.89
0.08 5.02
5.34
5.29
5.01
5.47
0.46
-0.58
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 29 EBI Factor & Item
Analysis
TECED
SOE UNIT
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
TECED/
SOE
SOE
Difference
08/09
from past Difference
2009
year
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
TECED
Difference
from past
year N=37
N=52
N=41
N=48
N=34
N=9
N=174
N=142
N=156
N=121
N=75
F13: Career Services
Q79. Assistance in preparation for
permanent job search
3.46
3.46
4.34
4.61
4.09
3.41
‐0.68 3.83
4.23
4.25
4.06
3.77
-0.29
-0.36
3.55
3.82
4.17
4.5
4.39
3
‐1.39 4.23
4.31
4.35
4.32
4.02
-0.3
-1.02
Q80. Notice of job openings
3.42
3.79
5.08
5.22
4.75
2.57
‐2.18 4.18
4.67
4.75
4.54
3.88
-0.66
-1.31
Q83. Number of interviews had
with employers
3.86
3.31
4.61
4.18
3.33
4.4
1.07 3.57
3.91
4.07
3.82
3.57
-0.25
0.83
Q81. Number of schools
recruiting on campus
3
2.97
3.45
3.78
3.28
1.8
‐1.48 3.34
3.62
3.69
3.58
3.25
-0.33
-1.45
Q82. Quality of schools recruiting
3.07
3.34
3.69
4.53
4
2
‐2 3.51
3.81
4.02
3.62
3.15
-0.47
-1.15
F14: Overall Satisfaction with
Your Program
4.34
3.71
4.13
4.42
3.66
3.15
‐0.51 4.07
4.51
4.8
4.48
4.41
-0.07
-1.26
Q88. How inclined are you to
recommend your Education
program to a close friend
4.5
3.89
4.45
4.73
4.06
3.22
‐0.84 4.27
4.76
5.11
4.77
4.66
-0.11
-1.44
Q86. Extent that the Education
program experience fulfilled your
expectations
4.22
3.85
4.11
4.53
3.55
3.11
‐0.44 4
4.54
4.81
4.44
4.42
-0.02
-1.31
Q87. Comparing the experience
to the quality of education, rate
the value of the investment made
in your Education program
4.31
3.62
3.78
3.98
3.36
3.11
‐0.25 3.91
4.23
4.45
4.24
4.11
-0.13
-1
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 30 Table 10: continued
Questions That Do Not
Comprise a Factor
TECED
Difference
from past
year
TECED
TECED/
SOE
SOE
Difference
Difference
2009
from past
year
SOE UNIT
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
N=37
N=52
N=41
N=48
N=34
N=9
N=174
N=142
N=156
N=121
N=75
Q22. Assessment of learning
5.06
4.8
5.41
5.38
4.74
4.78
0.04 4.8
5.14
5.25
5.13
4.92
-0.21
-0.14
Q25. Collaboration with
colleagues
4.66
4.06
4.49
4.47
4.03
3.67
‐0.36 4.47
4.85
5.12
4.83
4.68
-0.15
-1.01
Q26. State standards
4.19
4.41
4.97
5.32
4.94
4.11
‐0.83 5.13
5.76
5.91
5.65
5.47
-0.18
-1.36
Q39. Write effective
4.47
4.62
4.68
4.72
4.64
4
‐0.64 4.84
5.01
5.2
4.97
4.88
-0.09
-0.88
Q43. Use of multimedia
technology in the classroom
5.39
4.64
5.47
5.44
5.09
4
‐1.09 4.76
5.07
5.27
5.07
4.73
-0.34
-0.73
Q53. Teach children with diverse
leaning styles
-
-
-
-
-
4.44
NA -
-
-
-
5.28
NA
-0.84
Q54. Teach areas in content field*
4.53
4.82
4.97
4.94
4.44
3.78
‐0.66 5.09
5.24
5.51
5.41
5.29
-0.12
-1.51
Q57. Identify child abuse
3.66
3.86
3.64
3.79
3.85
3.33
‐0.52 4.42
4.31
4.4
4.82
4.71
-0.11
-1.38
-
-
-
-
-
4.67
NA -
-
-
-
4.97
NA
-0.3
Q84. How academically
challenging were Education
courses in comparison to NonEducation courses on this
campus
5.03
4.77
4.49
4.86
4.73
4.44
‐0.29 4.24
4.75
4.97
4.68
4.7
0.02
-0.26
Q85. Quality of teaching in your
Education courses compared to
quality of teaching in your NonEducation courses on this campus
5.03
4.77
4.5
4.9
4.39
4.11
‐0.28 4.75
5.03
5.09
5.18
5.21
0.03
-1.1
Q78 Opportunities to collaborate
with other student teachers
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 31 Nine Technology Education majors responded to the Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) which is a dramatic decrease from previous years.
The low numbers make comparisons between current and previous years’ responses difficult. Technology Education majors scored question number
83,”number of interviews had with employers” higher (+.83) than the respondents for the School of Education. This may reflect the number of
Technology Education teaching positions that were open, students’ individual initiative, the concerted effort the program director made to forward
teaching vacancies to student teachers, or a combination of these and other factors. All other items were ranked lower by -.03 to -1.71 points.
Fluctuations within categories may be the result of the low number of respondents, may be impacted by course instructors, may reflect the nature of
Technology Education students, or may reflect dissatisfaction with the Technology Education program. The reason for this is speculative since
students take much of the same professional education core as most other teacher education program at Stout. The low scores on the EBI may also
be indicative of a program in a constant state of flux. One full-time faculty position has been filled by three different individuals over the past six
years. The program has been revised twice since 2005. Lab and lab equipment was ordered and installed in a technology lab designed to implement
the Project Lead the Way initiative. These factors have led to an inconsistency in instruction, different instructor-student dynamics, and other
inconsistencies in classrooms. It may be that Technology Education students are answering the EBI relative solely to their Technology Education
program experience and not accounting for the whole School of Education experience. Comparing responses from students in the Technology
Education program to responses from students within the larger School of Education and analyzing trends over time was used to evaluate the fourteen
major categories that the EBI assessed. The results are included in Figure 8, below.
Figure 8: EBI results by major category showing 6-year trend
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 32 Figure 8: continued
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 33 Figure 8: continued
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 34 Figure 8: continued
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 35 Technology Education students’ responses to category eight, “satisfaction with faculty and courses” rose from the previous year. This trend was
similar for responses from students in the School of Education. Although Technology Education students indicated a light decrease (-.11) in
instructor’s responses to students concerns, there was a slight increase in satisfaction in the amount of work required from the previous year.
Technology Education students rated class size and accessibility of instructors outside of class higher than students responding to the survey during
the past five years. Similar satisfaction trends were found in category number two “Learning Theories”, number twelve “Student Teaching
Experience”, and number thirteen “Career Services”. Students rated student teaching experiences at a comparatively high level indicating
satisfaction. Satisfaction trends for category nine “Administrative Services” and category ten “Support Services” follow the same trend for students
in the Technology Education program and for students in the School of Education. Although there was a slight decrease in satisfaction within these
categories (-.11 and -.25) no further analysis was completed. Technology Education students indicated a dropping level of satisfaction for one year
in the “Fellow Students in Program” category. The level of camaraderie ranked high in overall survey responses which may be attributed to the
growing number of students involved in TECA (Technology Education Collegiate Association), the Technology Education student organization. The
trend in this category will be monitored as TECA continues to grow and as professional development hours requiring volunteer service requirements
are added to the program. Ratings for the “Quality of Instruction”, “Research Methods/Professional Development/Societal Implication”, “Aspects of
Student Development”, “Classroom Equity and Diversity”, “Management of Education Constituencies”, Assessment of Student Learning, and
“Overall Satisfaction With the Program” dropped over a two-year time span. In order to have a clearer focus for program improvement the highest
and lowest rated items were examined.
Table 11: Highest rated EBI items for 2008 and 2007
Ten Highest Rated EBI items by Technology Education -2008
Question
Mean
Q77: Support from teachers in school (Student Teaching) 6.00
Q61: Average size of class
5.89
Q76: Quality of university supervisor
5.67
Q58: Accessibility of instructors outside of class
5.56
Q75: Quality of cooperating teacher
5.44
Q65: Quality of library resources
5.22
Q74: Quality of learning Experiences – Student Teaching 5.11
Q34: Effectively develop a lesson plan
4.89
Q70: Level of camaraderie
4.89
Q72: Process of securing a student teaching experience
4.89
Q73: Choice of student teaching assignments
4.89
Technology Education AIM 2008 Ten Highest Rated EBI items by Technology Education -2007
Question
_______
Q77: Support from teachers in school (Student Teaching)
Q75: Quality of cooperating teacher
Q61: Average size of class
Q66: Availability of Education School’s computers
Q65: Quality of Library Resources
Q74: Quality of (student teaching) learning experience
Q70: Level of camaraderie
Q69: Ability to work in teams
Q71: Commitment to the teaching program
Q76: Quality of university supervisors
Mean
5.81
5.78
5.75
5.55
5.45
5.41
5.36
5.34
5.28
5.23
Page 36 Table 11 shows the items rated highest by Technology Education majors. Student teaching accounts for 4 of the 10 highest ranked EBI items. This
item has been rated well in past EBI assessments. The “Satisfaction with Faculty” category accounts for two of the highly ranked items. “Fellow
Students in the Program”, “Support Services” and “Aspects of Student Development” categories each account for one of the highly ranked in the top
ten highest scoring items.
Table 12 shows the items lowest rated by Technology Education majors. Questions 79-82 deal with Career Services and were rated the lowest of any
factor on the EBI survey. An introduction to Career Services is being implemented in the introductory Technology Education course (TECED 160).
Career information is also being provided to student teachers via email and during seminars. The Technology Education advisory committee also
discussed the fact that the 2006 one-year follow-up survey indicated that twenty-seven percent (27%) of respondents were not employed in their area
of expertise. The dissatisfaction with Career Services may be impacted by the number of students who do not enter the teaching field. The posting
of job openings and recruitment of employees in education is a different process than that used by industry and may impact ratings within the EBI.
Questions 47, 49 and 50 all deal with the management of educational constituencies and were all rated in the “ten lowest” category. Results from the
2005 and 2006 AIM report were reviewed and it showed that 3 of 4 items in this category had also been ranked low. This trend indicates that
students do not feel comfortable dealing with the administrators, parents and politics associated with the teaching profession. This makes sense if
one considers the amount of time teacher candidates have spent dealing with these issues. Much of this is learned by teachers with time and
experience on the job. However, attention should be given to these items to see if more experiences can be leveraged within courses to relieve
teacher candidates’ anxieties about dealing with educational constituencies.
Table 12: Lowest rated EBI items for 2008 and 2007
Ten Lowest Rated EBI items by Technology Education in 2008
Ten Lowest Rated EBI items by Technology Education in 2007
Question
_______
_____ _____Mean
Q87: Rate value of investment made in you Ed. Program
3.11
Q86: Extent education program fulfilled your expectations
3.11
Q49: Work with school administrators
3.11
Q50: Work effectively with parents
3.11
Q28: School Law
3.11
Q79: Assist in preparation for permanent job search
3.0
Q47: Deal with school politics
2.78
Q80: Notice of job openings
2.57
Q82: Quality of schools recruiting on campus
2.00
Q81: Number of schools recruiting on campus
1.80
Question
_______
Q28: School Law
Q29: Educational Policy
Q86: Extent Education program fulfilled your expectations
Q48: Work with colleagues in your school
Q87: Rate value of investment made in your Ed. Program
Q83: Number of interviews with employers
Q81: Number of schools recruiting on campus
Q47: Deal with school politics
Q49: Wok with colleagues in school
Q50: Work with school administrators
Technology Education AIM 2008 Mean
3.85
3.59
3.55
3.53
3.36
3.33
3.28
3.18
3.15
3.15
Page 37 Research Methods, Professional Development and Societal Impacts had one item ranked low. Two items indicating satisfaction with the program
were ranked low by technology education students. Results from past AIM reports as well as this year’s data shows that students consistently rank
the “value of the investment made in your education program” in the ten lowest EBI items. Initiatives are currently under way to change this
perception. TECA, the Technology Education Collegiate Association, is becoming more active and involving more students in activities such as
Rube-Goldberg and Supermileage Vehicle competitions. The impacts of this may be reflected in the high ranking for the level of camaraderie and
teamwork ratings indicated in Table 11. Labs are in place to serve as a “soundstage” for teaching middle school. The 2008-09 academic year was
when the lab was fully functional and had an increase in student use with lab activities integrated into TECED courses. Increased communication is
being planned via a web presence, electronic communication, and advisement in an attempt to bring a greater perceived value to Technology
Education pre-service teachers. Program revisions and course revisions continue to me made to include policies and procedures that will help
increase low-ranking items.
Disposition of Teaching Summary at Benchmark I, II and III Means calculated on a 4-point scale where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and 4=advanced basic.
Dispositions of students are assessed on a scale of 1 - 4 throughout the undergraduate technology education program with scores from 2004 to 2007
shown in Table 13. Data for 2008 is not available. In addition to the assessments done in core education classes such as Foundations of Education,
faculty teaching Introduction to Technology Education, Curriculum Methods and Assessment, Pre-Clinical Field Experience and Advanced
Curriculum Methods and Assessment assess their student’s dispositions. Disposition ratings at Benchmark I are typically from the freshman or
sophomore year. Dispositions at Benchmark II are typically given at the junior and senior level. Dispositions from Benchmark III are done after
students complete student teaching.
Figures 9a, 9b, and 9c, shown after the next page, summarize Technology education students’ average disposition ratings for four years. Several
trends emerge from looking at the data. First, there is an overall trend showing continuous improvement in most categories from 2004 to 2007.
Exceptions to this pattern are teacher candidates’ average attendance for Benchmark I which is rated at 3.34 out of 4 or higher; preparedness averages
for Benchmark II candidates rates between 3 and 3.46; continuous learning and positive climate averages for Benchmark III candidates rated at 3.5 or
higher. Second, the ranges of scores on disposition ratings tend to rise from Benchmark I to Benchmark III levels. Average Benchmark I scores
range between 2 and 3.5. Average Benchmark II scores range from 2.89 to 3.9. Average Benchmark III scores range from 3.5 to 3.9. It should also
be noted that the variance in scores decreases from 1.5 points at the Benchmark I level to 1.1 points at the Benchmark II level to .4 points at the
Benchmark III level.
The trend showing continuous improvement may result from several factors. Benchmark interview tools have been changed during the indicated
time period. The assessment tools may be clearer so students are doing better on the assessment. The benchmark tools may easier thus allowing for
higher scores on the instruments. Staff may be more lenient with benchmarking scores over time. One would like to assume that benchmark
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 38 Table 13: Dispositions of technology education majors from 2004-2005
Attendance
BM I
BM II
BM III
Mean (N)
2004
3.54 (28)
3.00 (1)
3.76 (38)
Preparedness
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.21 (28)
3.00 (1)
3.47 (38)
2.45 (49)
3.46 (37)
3.50 (22)
3.03 (108)
3.48 (27)
3.22 (32)
3.43 (21)
3.75 (84)
Continuous Learning
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.04 (28)
3.00 (1)
3.53 (38)
2.53 (49)
3.35 (37)
3.50 (22)
3.15 (108)
3.78 (27)
3.19 (32)
3.57 (21)
3.68 (84)
Positive Climate
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.25 (28)
3.00 (1)
3.66 (38)
2.71 (49)
3.54 (35)
3.64 (22)
3.32 (108)
3.78 (27)
3.31 (32)
3.81 (21)
3.76 (84)
Reflective
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.04 (28)
3.00 (1)
3.53 (38)
2.49 (49)
3.34 (35)
3.50 (22)
3.17 (108)
3.67 (27)
3.31 (32)
3.52 (21)
3.73 (84)
BM I
Thoughtful & Responsive
BM II
Listener
BM III
2.36 (28)
3.00 (1)
3.58 (38)
2.53 (49)
3.31 (36)
3.59 (22)
3.06 (108)
3.67 (27)
3.38 (32)
3.71 (21)
3.71 (84)
Cooperative /
Collaborative
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.25 (28)
3.00 (1)
3.50 (38)
2.67 (49)
3.77 (35)
3.55 (22)
3.42 (108)
3.70 (27)
3.44 (32)
3.90 (21)
3.71 (84)
Respectful
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.96 (28)
3.00 (1)
3.76 (38)
2.92 (49)
3.81 (36)
3.86 (22)
3.45 (108)
3.89 (27)
3.50 (32)
3.90 (21)
3.88 (84)
Disposition Category
Level
Technology Education AIM 2008 Mean (N)
2005
3.41 (49)
2.89 (37)
3.82 (22)
Mean (N)
2006
3.52 (108)
3.85 (27)
Mean (N)
2007
3.34 (32)
3.71 (21)
3.93 (84)
Page 39 interviews are becoming part of the culture of the Technology Education program resulting in students learning from their peers and developing an
expectation for quality performance on the benchmark interviews.
Candidates’ experience within courses and student teaching helps account for the increase in candidates’ average benchmark scores from level I to
level III as well as the decreasing range of candidates’ scores from benchmark I to benchmark III. It is logical to assume that as students progress
within the Technology Education program they will be able to display a higher level of competence with benchmark elements.
Attention needs to be given to the process of collecting and recording Disposition Ratings for the Technology Education program. Professional
development from the unit relative to data collection processes and expectations need to be clearly communicated on an annual basis. Benchmarking
expectations should be written into curriculum documents as courses are updated to help insure data is collected at appropriate levels. Purposeful
training and communicating expectations should occur at the unit level to help insure uniformity of data collection. The system itself needs review to
ensure that valid and reliable data is being collected.
Figure 9a: Average disposition ratings in benchmark I for technology education students
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 40 Figure 9b: Average disposition ratings in benchmark II for technology education students
Figure 9c: Average disposition ratings in benchmark III for technology education students
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 41 Reflection Summary at Benchmark I, II and III Means calculated on a 4-point scale where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and 4=advanced basic.
Students in the School of Education are required to assemble a portfolio using artifacts to document competencies. Portfolios are reviewed at the
Benchmark I interview when most students are in their sophomore year; at the Benchmark II interview when most students are in their junior and
senior years; and at the end of student teaching. Students are also required to write a reflection for artifacts addressing the intended learning, new or
anticipated learning gained from completing the artifact and how each artifact related to SOE’s conceptual framework (Danielson’s Framework for
Teaching) and the 10 Wisconsin Teaching Standards. The faculty teaching classes where the artifacts were generated are asked to rate the
reflections. Reflections are rated on a 4 point scale. Tables 14a, 14b 14c, and Figures 10a, 10b, and 10c indicate results from 2004 through 2007.
Data is not available for 2008.
Table 14a: Intended learning
Level
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2004
2.51 (63)
1.80 (30)
3.53 (17)
Mean (N)
2005
2.89 (84)
2.47 (83)
3.31 (32)
Mean (N)
2006
3.05 (61)
2.04 (28)
3.29 (49)
Mean (N)
2007
2.75 (55)
2.42 (52)
3.43 (201)
Table 14b: New and unanticipated learning
Level
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2004
2.51 (63)
2.17 (30)
3.53 (17)
Mean (N)
2005
2.88 (85)
2.53 (83)
3.34 (32)
Mean (N)
2006
2.93 (61)
2.13 (30)
3.22 (49)
Mean (N)
2007
2.87 (55)
2.63 (52)
3.37 (201)
Table 14c: Connections to domains, components and Wisconsin teacher standards
Level
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2004
2.54 (63)
2.20 (30)
3.53 (17)
Technology Education AIM 2008 Mean (N)
2005
2.76 (85)
2.41 (83)
3.41 (32)
Mean (N)
2006
2.61 (61)
2.50 (30)
3.42 (48)
Mean (N)
2007
2.75 (55)
2.44 (52)
3.55 (201)
Page 42 Technology education majors had the highest average reflection ratings at the Benchmark III level with scores ranging from 3.22 to 3.55. The
assumption made is that Technology Education teacher candidates reach their highest level of proficiency at the end of their program after student
teaching.
Technology education majors’ average reflection ratings are higher at the Benchmark I level than they are at the Benchmark II level. Benchmark I
average reflection ratings vary between 2.51 and 3.05. Benchmark II average reflection ratings range from 1.80 to 2.63. There may be several factors
influencing this trend. Benchmark I reflections are generally part of a structured course and include reflections on students’ philosophy of education
and a resume. Benchmark II reflections are completed for work samples selected by students. Select artifacts vary with individual students.
Instructors at the Benchmark I level tend to be from the School of Education. Instructors at the Benchmark II level can be from disciplines outside of
education.
Figure 10a: Intended learning
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 43 Figure 10b: New and unanticipated learning
Figure 10c. Connections to domains, components, and Wisconsin teaching standards
Students at the Benchmark II level may be struggle writing reflections outside of a structured course environment. Instructors rating reflections
represent a more diverse set of courses and reflection rating scores may be influenced by individual instructors’ perceptions of the grading criteria. It
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 44 is also possible that instructors rating students at the Benchmark I level score with more leniency than they do for artifacts intended for the
Benchmark II level.
With the exception of the “Intended Learning” category in 2004, the average reflection rating scores for Technology Education teacher candidates
was between “emerging” and “basic” at the Benchmark I and II levels. Average reflection ratings were between the “basic” and “advanced basic”
level at the Benchmark III.
Student Teaching Performance Ratings Final student teaching evaluations are aligned with the School of Education’s conceptual framework (Danielson’s Framework for Teaching) and the
10 Wisconsin Teaching Standards. Teacher candidates finishing their student teaching experiences are evaluated by their cooperating teachers on a
four point scale. A score of one indicates a lower ranking while a score of 4 indicates a higher ranking. Technology Education students’ rankings
compared to the School of Education students’ ranks are compared in Table 15 below.
Table 15: Final student teaching evaluations
WI Teacher Standards
#1: Teachers know the subjects they are teaching
#2: Teachers know how children grow
#3: Teachers understand that children learn differently
#4: Teachers know how to teach
#5: Teachers know how to manage a classroom
#6: Teachers communicate well
#7: Teachers are able to plan different kinds of lessons
#8: Teachers know how to test for student progress
#9: Teachers are able to evaluate themselves
#10: Teachers are connected with other teachers and the
community
Technology Education AIM 2008 TECED
SOE UNIT
2006
2007
2008
2006
2007
2008
N=51
N=81
N=42 N=294 N=348 N=284
3.48
3.60
3.24
3.44
3.66
Student
Teacher
3.25
3.40
3.71
Competency 3.67
Final
Ratings
3.23
3.33
3.38
3.55
3.69
3.16
3.27
3.37
3.62
3.71
3.15
3.32
3.51
3.55
3.63
3.29
3.41
3.48
3.60
3.60
3.24
3.37
3.43
3.62
3.67
3.27
3.41
3.51
3.52
3.65
3.13
3.23
3.40
3.66
3.60
3.34
3.44
3.57
3.67
3.72
3.60
3.58
3.37
3.43
3.66
Page 45 Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 46 Average student teacher performance ratings remained consistent or rose from 2007 to 2008. This pattern was consistent for both the Technology
education program and for all students in the School of Education. There does not appear to be similarities in patterns or scores when the cooperating
teachers’ Student Teacher Performance Ratings (STPR) and teacher candidates’ EBI rankings are compared.
Alumni Follow­up Survey The UW-Stout One-Year Follow-up Survey is administered every 2 years by the Budget Planning and Analysis office at UW-Stout. Surveys are sent
to graduates receiving and undergraduate degree after one year and after five years. Responses are measured on a five point scale with 1 representing
“very poor”/”very dissatisfied”/”very low”/”not valuable”/”definitely no” and 5 representing “very good”/”very satisfied”/”very high”/”very
valuable”/”definitely yes”. Data and comments from this section are included from the 2006 One-Year Follow-Up Survey and the 2002 Five-Year
Follow Up Survey as it the most recent data available. It should be noted that the Budget Planning and Analysis office made substantial changes on
the 2004 survey. Table 16 shows 1-year (left column) and 5-year (right column) follow-up results for graduates of the Technology Education
program.
Table 16: Alumni follow-up survey at one year (left) and 5-year (right) intervals
UW-STOUT UNDERGRADUATE ONE-YEAR FOLLOW-UP
1-year Technology Education, BS
Year Graduated: 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Total Graduates Surveyed
42
58
68
71
58
Response No.
15
27
35
25
15
Response Rate
36% 47% 51% 35% 26%
Improved Competencies (Mean Ratings: 5=high)
General Education
Writing effectively
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.3
Speaking or presenting ideas
effectively**
3.9
4.0
3.7
4.2
3.6
Listening effectively
3.5
3.5
Utilization of technologies
4.2
4.3
Using analytic reasoning
3.6
3.8
Creative problem solving**
4.1
4.1
3.8
4.0
4.1
Technology Education AIM 2008 UW-STOUT UNDERGRADUATE FIVE-YEAR FOLLOW-UP
5-year Technology Education, BS
Year Graduated:
2000*
2002
59
78
Total Graduates Surveyed
Response No.
15
22
25%
28%
Response Rate
Improved Competencies (Mean Ratings: 5=high)
General Education
Writing effectively
3.1
3.5
Speaking or presenting ideas
effectively
3.8
3.8
Listening effectively
3.3
3.6
Utilization of technologies
3.8
3.7
Using analytic reasoning
3.9
3.6
Creative problem solving
3.8
4.0
Page 47 1-year Technology Education, BS
Improved Competencies (Mean Ratings: 5=high)
Year Graduated: 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Critically analyzing
information**
3.9
3.9
3.6
3.7
3.9
Maintaining a sense of physical
well-being
3.1
3.0
Appreciating and understanding
diversity
3.7
3.7
Developing a global perspective
3.4
3.5
Appreciate the value of literature
and the arts**
2.5
2.8
2.9
3.2
3.0
Appreciating the natural or
physical sciences
3.2
3.3
Appreciating social, economic
and political forces
3.2
3.3
Appreciating history in context to
current issues
3.2
3.3
Personal Development
Organizing information
3.9
4.0
3.6
3.9
3.8
Making decisions
3.7
3.8
3.6
3.9
3.7
Making decisions ethically
3.5
3.7
Working in teams
4.3
4.3
4.0
4.2
4.1
Leadership**
3.8
4.0
3.8
4.0
4.1
Thinking creatively
3.7
4.1
3.7
4.0
4.0
Maintaining a sense of mental
well-being
3.4
3.3
Job Satisfaction
100%
100%
97%
100%
100%
Percent employed (full & part-time)
Employment related to major (very &
100%
~85% 77%
79%
73%
directly related)**
$29,330 $31,072 $30,929 $31,164 $35,684
Mean salary
If unemployed, current status (%):
Technology Education AIM 2008 5-year Technology Education, BS
Improved Competencies (Mean Ratings: 5=high)
2000*
2002
Year Graduated:
Critically analyzing
information
3.5
3.7
Maintaining a sense of physical wellbeing
2.9
3.2
Appreciating and understanding
diversity
2.9
3.6
Developing a global perspective
2.6
3.1
Appreciate the value of literature and
the arts
2.3
3.0
Appreciating the natural or physical
sciences
2.9
3.3
Appreciating social, economic and
political forces
2.6
3.0
Appreciating history in context to
current issues
2.9
3.1
Personal Development
Organizing information
3.3
3.8
Making decisions
3.5
3.6
Making decisions ethically
3.3
3.4
Working in teams
3.9
4.0
Leadership
3.7
4.1
Thinking creatively
4.0
3.9
Maintaining a sense of mental wellbeing
3.1
3.4
Job Satisfaction
Percent employed (full & part-time)
100%
100%
Employment related to major (very &
80%
68%
directly related)
Mean Salary
$40,566
$42,447
If unemployed, current status (%):
Page 48 1-year Technology Education, BS
Job Satisfaction
Year Graduated: 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Student
0%
0%
Active military service
0%
0%
Full-time homemaker
0%
0%
Unemployed and seeking job
0%
0%
Unemployed and not seeking job
4%
0%
Other
0%
0%
Classes prepared for employment
- 60% 20%
(well & very well)
Experiential learning prepared
for emp. (well & very well)
- 52% 40%
Co/extra-curricular prepared for
emp. (well & very well)
- 42% 33%
Education at UW-Stout (% Includes 4 & 5 on a 5-point scale)***
General education instruction**
73% 74% 66% 54% 33%
Program instruction**
40% 44% 43% 48% 33%
Availability of faculty in general
education courses**
80% 74% 69% 63% 47%
Availability of faculty in
program courses**
73% 63% 57% 68% 47%
Course availability (according to
program sequence)
47% 74% 46% 28% 33%
Academic advising**
60% 67% 40% 28%
7%
Laboratory facilities and
equipment**
67% 74% 83% 68% 47%
Digital environment
- 52% 87%
Overall effectiveness of program
86% 56% 45% 72% 47%
(high & very high)
Education compared to other
hires (somewhat & much
better)**
86% 75% 65% 35% 44%
Technology Education AIM 2008 5-year Technology Education, BS
Job Satisfaction
Year Graduated:
2000* 2002
Student
0%
0%
Active military service
0%
0%
Full-time homemaker
0%
0%
Unemployed and seeking job
0%
0%
Unemployed and not seeking job
0%
0%
Other
0%
0%
Classes prepared for employment
20%
29%
(well & very well)
Experiential learning prepared for
emp. (well & very well)
47%
36%
Co/extra-curricular prepared for emp.
47%
38%
(well & very well)
Education at UW-Stout (% Includes 4 & 5 on a 5-Point Scale)
General education instruction
33%
36%
Program instruction
47%
36%
Availability of faculty in general
education courses
60%
45%
Availability of faculty in program
courses
67%
46%
Course availability (according to
program sequence)
40%
50%
Academic advising
33%
27%
Laboratory facilities and
equipment
67%
55%
Digital environment
40%
41%
Overall effectiveness of program
33%
36%
(high & very high)
Education compared to other hires
(somewhat & much better)
14%
39%
Page 49 1-year Technology Education, BS
Job Satisfaction
Year Graduated: 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Rate value of your education
87% 63% 71% 60% 20%
(good & exceptional)
Rate dev. of interpersonal skills
- 68% 43%
(good & exceptional)
Senior Year Course Work (Mean Ratings: 5=high)
Promoting connections between
program and career
3.8
3.9
Preparation for community, civic
and political roles
3.1
3.3
Financial management
2.3
2.7
Continuing education
3.0
3.0
Finding employment
2.7
3.0
If You Could Do It Over Again (% Includes Definitely Yes &
Probably Yes)
Would you attend UW-Stout?
93% 89% 86% 64% 80%
Would you enroll in the same
program?
93% 81% 60% 36% 43%
5-year Technology Education, BS
Education at UW-Stout
Year Graduated:
2000* 2002
Rate value of your education (good &
40%
45%
exceptional)
Rate dev. of interpersonal skills (good
53%
68%
& exceptional)
Senior Year Course Work (Mean Ratings: 5= High)
Promoting connections between
program and career
3.4
3.4
Preparation for community, civic and
political roles
2.3
3.1
Financial management
1.7
2.5
Continuing education
2.5
3.2
Finding employment
3.6
3.6
If You Could Do It Over Again (% Includes Definitely Yes &
Probably Yes)
Would you attend UW-Stout?
67%
68%
Would you enroll in the same
program?
33%
33%
9/15/2008
~ Previous years used a 3 point scale (3 pt. responses), in 2000 changed to a 5 point scale (4
& 5 pt. responses)
^ Previous years used a 4 point scale (3 & 4 pt. responses), in 2000 changed to a 5 point
scale (4 & 5 pt. responses)
**Wording revised for 2004 graduates
***Scale revised for 2004 graduates
~ In 2000 changed to 5 point scale.
NOTE: When only 2004 data is provided, question was new to survey
101-1yr.xls
9/10/2008
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 50 Analysis from the Alumni Follow-Up surveys follows. As one looks at the numbers she/he needs to consider the number of respondents for each
survey. Smaller pools of respondents can skew numbers. Additionally one must consider whether the respondents represent an accurate picture of
alumni’s attitudes. Data is sometimes lacking allowing comparison of trends between groups, over time, or allowing for clarification of responses.
Improved Competency
Response rates to the surveys range from 25 percent to 51 percent. The scores for the Improved Competency categories, including General
Education and Personal Development, range between 3 and 4.3. In general the scores for 2006 in the one-year responses tend to follow the same
patterns and have scores similar to those respondents in the 2002 five-year follow-up responses. High ranking items in the 2006 one-year follow up
study included “utilizing technologies” (4.3), “creative problem solving” (4.1), “working in teams” (4.1), “leadership” (4.1), and “thinking
creatively” (4.0). The items were also ranked highest in the one-year follow-up survey in 2004. High ranking items in the five-year follow-up study
from 2002 included “leadership” (4.1), “working in teams” (4.0), and “creative problem solving” (4.0). All items were rated higher in the 2002 fiveyear follow-up study than they were in 2002. Low ranking items in the 2006 one-year follow up survey included the “sense of physical well-being”
and “appreciate the value of literature and the arts” with a score of 3.0. Low ranking items in the five-year follow up survey included “appreciate the
value of literature and the arts” and “appreciate social, economic and political forces”. These items were rated low in the 2000 five-year follow-up
survey as well.
High scores for the utilizing technologies, working in teams, leadership and thinking creatively is not surprising when one considers that Technology
Education professionals typically teach students to analyze and solve technical problems using available tools and techniques including computers.
The survey results may also reflect the fact that students in the 2006 survey had started to use laptops as part of their undergraduate program. Use of
computers (one technology) was expected. None of the competency areas were rated lower than the midpoint of 3 on the one-year follow-up studies.
Having “appreciating the value of literature and arts” ranked lower than other survey items is not surprising since this is not an emphasis of the
Technology Education program. The low ranking for “appreciating social, economic, and political forces” correlates well with the lowest ranking
items in the Educational Benchmarking Inventory items of Table 12. This includes “working with school administrators”, “work effectively with
parents”, “school law”, and “dealing with school politics”. Pre-service candidates, one-year alums, and five-year alums do not feel the program
prepared them to deal with the social, economic, and political forces that surround their jobs.
Job satisfaction
Data indicates that graduates from the Bachelor of Science in Technology Education do well in finding jobs. With one exception, placement rates are
100% for respondents in both one-year and five-year follow-up studies. One person of 35 respondents was not employed in 2002 and was not
looking for a job. This indicates that the program’s graduates have no problems finding job. Comparing salaries from the one-year follow-up survey
to the five-year follow-up survey indicates that pay increased an average of $9,494 for individuals graduating in 2000 and an average of $11,518 for
individuals graduating in 2002. A large number of survey respondents on the one-year and five-year survey (40%/36%) were satisfied/very satisfied
with experiential learning. One-third or more of the respondents on the one-year and five-year surveys were satisfied/very satisfied with cocurricular and extra-curricular activities preparing them for employment (33%/38%). These percentages dropped from past percentages indicating
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 51 satisfaction that ranged from 42%- 52% levels in previous years. Twenty percent of the one-year survey respondents indicated that classes prepared
them for employment. This was a decrease from the 60% level in the previous survey. The five-year survey results rose from 20% to 29% for the
five-year survey respondents.
Although employment rates in the program are high there is a shift in employment trends that need to be addressed. The number of respondents
indicating employment related to the major dropped from 100% in 1998 to 73% in 2006 on one-year follow-up surveys. The most rapid rate of
decline (23% of 27%) seems to have occurred between the 1998 and 2002. The same trend is shown on the five-year follow-up surveys as 80% of
the 2000 graduates were employed in an area related to the major with the percentage dropping to 68% of the respondents indicating the same in the
2002 follow-up survey. Referencing Fischer and Swanter’s Supply and Demand of Educational Personnel in Wisconsin Public Schools (2004) it will
be noted that during this period of time issues with Wisconsin’s state budget impacted school districts (retrieved October 23, 2002 from:
http://dpi.wi.gov/tepdl/pdf/supdem04.pdf). Fifty percent of the schools responding to the survey indicated that budget issues resulted in layoffs,
hiring freezes, delaying retirements, and individuals leaving the profession due to low morale. National statistics indicate that seventeen percent of
teachers leaving the profession during 1999 to the end of 2004 were due to 8% transferring to a different school and 9% leaving the teaching field
((U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). The Condition of Education 2008 (NCES 2008-031), Indicator 31
)). In addition new rules for teacher licensure from Wisconsin’s Department of Public Instruction were implemented in 2004. A program revision
for the Technology Education program was implemented in the fall of 2005. Additionally the Technology Education field was (and still is)
transitioning to an engineering/STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) focus. It is difficult to discern how much of the alumni ratings
are reactions to social, economic, and political events intersecting with education related to the University of Wisconsin-Stout’s B.S. in Technology
Education program.
Education at UW-Stout
Graduates indicate a high level of satisfaction (87%) with the digital environment on campus. This item has seen an increase in satisfaction from past
surveys on both the one-year and five-year surveys. This makes sense as the laptop initiative became part of the culture and it is now an expectation
within the program. Almost half (47%) of respondents to the one-year survey indicated a high level of satisfaction with the availability of faculty, lab
facilities and equipment and overall effectiveness of the program. All of these categories show a decrease from the previous one-year survey. Sixtyeight percent of respondents on the five-year survey indicated a high level of satisfaction with interpersonal skills and also rated lab facilities (55%)
as an area with a high level of satisfaction. The rating for interpersonal skills was an increase while the rating for the lab facilities was a decrease.
Few students (7%) on the one-year follow-up and on the five-year follow-up study (27%) gave academic advising a high rating. Mandatory
attendance at advising sessions was implemented during the 2008-2009 academic year. Freshmen advisors are now assigned to students during their
freshman year on campus.
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 52 One of the benefits of collecting this data is the ability to look at trends over time. Ratings on the one-year follow-up study have remained consistent
over time for senior year coursework. Financial management (2.7 rating) is not an emphasis of the program and it is not surprising that it is ranked
lower on the five-point scale. Continuing education and finding employment are rated at a level of 3. Strategies to increase this rating include
introducing students to Career Services personnel and procedures in an assignment in the introductory course. Strategies to help students find
employment includes encouraging students to attend career day, forwarding placement emails, and making student teachers aware of web sites and
posting procedures for jobs during their student teaching experience. Ratings for course availability, lab facilities and overall effectiveness of the
program fluctuate from year-to-year with not trend apparent at this time. Students’ rating of the value of their education has decreased over time.
Only 20% of students replying to the one-year survey rated the value of their education at a high/very high level. The rating for the value of
education also drops from the one-year to the five-year survey. Less than half of the respondents (43%) indicated they would enroll in the same
program on the 2008 one-year survey. This may be due to the social, economic, and political factors previously described. It may also be due to
other changes occurring that have impacted students including the designation of UW-Stout as a Polytechnic, changes in program faculty and staff,
and program revisions.
Employer Data
The UW-Stout Employer Follow-up Survey is administered every 2 years by the Budget Planning and Analysis office at UW-Stout. Surveys are sent
to employers after one year and after five years. The survey asks employers questions related to competency and preparedness of graduates of the
Technology Education program. Responses are measured on a five point scale with 1 representing “very poor”/”very dissatisfied”/”very low”/”not
valuable”/”definitely no” and 5 representing “very good”/”very satisfied”/”very high”/”very valuable”/”definitely yes”. Data and comments from
this section are included from the 2006 One-Year Follow-Up Survey and the 2002 Five-Year Follow Up Survey as it the most recent data available. It
should be noted that the Budget Planning and Analysis office made substantial changes on the 2004 survey. Table 17 shows 1-year (left column) and
5-year (right column) follow-up results for employers of graduates of the Technology Education program.
Table 17: One-year and five-year employer follow-up survey
1-YEAR FOLLOW-UP EMPLOYER DATA
Year Graduated: 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Response No.
6
7
11
1
1
Adequate Educational Preparation
100% ~4.4
4.4
4.0
4.0
Competencies (Mean Ratings: 5=high)
Writing effectively
3.8
3.8
4.1
3.0
3.0
Speaking or presenting ideas
effectively**
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.0
4.0
Using mathematics or statistics**
3.8
4.1
4.5
4.0
-
Technology Education AIM 2008 5 – YEAR FOLLOW-UP EMPLOYER DATA
Year Graduated:
2001**
3
Response No.
Adequate Educational Preparation
3.7
Competencies (Mean Ratings: 5=high)
Writing effectively
3.7
Speaking or presenting ideas effectively
4.0
Using mathematics or statistics
3.0
2002
5
4.7
4.0
4.4
4.2
Page 53 Year Graduated: 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Response No.
6
7
11
1
1
Utilization of technologies**
4.5
4.9
4.6
4.0
5.0
Creative problem solving**
4.3
4.6
4.5
4.0
5.0
Organizing information
4.0
4.4
4.3
4.0
4.0
Critically analyzing information**
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.0
5.0
Making decisions
3.8
4.4
4.4
4.0
5.0
Working in teams**
4.2
4.7
4.7
4.0
5.0
Leadership**
3.8
3.9
4.5
4.0
4.0
Interpersonal skills**
4.3
4.3
4.6
4.0
5.0
Thinking creatively**
4.3
4.6
4.5
4.0
3.0
Ability to plan and complete a
project**
4.3
4.7
4.6
4.0
4.0
Consistency in meeting deadlines
3.0
4.0
Preparation in Comparison to Others (Mean Ratings: 5=high)
Overall preparation for
professional employment
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.0
Familiarity with current methods
required for position
3.0
3.0
Familiarity with current
technologies required for
position**
4.6
4.7
4.5
4.0
4.0
Knowledge of specific job skills
required for position**
4.4
4.7
4.4
3.0
4.0
Year Graduated:
Response No.
Utilization of technologies
Creative problem solving
Organizing information
Critically analyzing information
Making decisions
Working in teams
Leadership
Interpersonal skills
Thinking creatively
Ability to plan and complete a project
2001**
3
4.0
4.0
3.3
3.0
3.7
4.0
4.0
4.7
4.0
2002
5
4.8
4.8
4.6
4.8
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.6
4.6
3.7
Consistency in meeting deadlines
3.3
Preparation in Comparison to Others (Mean Ratings: 5=high)
Overall preparation for professional
employment
3.3
Familiarity with current methods required
for position
3.7
Familiarity with current technologies
required for position
4.0
Knowledge of specific job skills required
for position
3.7
9/15/2008
4.8
4.8
4.4
4.4
4.6
4.4
**Wording revised for 2004 graduates
***Scale revised for 2004 graduates
~ In 2000 changed to 5 point scale.
NOTE: When only 2004 data is provided, question was new to survey
101-1yr.xls
9/10/2008
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 54 Generalizations cannot be made from the data and trends cannot be analyzed due to feedback from only one employer during the 2004 and 2006
surveys. It should be noted that all ratings were 3 or above. It should be noted that ten of the categories on the one-year survey have been scored at a
level of 4 or above for the last three evaluation cycles. Overall it appears that employers rate graduates from the B.S. in Technology Education at a
high level of satisfaction.
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies Communicating data with faculty members, advisory board members, and students within the program will be done using various methods. The
report will be shared with faculty members 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. The B.S in Technology Education program advisory board, which includes students, will receive a copy of
the Assessment in the Major report during the fall advisory meeting. Their comments and recommendations for improvement will be encouraged.
University supervisors will be asked to share the AIM report with cooperating teachers and solicit feedback from them regarding improvements for
the program. The report will be made available to students within the Technology Education program and an opportunity provided for feedback.
Data from the AIM report will also be used in program revision processes.
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program The following changes have occurred during the past year or will occur during the upcoming year.
Findings from the PRAXIS II content test were used in the program revision process. Data will be shared with faculty teaching core technology
courses. The program director met with faculty teaching technical core courses on an individual basis and/or during group meetings. The meetings
helped inform a program revision which is being implemented in the fall of 2009. Select findings from this report, when appropriate, will be shared
with faculty so they can use it to improve their courses and thus the program. A tenure-track faculty member was added to the program. This will
add stability and continuity within the program. The new faculty member has also added an online graduate program for technology educators which
will help enhance the undergraduate program. Both the graduate and undergraduate program directors worked to organize the UW-Stout’s fall
Technology Education conference which serves to build relationships and strengthen the Technology Education program. Courses were reviewed
and aligned with standards as indicated for the NCATE certification process. Data collection instruments and processes will be reviewed and revised
as necessary to obtain useable data for needed reports and data-driven decision making.
The past program director successfully facilitated a program revision in 2007. The BSTE program is in the process of aligning technical content
courses with Project Lead the Way (PLTW) pre-engineering curriculum so that students have the option of seeking PLTW certifications upon
completion of certain classes or sequences of classes. A plan to increase the math requirement for the program was implemented in a 2007 program
revision. Further increases in the math requirements are being discussed in the advisory committee meetings. A dual technology education/science
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 55 teacher certification program began in the fall of 2009. This required both course revisions and program revisions and the update of associated
classroom, library and lab resources. Pre-service candidate’s demonstration of professional development activities related to Technology education
are now required in the program revision. Additional research elements may be formally added to the Technology Education program during the
program revision. Current instructors in the Technology Education and Science Education programs are in the process of implementing these
revisions.
Several things will be done to strengthen the Technology Education program in the next year.
Recruiting and retaining students will be one area of focus. One-on-one contacts, working with UW- Stout’s advising and recruiting personnel,
pursuing articulation agreements with technical colleges, working with student marketing groups will continue and perhaps expand. Communication
regarding the program will be done using more electronic communication methods. This is intended to have a positive impact on the students’
perceived value of their program. Marketing efforts are being expanded to Iowa and Minnesota through state conferences and respective list serves.
Attention will continue to be focused on developing pre-service teachers’ and Technology Education Collegiate Association’s (TECA) efforts to
interface with peers, professionals and K-12 students through their competitive events, field trips, lab activities, Rube Goldberg machine and
Supermileage Vehicle contests. The intent is to build a sense of responsibility to the profession, creating positive public relations while creating
added value for teacher candidates in the Technology Education program.
The Technology Education students and staff will continue working collaboratively with STEM and other colleges/institutions when possible. Skills
USA, First Lego League, STEPS and the Jason project are examples. Strengthening relationships with other units is seen as crucial by the current
program director.
Continued attention will focus on improving lab experiences and lab access for students. A lab modification approved in the spring of 2007 was
completed in the fall of 2008. Personnel have been hired to increase lab accessibility and available equipment. Budgets are in place to support the
lab. There has been overwhelming support for this project at all levels of the university. Further requests will be made during the 2009-2010
academic year.
Finally, there will be continued efforts to seeking input from the recently expanded advisory committee. Attempts will be made to seek create a
committee representing the program’s stakeholders and actively involve them in helping improve the Technology Education program.
Technology Education AIM 2008 Page 56