School of Education Unit Assessment Report Undergraduate Programs August 1, 2008 Submitted By Juli Hastings Taylor Assessment Coordinator Table of Contents
Page
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test ..........................................................................................2
PPST Reading (ETS) ...........................................................................................................2
PPST Writing (ETS) ............................................................................................................5
PPST Math (ETS) ................................................................................................................8
PPST Reading (Datatel) .....................................................................................................11
PPST Writing (Datatel) ......................................................................................................12
PPST Math (Datatel) ..........................................................................................................13
PPST Attempts and Pass Rates by Program (Datatel) .......................................................14
PRAXIS II: Content Test ...............................................................................................................15
Art Education .....................................................................................................................16
Business Education ............................................................................................................18
Elementary Education ........................................................................................................21
Family & Consumer Sciences Education ..........................................................................25
Health Education................................................................................................................27
Marketing Education..........................................................................................................29
Middle School – Special Education ...................................................................................31
Technology Education .......................................................................................................33
Teaching Minors ................................................................................................................35
Student Artifact Reflection Ratings ...............................................................................................36
Benchmark I .......................................................................................................................36
Benchmark II .....................................................................................................................37
Benchmark III ....................................................................................................................38
SOE Benchmark Summary ................................................................................................39
Reflections on Intended Learning by Program ..................................................................41
Reflections on New and Unanticipated Learning by Program ..........................................42
Reflections on Connections to Domains, Components and
Wisconsin Teaching Standards by Program ................................................................43
Disposition Ratings ........................................................................................................................44
Undergraduate Dispositions Summary ..............................................................................44
Unit Summary by Disposition Category and Benchmark Level ......................................46
Disposition Highs and Lows by Program and Benchmark Level ......................................47
Attendance by Benchmark Level and Program .................................................................48
Preparedness by Benchmark Level and Program ..............................................................49
Continuous Learning by Benchmark Level and Program..................................................50
Positive Climate by Benchmark Level and Program .........................................................51
Reflective by Benchmark Level and Program ...................................................................52
Thoughtful & Responsive Listener by Benchmark Level and Program ............................53
Cooperative / Collaborative by Benchmark Level and Program .......................................54
Respectful by Benchmark Level and Program ..................................................................55
Table of Contents (continued)
Page
Pre-Student Teaching Ratings........................................................................................................56
Pre-Student Teaching Results ............................................................................................57
Student Teacher Performance Ratings ...........................................................................................59
Student Teaching Domain Means by Program ..................................................................60
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation .................................................................................61
Domain 2: Classroom Environment ..................................................................................62
Domain 3: Instruction ........................................................................................................63
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities ...........................................................................64
Student Teaching High Means ...........................................................................................65
Student Teaching Low Means ...........................................................................................65
Student Teaching Wisconsin Teacher Standard Highs ......................................................66
Student Teaching Wisconsin Teacher Standard Lows.......................................................66
Wisconsin Teacher Standard Means by Program ..............................................................67
Art Education .....................................................................................................................68
Early Childhood Education ................................................................................................69
Family & Consumer Science Education ............................................................................70
Marketing & Business Education ......................................................................................71
Special Education...............................................................................................................72
Technology Education .......................................................................................................73
Teaching Minors ................................................................................................................74
Early Childhood Special Education ...................................................................................74
Health Education................................................................................................................75
History................................................................................................................................76
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) .................................................................................77
EBI Factor Reliabilities......................................................................................................77
EBI Factor Means Highest Difference to Lowest Difference ............................................78
EBI Trend Analysis............................................................................................................80
EBI Questions with Differences from Prior Year ..............................................................81
EBI Factor Comparisons to External Groups ....................................................................83
EBI Factor Means by Program ..........................................................................................84
EBI Wisconsin Teaching Standards...................................................................................86
EBI Wisconsin Teaching Standards by Program ...............................................................87
Appendix A – Student Teaching Domains and All Components by Program ..............................92
School of Education Unit Assessment Report
August 2008
Introduction
This report is a summary of the University of Wisconsin-Stout School of Education (SOE)
assessment data gathered from the fall semester 2003 through December 2007. In the School of
Education, data is gathered from several sources to inform unit and program decisions. Data
from this report will be used to develop unit and program goals, inform curriculum changes, and
enhance course delivery in order to improve teacher education candidate learning. This report
contains data from the PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test, PRAXIS II: Content Test,
Student Artifact Reflections, Candidate Dispositions, Pre-Student Teaching and Student Teacher
Performances, and the Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI).
Program Specific Reports
Program specific reports attached to this summary provide data and narrative descriptions of
Graduate Follow-up Surveys, Student Teacher Exit Surveys, Student Teaching Seminar Surveys,
and other sources which aid program directors in making program decisions. The program
specific reports also describe how this assessment data is used to improve the program, program
curriculum, and delivery of courses. In addition, program directors identify and describe program
goals for the upcoming year.
Assessment Data Uses
The unit and program assessment reports are shared with School of Education and individual
program advisory committees. Advisory committee members discuss trends and make
recommendations for improvement to program directors and the SOE Dean. The Dean and
Assessment Coordinator meet each semester with individual program directors to discuss
program data, yearly goals, and progress toward achieving short-term and long-term goals. SOE
unit and program goals are in alignment with University goals and priorities as well as external
standards developed by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and various accrediting
agencies.
Organization of Assessment Report
This report is organized into nine sections. The table of contents may be used to navigate to a
specific section or subsection of the report. To navigate without scrolling, go to the table of
contents page. Then press and hold the CTRL key as you click on a section or subsection name
in the list. To navigate back to the top of the report and repeat this process, press CTRL and
HOME keys at the same time
When viewing the data tables throughout the report, the current year data column is shaded and
the text is bolded.
1
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test
Educational Testing Service Institutional Report
The PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test (PPST) is required for teacher certification by the
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Passing the PPST is required as part of meeting the
SOE Benchmark I: Acceptance into Teacher Education Program and Pre-student Teaching
Experiences. Teacher candidates are not admitted into the teacher education program until they
pass the PPST. The PPST is administered through the Educational Testing Service (ETS).
The PPST consists of three tests: reading, writing and mathematics. All three tests must be
passed to meet Benchmark I requirements. These tests can be taken in a hand written format in
traditional testing settings at designated sites and times or by computer at designated sites.
ETS provides an annual institutional academic year summary report on all students attempting
the PPST and passing rates. It also compares scores of UW-Stout students to those at the state
level and the national level on the students who take the hand written traditional test. No such
comparisons are available for UW-Stout students who take the computer PPST.
PPST Reading
The PPST Reading test results based on the ETS institutional report indicates that UW-Stout
scores in 2004/05 are slightly higher than those in 2003/04. In 2005/06, the median scores
dropped two points as did the percentage who met the Wisconsin passing score of 175. Stout
males have a much higher pass rate than Stout females.
PPST Reading
Number of Stout
Examinees:
Highest Observed
Score:
Lowest Observed
Score:
Median:
Average
Performance Range:
WI Passing Score:
Number with WI
Passing Score:
Percent with WI
Passing Score:
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Females
07/08
Males
07/08
105
87
101
125
79
58
21
185
185
185
187
185
182
185
156
161
159
157
156
156
167
176
177
175
176
176
175
179
171-180
173-178
169-180
171-179
172-179
171-179
173-179
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
58/105
56/87
58/101
77/125
49/79
34
15
55%
64%
57%
62%
62%
73%
27%
2
Stout teacher candidate average percent correct on the two reading test categories of Literal
Comprehension and Critical/Inferential Comprehension increased from 2003/04 to 2004/05 but
declined in 2005/06. Stout teacher candidate average scores remain lower than the state average
percent correct, but are closer to national averages.
Average Percent Correct
Reading Test
Category
Literal
Comprehension
Critical and
Inferential
Comprehension
Stout
Points
Available 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
%
%
%
%
State
National
07/08 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
21-24
73
76
74
75
70
79
82
82
80
77
76
76
78
76
75
16-19
67
73
69
72
65
77
80
79
78
73
73
74
75
73
70
UW‐Stout
PPST Reading: Average % Correct
76
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
2003/2004
%
2004/2005
%
2005/2006
%
Literal Comprehension
Critical & Inferential Comprehension
3
The following table displays the number and percent of Stout Examinees Scoring in Each
Quartile in Each Category. Quartiles are calculated using all examinees taking this test during the
testing period. The number of examinee records used to compute the quartiles was 54,183 in
2003/04, 46,609 in 2004/05 and 40,472 in 2005/06.
1st Q
Lowest
Reading Test Category
Literal Comprehension
Critical & Inferential Comp.
03/04
27
26%
28
27%
04/05
20
23%
11
13%
Critical & Inferential Comp.
05/06
29
29%
37
37%
06/07
24
19%
31
25%
07/08
23
29%
21
27%
03/04
43
41%
29
28%
04/05
27
31%
35
40%
03/04
20
19%
43
41%
04/05
29
33%
34
39%
05/06
26
26%
24
24%
05/06
35
35%
33
33%
06/07
55
44%
42
34%
07/08
32
41%
29
37%
4th Q
Highest
3rd Q
Reading Test Category
Literal Comprehension
2nd Q
06/07
33
26%
36
29%
07/08
18
23%
22
28%
03/04
15
14%
5
5%
04/05
11
13%
7
8%
05/06
11
11%
7
7%
06/07
13
10%
16
13%
07/08
6
8%
7
9%
The Computer PPST Reading test results based on the ETS institutional report indicates that the
number of examinees increased slightly from 2004/05 to 2005/06. UW-Stout high, low, and
median scores remain constant for the three academic year periods from 2003 through 2006. It is
interesting to note in all three academic year periods that Stout teacher candidates have a higher
pass rate on the computer version of the reading test than they do on the written version of the
test. Stout males have a higher pass rate than Stout females on the computer version of the
reading test; however females have a 13% higher pass rate on the computer version as compared
to the written version. ETS does not provide average percent correct and quartiles for students
taking the computer based C-PPST tests.
Computer
Females
Males
PPST
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07 07/08
07/08
07/08
Reading
Number of Stout
Examinees:
Highest
Observed Score:
Lowest Observed
Score:
Median:
Average
Performance
Range:
WI Passing
Score:
Number with WI
Passing Score:
Percent with WI
Passing Score:
286
166
174
146
114
86
28
186
187
186
186
185
185
183
155
158
158
160
162
162
165
177
177
176
177
172-180
172-181
176
172180
175
172-180
176
172179
171-179
174-180
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
188/286
110/166
47/86
19/28
66%
66%
75%
25%
113/174 89/175 66/114
65%
51%
4
58%
PPST Writing
The PPST Writing test results based on the ETS institutional report shows that a higher
percentage of UW-Stout students had a WI passing score in 2004/05 (64%) than in 2003/04
(52%), but the pass rate dropped in 2005/06 (55%) on the traditional written test. Although more
females than males took the writing exam, male and female scores and pass rates are
comparable.
PPST Writing
Number of UWStout Examinees:
Highest Observed
Score:
Lowest Observed
Score:
Median:
Average
Performance Range:
WI Passing Score:
Number with WI
Passing Score:
Percent with WI
Passing Score:
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Females
07/08
Males
07/08
108
90
104
124
68
44
24
184
184
181
183
182
182
181
165
168
163
161
168
168
168
174
171176
174
174.5
172176
174
174
172175
174
174
172177
174
174
172176
174
173.5
174
174
172175
174
56/108
58/90
57/104
22/44
13/24
52%
64%
55%
65%
35%
79/124 35/68
64%
51%
172-176
In all four writing test categories, UW-Stout students continue to score below the state level.
However, Stout teacher candidate average scores are typically within a few percentage points of
the national averages.
Average Percent Correct
Writing
Test
Category
Grammatical
Relationships
Structural
Relationships
Idiom/Word
Choice
Mechanics,
No Error
Essay
Stout
Points
03/04 04/05 05/06
Available
06/07 07/08
%
%
%
10-12
52
58
48
52
59
13-16
45
52
49
54
57
11-14
58
55
52
55
50
12
64
65
66
67
63
5
Writing
Test
Category
Grammatical
Relationships
Structural
Relationships
Idiom/Word
Choice
Mechanics,
No Error
Essay
Points
03/04
Available
%
State
National
04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
10-12
61
62
59
61
65
57
56
56
58
62
13-16
56
62
59
59
66
52
56
55
55
63
11-14
64
60
62
64
60
60
55
59
60
58
12
69
69
69
69
67
67
67
66
66
64
UW‐Stout
PPST Writing: Average % Correct
70
60
50
40
2003/2004
%
30
2004/2005
%
20
2005/2006
%
10
0
Gram Relations
Struct Mechs/ No Error
Rel, Idiom/Word Choice
Essay
The following table displays the number and percent of Stout Examinees Scoring in Each
Quartile in Each Category. Quartiles are calculated using all examinees taking this test during the
testing period. The number of examinee records used to compute the quartiles was 55,040 in
2003/04, 46,919 in 2004/05 and 39,273 in 05/06.
1st Q
Lowest
Writing Test Category
Grammatical Relation
03/04
16
04/05
11
05/06
23
2nd Q
06/07
41
6
07/08
11
03/04
55
04/05
34
05/06
54
06/07
34
07/08
32
Structural Relationships
Idiom/Word Choices
Mechanics, No Error
Essay
15%
24
22%
12%
21
23%
22%
40
38%
33%
27
22%
16%
15
22%
51%
43
40%
38%
31
34%
52%
32
31%
27%
39
31%
47%
28
41%
17
9
28
33
24
43
39
43
43
19
16%
20
19%
10%
13
14%
27%
13
13%
27%
14
11%
35%
17
25%
40%
45
42%
43%
39
43%
41%
43
41%
35%
48
39%
28%
24
35%
Writing Test Category
Grammatical Relation
Structural Relationships
4th Q
Highest
3rd Q
03/04
28
26%
34
31%
04/05
32
36%
26
29%
05/06
15
14%
25
24%
06/07
44
35%
39
31%
07/08
21
31%
19
28%
03/04
9
8%
7
6%
04/05
13
14%
12
13%
05/06
12
12%
7
7%
06/07
5
4%
19
15%
07/08
4
6%
6
9%
36
26
24
35
21
12
16
9
13
4
33%
35
32%
29%
29
32%
23%
40
38%
28%
47
38%
31%
12
18%
11%
8
7%
18%
9
10%
9%
8
8%
10%
15
12%
6%
15
22%
Idiom/Word Choices Mechanics,
No Error
Essay
The Computer PPST Writing test results based on the ETS institutional report indicates that the
number of examinees increased from 2004/05 to 2005/06. UW-Stout high scores remain fairly
constant for the three academic year periods from 2003 through 2006. However, lowest scores
observed of Stout teacher candidates increased in 2005/06. It is interesting to note in two of the
three academic year periods, Stout teacher candidates have a higher pass rate on the computer
version of the writing test than they do on the written version of the test. Stout females have a
10% higher pass rate than Stout males on the computer version of the writing test; however
gender pass rates on the written version of the test vary by only 1%. ETS does not provide
average percent correct and quartiles for students taking the computer based C-PPST tests.
Computer PPST
Writing*
Number of Stout
Examinees:
Highest Observed
Score:
Lowest Observed
Score:
Median:
Average
Performance Range:
WI Passing Score:
Number with WI
Passing Score:
Percent with WI
Passing Score:
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Females
07/08
Males
07/08
294
187
211
159
102
72
30
183
182
183
182
185
185
181
163
164
151
166
166
166
167
174
171176
174
174
171176
174
174
171176
174
175
173176
174
175
172177
174
174.5
172-177
174
175
171177
174
68/102
48/72
20/30
67%
71%
29%
162/294 101/187 128/211 104/159
55%
54%
61%
7
65%
PPST Mathematics
The PPST Mathematics test results based on the ETS institutional report shows that pass rates of
Stout teacher candidates continues to decrease. Males have significantly higher pass rates than
females on the mathematics test.
PPST
Mathematics
Number of Stout
Examinees:
Highest Observed
Score:
Lowest Observed
Score:
Median:
Average
Performance
Range:
WI Passing
Score:
Number with WI
Passing Score:
Percent with WI
Passing Score:
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Females
07/08
Males
07/08
99
73
92
119
68
49
19
188
190
189
190
187
184
187
165
164
160
162
160
160
162
178
180
178
178
176
173
181
173183
172183
171182
168-181
176184
174-183 175-184
173
173
173
173
173
173
173
84/99
59/73
69/92
84/119
46/68
29/49
17/19
85%
81%
75%
76%
68%
72%
28%
Stout teacher candidates scored the same as or higher than the national average percent correct in
all three test math test categories in all three academic years between 2003 and 2006. However,
they scored lower than the state on average percent correct in all three academic years on all test
categories.
Average Percent Correct
8
Stout
Mathematics
Test Category
Points
Available
Conceptual
Knowledge and
Procedural
Knowledge
Representations
of Quantitative
Information
Measurement and
Informal
Geometry, Formal
Math Reasoning
03/04
%
04/05 05/06 06/07
%
%
%
68
17-18
70
9-10
60
57
71
68
65
Number and
operations
67
63
63
Geometry and
Measurement
Data Analysis
and Probability
Mathematics Test
Category
Conceptual
Knowledge and
Procedural
Knowledge
Representations of
Quantitative
Information
Measurement and
Informal Geometry,
Formal Math
Reasoning
Points
Available
11-13
48
7-8
51
7-9
58
10
55
Algebra
71
11-12
64
Stout
Mathematics
Points
07/08
Test
Available
%
Category
03/04
%
State
04/05 05/06 06/07
%
%
%
National
03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
%
%
%
%
17-18
70
69
68
67
63
60
60
60
11-12
75
76
75
72
68
66
67
65
9-10
73
71
72
70
65
63
62
61
State
07/08
%
60
62
66
63
Mathematics Test Category Points Available
Number and operations
Algebra
Geometry and Measurement
Data Analysis and Probability
11-13
7-8
7-9
10
9
National
07/08
%
56
56
58
58
UW‐Stout
PPST Math: Average % Correct
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
2003/2004
%
2004/2005
%
Conceptual Knowledge & Procedural Knowledge
2005/2006
%
Representations of Measurement and Quantitative Informal Information
Geometry, Formal Math Reasoning
The following table displays the number and percent of Stout Examinees Scoring in Each
Quartile in Each Category. Quartiles are calculated using all examinees taking this test during the
testing period. The number of examinee records used to compute the quartiles was 54,765 in
2003/04, 46,120 in 2004/05 and 39,860 in 05/06.
Math Test
Category
Conceptual
Knowledge &
Procedural
Knowledge
Representations
of Quantitative
Information
Measurement &
Informal
Geometry,
Formal Math
Reasoning
Math Test
Category
Conceptual
Knowledge &
Procedural
Knowledge
Representations
of Quantitative
Information
1st Q
Lowest
2nd Q
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
6
9
17
32
26
25
32
41
6%
3
3%
12%
6
8%
18%
26%
37
37%
-
35%
34%
24
33%
35
48
13%
27%
19
16%
38%
40%
8
7
12
14
29
18
34
46
8%
10%
13%
12%
29%
25%
37%
39%
12
4th Q
Highest
3rd Q
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
43
18
22
27
24
21
21
19
43%
52
52%
-
24%
23%
16%
32
24%
7
7%
-
29
40%
23%
27
23%
14
19%
13
25
14%
21%
35%
10
Measurement &
Informal
Geometry,
Formal Math
Reasoning
44
39
34
32
18
9
12
27
44%
53%
37%
27%
18%
12%
13%
23%
Math Test
Category
Numbering and
Operations
Algebra
Geometry and
Measurement
Data Analysis
and Probability
1st Q
Lowest
07/08
15
22%
10
15%
13
19%
10
15%
2nd Q
3rd Q
07/08
25
37%
29
43%
16
24%
30
44%
07/08
22
32%
24
35%
34
50%
20
29%
4th Q
Highest
07/08
6
9%
5
7%
5
7%
8
12%
The Computer PPST Mathematics test results based on the ETS institutional report indicates that
the number of examinees increased from 2004/05 to 2005/06. UW-Stout high and median scores
remain fairly constant for the three academic year periods from 2003 through 2006. However,
lowest scores observed of Stout teacher candidates increased in 2004/05 and stayed constant into
2005/06. It is interesting to note in the latter two of the three academic year periods, Stout
teacher candidates have a higher pass rate on the computer version of the math test than they do
on the written version of the test. Stout males have a slightly higher pass rate than Stout females
on the computer version of the math test. ETS does not provide average percent correct and
quartiles for students taking the computer based C-PPST tests.
Computer PPST
Mathematics*
Number of Stout
Examinees:
Highest Observed
Score:
Lowest Observed
Score:
Median:
Average
Performance
Range:
WI Passing Score:
Number with WI
Passing Score:
Percent with WI
Passing Score:
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Females
07/08
Males
07/08
240
123
139
108
16
11
5
190
188
190
186
189
189
186
154
164
164
163
170
170
174
178
179
178
177
183
182
184
174-183
175/183
175-183
173181
178185
178-186
183185
173
173
173
173
173
173
173
200/240
110/123
10/11
5/5
83%
89%
69%
31%
118/139 84/108 15/16
85%
11
78%
94%
UW-Stout Datatel Report
PPST data from UW-Stout Datatel System was extracted for the calendar years 2004, 2005, 2006
and 2007. These tables shows first attempts and number of students that had passed by the end of
the calendar year for each type of test as well as a pattern of student persistence in test taking.
One UW-Stout students took the reading test up to 15 times in 2005.
Number of Attempts at Reading Test (all programs)
# times
ever taken
test by end
of year
2005
2006
Percentage of
Total
Frequency*
Frequency*
2007
Percentage of
Total
Percentage of
Total
Frequency*
164
75.9%
166
75.8%
165
67.6%
1
26
12.0%
22
10.0%
47
19.3%
2
5
2.3%
15
6.8%
14
5.7%
3
11
5.1%
8
3.7%
8
3.3%
4
5
2.3%
3
1.4%
4
1.6%
5
2
0.9%
4
1.8%
2
0.8%
6
1
0.5%
1
0.5%
3
1.2%
7
1
0.5%
-8
-9
---10
--11
-1
0.4%
12
-13
-14
1
0.5%
15
* number includes any double SOE majors – student with double major will be counted twice
Date of First Attempt at Reading Test and Number that Passed
2005
2006
Date of
First
Attempt
N
Number
Pass Test
by End
of 2005
2002
2003
2004
3
9
77
2
5
66
2007
Date of
First
Attempt
N
Number
Pass Test
by End of
2006
2002
2003
2004
2005
-4
10
53
-2
8
43
12
Date of
First
Attempt
N
Number
Pass Test
by End of
2007
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1
1
3
11
98
1
1
3
4
72
Number of Attempts at Writing Test (all programs)
# times
ever taken
test by end
of year
2005
2006
Percentage of
Total
Frequency*
Frequency*
2007
Percentage of
Total
Percentage of
Total
Frequency*
153
69.5%
159
66.0%
176
68.2%
1
35
15.9%
43
17.8%
50
19.4%
2
15
6.8%
17
7.1%
14
5.4%
3
8
3.6%
7
2.9%
6
2.3%
4
2
0.9%
8
3.3%
6
2.3%
5
4
1.8%
3
1.2%
2
0.8%
6
2
0.9%
2
0.8%
1
0.4%
7
------8
1
0.5%
--3
1.2%
9
1
0.4%
10
1
0.4%
11
* number includes any double SOE majors – student with double major will be counted twice
Date of First Attempt at Writing Test and Number that Passed
2005
2007
2006
Date of
First
Attempt
N
Number
Pass Test
by End
of 2005
2001
2002
2003
2004
3
2
15
70
1
1
10
59
Date of
First
Attempt
N
Number
Pass Test
by End of
2006
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
--8
24
61
--6
19
50
13
Date of
First
Attempt
N
Number
Pass Test
by End of
2007
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1
1
5
6
8
105
0
1
4
6
8
81
For the PPST Math test, some students took the math test up to 11 times. However, more
students passed the math test the first time they took it.
Number of Attempts at Math Test (all programs)
# times
ever taken
test by end
of year
2005
2006
Percentage of
Total
Frequency*
Frequency*
2007
Percentage of
Total
Percentage of
Total
Frequency*
192
87.7%
187
86.2%
190
83.7%
1
9.1%
10.1%
23
10.1%
20
22
2
4
1.8%
5
2.3%
9
4.0%
3
1
0.5%
2
0.9%
2
0.9%
4
----2
0.9%
5
0.9%
----2
6
----7
----8
--1
0.4%
9
--10
--11
--12
1
0.5%
13
* number includes any double SOE majors – student with double major will be counted twice
Date of First Attempt at Math Test and Number that Passed
2005
2007
2006
Date of
First
Attempt
N
Number
Pass Test
by End
of 2005
2001
2002
2003
2004
1
2
5
62
0
1
4
59
Date of
First
Attempt
N
Number
Pass Test
by End of
2006
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
--1
4
42
--0
3
38
14
Date of
First
Attempt
N
Number
Pass Test
by End of
2007
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1
--1
7
85
1
--1
6
68
PPST Attempts and Pass Rates by Program
Math
Reading
Writing
2004
# test
attempts
-------------
2004
# (and %)
passed
-------------
2005
# test
attempts
-------------
2005
# (and %)
passed
-------------
2006
# test
attempts
1
1
1
2006
# (and %)
passed
1 = 100%
1 = 100%
1 = 100%
2007
# test
attempts
4
4
3
2007
# (and %)
passed
4 = 100%
4 = 100%
3 = 100%
ARTED
Math
Reading
Writing
19 a
23 a
29 a
14 = 74%
12 = 52%
17 = 59%
22
23
21
15 = 68%
15 = 65%
16 = 76%
15
12
19
10 = 67%
12 = 100%
8 = 42%
22
18
25
19 = 86%
15 = 83%
21 = 84%
ECE
Math
Reading
Writing
97 a
155 a
132 a b
71 = 73%
69 = 45%
69 = 52%
77
108
108
57 = 74%
48 = 44%
46 = 43%
90
126
122
57 = 63%
58 = 46%
71 = 58%
85d
99d
94d
65 = 76%
66 = 67%
70 = 74%
FCSE
Math
Reading
Writing
16
17
22
11 = 69%
14 = 82%
14 = 64%
18
18
21
17 = 94%
16 = 89%
16 = 76%
16
19
18
11 = 69%
7 = 37%
10 = 56%
10
14
12
10 = 100%
14 = 100%
12 = 100%
MBE
Math
23
20 = 87%
9
8 = 89%
15
9 = 60%
22
20 = 91%
Reading
Writing
31
38
23 = 74%
24 = 63%
7
11
5 = 71%
7 = 64%
19
14
12 = 63%
10 = 71%
22
24
19 = 86%
17 = 71%
TECED
Math
Reading
Writing
79
109 c
172 c
73 = 92%
72 = 66%
61 = 35%
47
64
96
42 = 89%
44 = 69%
42 = 44%
47
72
92
44 = 94%
43 = 60%
45 = 49%
39
38
49
36 = 92%
33 = 87%
39 = 80%
SPED
Math
Reading
Writing
-------------
-------------
8
9
11
7 = 88%
4 = 44%
6 = 55%
15
28
24
12 = 80%
11 = 39%
13 = 54%
20
23
23
13 = 65%
10 = 43%
14 = 61%
VR
(SPED
certificate)
Math
Reading
Writing
32
33
32
26 = 81%
24 = 73%
21 = 66%
8
10
9
5 = 63%
6 = 60%
3 = 33%
6
4
7
5 = 83%
2 = 50%
4 = 57%
1
3
2
1 = 100%
2 = 67%
2 = 100%
CTET
Math
Reading
Writing
1
1
1
1 = 100%
1 = 100%
1 = 100%
Other
Math
Reading
Writing
23
22
25
22 = 96%
20 = 91%
21 = 84%
Teacher
Educ
Program
APSCI
undergrad
TOTALS
PPST
Test
Math
266
Reading
368
Writing
425
215 =
80.8%
214 =
58.2%
206 =
48.5%
189
239
277
151 =
80.0%
138 =
57.7%
136 =
49.1%
15
204
280
296
148 =
72.5%
145 =
51.8%
161 =
54.4%
226
243
257
191 =
84.5%
184 =
75.7%
200 =
77.8%
To be included in the above chart, the student must have a current major as of fall 2004 or fall 2005 or fall 2006,
and have taken the Praxis I test during that calendar year.
a
- includes one double major (ARTED / ECE)
b
- includes one score “grandfathered in” as a passing score
c
- includes one exemption granted for a passing score
d
includes three double majors (ECE/TECHED)
Datatel System indicates that 100% of students who took Math test in 2004 and 2005 passed the test by 2006. Therefore, the
pass/fail criteria for each test attempt was recalculated based on the math passing grade of 173.
16
PRAXIS II: Content Test
Benchmark II: Admission to Student Teaching requires candidates to pass PRAXIS II the
content test for their specific teacher certification. As of 8/31/2004, all Wisconsin teacher
education students must pass the content test to be eligible to student teach. Students who took
the content test during 2003-04 were “grandfathered in” as this was a no-fault year in Wisconsin.
During the period from 2004/05 a total of 134 examinees were reported from ETS as UW-Stout
students. This report is general and does not clearly differentiate among undergraduate teacher
education students, graduate teacher education students or teachers who want to add-on an
additional teacher certification or the “certification only” category. Of the 134 examinees, 124
had a required cut score. School Psychology examines take the content test to meet NASP
accreditation requirements, but there was no cut score for 2004-05 in Wisconsin.
Of these 124 examinees, 113 passed their designated content test for a pass rate of 91% for
2004/05. In comparison, 482 examinees took the content test in the no-fault year of 2003/04 and
371 passed their designated content test (77%). This comparison shows a positive gain in passing
rate of 14% in 2004/05.
Note that the number of examinees taking a designated content test varies by content test area.
ETS did not include results of tests with fewer than 10 individuals in 2004/05 and or 5
individuals for 2005/06. Therefore, some content areas may not be included in the tables for
those years. However, these content areas are included in the data reported by the UW-Stout
Datatel System.
The UW-Stout Datatel System / Data Warehouse provides information on the UW-Stout
candidates who have taken PRAXIS II content test appropriate for their designated teaching
certification. Data from that system is reported on a calendar year basis.
As a School of Education unit, the total number of examinees in calendar years 2004, 2005 and
2006 (for their program specific content test) are 443, 142, and 234. The numbers may be larger
in 2004 as students took advantage of the no-fault year. The total number of examinees for 2006
is probably more representative of future years. In addition, the percentage of examinees that
passed the PRAXIS-II content test appropriate for their major (meeting the Wisconsin cut score)
from 2004 to 2006 has increased from 78% to 90% to 92%. The following pages illustrate UWStout scores by content area from 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06 so that comparisons can be
made.
Note: Comparing the ETS content test data with the Datatel content test data reveals a number of
discrepancies. This is due to the way individual information (i.e. first name, middle name or initial, and
last name) is entered into ETS by candidates at the time of testing. The inputted format must match
Datatel information exactly in order for the two systems to match for reporting and comparison purposes.
Thus, some content areas may depict a pass rate of less than 100% in ETS which is not accurate.
Likewise, the number of tests may not correctly match the Datatel system. The School of Education is
working with students, the state, and ETS to remedy this issue.
17
Art Education
Praxis Test Code - 10133
According to the ETS report, Art Education had an overall average pass rate of 92% in 2004/05.
Note the “grandfathered in” scores from 2004 are tallied as actual pass/fail. Datatel reported a
pass rate of 86% in 2004. Data from both systems revealed a pass rate of 100% in 2005 and
2006. Art Education data from the ETS report and Datatel is as follows:
Content Test
Number of
Examinees:
Highest
Observed
Score:
Lowest
Observed
Score:
Median:
Average
Performance
Range
WI Score
Needed to
Pass:
Number with
WI Passing
Score:
Percent with
WI Passing
Score:
ETS Datatel* ETS** Datatel ETS Datatel ETS Datatel ETS
03/04
2004
04/05 2005
05/06
2006
06/07
2007
07/08
32
22
-
8
8
8
13
10
9
191
178
-
186
186
194
194
188
173
146
146
-
157
155
155
156
150
155
162.5
-
-
-
164
-
175
167
160171
-
-
-
158168
-
165180
160168
155
155
-
155
155
155
155
155
29/31
19/22
-
8/8
8/8
8/8
13/13
9/10
9/10
91%
86%
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
90%
90%
*scores from no-fault year – “grandfathered in” as passing
**fewer than 10 tests in Art Education, therefore no ETS report for 2004/05
Average Percent Correct
Points
Available
Art Test Category
Traditions in Art,
Architecture, Design & the
Making of Artifacts
Art Criticism & Aesthetics
The Making of Art
Art Test
Category
Points
Available
03/04
%
Stout
%
05/06 06/07
%
%
07/08
%
40-46
59
55
63
52
27-31
43-48
64
72
67
79
73
83
63
76
State
%
18
National
%
Traditions in Art,
Architecture,
Design & the
Making of
Artifacts
Art Criticism &
Aesthetics
The Making of
Art
06/07 07/08 03/04
%
%
%
03/04
%
05/06
%
05/06
%
06/07 07/08
%
%
61
63
65
60
64
63
65
60
66
75
72
68
70
73
70
68
73
82
78
78
75
78
77
76
40-46
27-31
43-48
The following table displays the number and percent of Stout Examinees Scoring in Each
Quartile in Each Category. Quartiles are calculated using all examinees taking this test during the
testing period. The number of examinee records used to compute the quartiles was 4,006 in
2003/04 and X in 2005/06.
Art Test
Category
Traditions of
Art,
Architecture,
Design & the
Making of
Artifacts
Art Criticism
& Aesthetics
The Making of
Art
Art Test
Category
Traditions of
Art,
Architecture,
Design & the
Making of
Artifacts
Art Criticism
& Aesthetics
The Making of
Art
1st Q
Lowest
2nd Q
03/04
05/06
06/07
07/08
03/04
05/06
06/07
07/08
8
3
3
4
15
3
5
3
25%
38%
23%
44%
47%
38%
38%
33%
10
31%
8
25%
5
63%
2
25%
2
15%
1
8%
1
11%
0
0%
13
41%
14
44%
2
25%
1
13%
2
15%
4
31%
7
78%
6
67%
3rd Q
4th Q
Highest
03/04
05/06
06/07
07/08
03/04
05/06
06/07
07/08
8
2
3
1
1
0
2
1
25%
25%
23%
11%
3%
0%
15%
11%
6
19%
7
22%
0
0%
4
50%
6
46%
4
31%
1
11%
2
22%
3
9%
3
9%
1
13%
1
13%
3
23%
4
31%
0
0%
1
11%
19
Business Education
Praxis Test Code - 10100
According to the ETS report, fewer Business Education candidates are taking the exam each
year. However, the lowest observed score in 2005/06 increased by 160 points from the previous
year. Business Education data from the ETS report and Datatel is as follows:
Business Education – from Datatel
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
2004*
25
760
520
580
20/25
80%
2004
6
730
580
580
6/6
100%
2005
17
750
450
580
15/17
88%
2006
11
720
600
580
11/11
100%
2007
14
700
580
580
14/14
100%
* - scores from no-fault year – “grandfathered in” as passing
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
03/04
30
760
520
630
610-680
580
25/30
83%
04/05
18
750
450
635
600-660
580
17/18
94%
05/06
15
730
610
660
650-680
580
15/15
100%
06/07
7
670
620
620
620-660
580
7/7
100%
07/08
17
770
580
630
610-650
580
17/17
100%
Comparing the category scores for UW-Stout with Wisconsin and national percent correct shows
that Business Education had 1/7 categories where Stout results were the same as or higher than
state average percent correct and 1/7 at the national level. This is a decrease at the national level
from 3/7 in 2003/04 to 1/7 in 2004/05.
20
Average Percent Correct
Business
Points
Educ Test
Available
Category
US Econ
Sys
Money
Mgmt
Bus & Its
Envirnm
Prof Bus
Ed
Process
Info
Off Pro &
Mgt,
Comm,
Employ
Account &
Mrkt
Stout
03/04
%
04/05
%
05/06
%
06/07
%
07/08
%
11-13
64
63
73
52%
59
15-17
66
62
66
61%
58
12-15
60
61
59
56%
49
22-25
82
79
87
79%
77
19-21
83
77
87
77%
70
16-18
81
79
80
80%
76
16-18
55
56
66
59%
71
State
National
Business
Educ
Points
Test
Available 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
Category
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
72%
US Econ
11-13
70
70
69
66
65
65
69%
67
65
Sys
Money
Mgmt
Bus & Its
Envirnm
Prof Bus
Ed
Process
Info
Off Pro &
Mgt,
Comm,
Employ
Account
& Mrkt
15-17
67
70
70
66
67
12-15
67
67
65
68
63
22-25
78
79
80
77
78
19-21
85
81
84
82
78
16-18
83
84
81
80
79
16-18
59
66
65
67
71
71%
71%
77%
83%
81%
60%
70%
66
66
69
68%
66
64
64
75%
73
72
72
81%
79
79
75
82%
79
77
76
59%
60
62
64
The following table displays the number and percent of Stout Examinees Scoring in Each
Quartile in Each Category. Quartiles are calculated using all examinees taking this test during the
21
testing period. The number of examinee records used to compute the quartiles was 3,887 in
2003/04, 4,183 in 2004/05 and 3,764 in 2005/06.
Bus Educ
Test
Category
U.S. Econ Sys
Money Mgt
Bus. & Its
Envirn
Prof Bus Ed
Process Info
Off Pro &
Mgt, Comm,
Employ
Account/Mrkt
Bus Educ
Test
Category
U.S. Econ Sys
Money Mgt
Bus. & Its
Envirn
Prof Bus Ed
Process Info
Off Pro & Mgt,
Comm,
Employ
Account/Mrkt
1st Q
Lowest
2nd Q
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
11
37%
5
28%
2
29%
5
29%
9
30%
6
9
6
3
7
9
8
30%
33%
43%
41%
30%
44%
8
4
1
11
15
8
27%
22%
14%
65%
50%
44%
1
1
0
1
8
6
13%
6%
0%
6%
33%
33%
8
5
1
4
8
8
33%
28%
14%
24%
30%
44%
3
8
0
0%
4
27%
4
27%
0
0%
0
0%
3
1
4
10
4
6
40%
5
33%
10
67%
1
7%
4
27%
5
4
57%
2
29%
5
71%
2
29%
4
57%
2
9
53%
8
47%
3
18%
4
24%
9
53%
2
10%
44%
20%
14%
24%
33%
22%
33%
29%
12%
8
3
2
0
13
9
27%
17%
0
0%
29%
0%
43%
50%
5
33%
2
29%
6
35%
33%
4th Q
Highest
3rd Q
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
7
5
0
1
3
2
23%
28%
0%
6%
10%
11%
9
3
1
1
3
1
30%
17%
14%
6%
10%
6%
5
5
1
2
2
1
17%
28%
14%
12%
7%
6%
8
6
3
6
8
5
27%
33%
43%
35%
27%
28%
5
4
2
4
5
1
20%
22%
29%
24%
17%
6%
14
2
7
47%
4
27%
0
0%
4
27%
9
60%
3
3
8
3
4
2
13%
2
13%
1
7%
10
67%
2
13%
4
1
14%
1
14%
0
0%
2
29%
0
0%
1
2
12%
1
6%
1
6%
6
35%
0
0%
3
47%
11%
20%
43%
47%
10%
22%
27%
14%
18%
5
4
7
2
2
22%
8
53%
3
17%
43%
41%
13%
11%
2
13%
0
0%
4
24%
22
Elementary Education
Praxis Test Code - 10014
According to the ETS report and Datatel, the number of examinees taking Elementary Education
tests for Early Childhood Education increased from 2004/05 to 2005/06. Although the highest
observed score and median score increased, the pass rate decreased slightly between those years.
Elementary Education data from the ETS report and Datatel is as follows:
Early Childhood Education
(Early Childhood – regular/special
education)
(Middle Childhood – regular education)
Content Knowledge – from Datatel
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
2004*
2004
2005
2006
2007
175
193
122
147
130/176
74%
4
143
169
147
3/4
75%
41
183
134
147
38/41
93%
82
195
125
147
63/82
77%
61
190
128
147
56/61
92%
* - scores from no-fault year – “grandfathered in” as passing
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing
Score:
Percent with WI Passing
Scores:
03/04
205
193
122
156
146-164
147
04/05
37
183
134
156
151-169
147
05/06
49
189
124
160
148-168
147
06/07
67
195
129
161
151-168
147
07/08
68
197
132
157
150-167
147
150/205
32/37
40/49
61/67
48/68
73%
86%
82%
91%
71%
Comparing the category scores for UW-Stout with Wisconsin and national percent correct shows
that Early Childhood Education had 0/4 categories where Stout results were the same as or
higher than state or national average in 2005/06.
23
Average Percent Correct
Elementary
Test
Category
Language Arts
Mathematics
Social Studies
Science
Stout
Points
03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
Available
%
%
%
%
%
24-30
74
74
78
77
77
29-30
63
68
67
74
71
28-30
58
60
56
57
58
29-30
61
66
62
68
67
Elementary
Points
Test
03/04
Available
Category
%
Language
Arts
Mathematics
Social
Studies
Science
04/05
%
State
National
05/06 06/07 07/08 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
24-30
79
80
81
80
80
80
79
79
78
78
29-30
70
74
74
77
76
68
68
69
70
70
28-30
61
63
62
61
61
61
61
60
59
59
29-30
63
67
65
69
69
63
64
64
65
66
The following table displays the number and percent of Stout Examinees Scoring in Each
Quartile in Each Category. Quartiles are calculated using all examinees taking this test during the
testing period. The number of examinee records used to compute the quartiles was 33,214 in
2003/04, 38,821 in 2004/05 and 48,055 in 2005/06.
Elementary
Test
Category
Language Arts
Mathematics
Social Studies
Science
1st Q
Lowest
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
82
40%
45
22%
50
24%
44
21%
15
41%
6
16%
6
16%
1
3%
11
22%
13
27%
13
27%
12
24%
14
21%
8
12%
16
24%
6
9%
24
35%
11
16%
18
26%
9
13%
48
23%
96
47%
73
36%
78
38%
13
35%
14
38%
15
41%
16
43%
17
35%
16
33%
22
45%
15
31%
31
46%
23
34%
22
33%
24
36%
20
29%
26
38%
18
26%
24
35%
Elementary
Test
Category
Language Arts
Mathematics
Social Studies
2nd Q
4th Q
Highest
3rd Q
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
60
29%
51
25%
48
5
14%
11
30%
8
16
33%
13
27%
5
17
25%
24
36%
15
15
22%
19
28%
22
15
7%
13
6%
34
4
11%
6
16%
8
5
10%
7
14%
5
5
7%
12
18%
14
9
13%
12
18%
10
24
Science
23%
56
27%
22%
13
35%
10%
9
18%
22%
22
33%
32%
29
43%
25
17%
27
13%
22%
7
19%
10%
9
18%
21%
15
22%
15%
6
9%
Elementary Education
Praxis Test Code - 10020
Pedagogical Test Data for Teacher Candidates Seeking Licensure
in States other than Wisconsin
Early Childhood Pedagogical
Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing
Score:
Percent with WI Passing
Scores:
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
-
-
19
730
460
660
620-700
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Comparing the category scores for UW-Stout with Wisconsin and national percent correct shows
that Early Childhood Education had 3/6 categories where Stout results were the same as or
higher than state average and 5/6 categories where Stout results were the same as or higher than
national average in 2005/06.
Average Percent Correct
Early
Childhood
Test
Category
Nature of
Growth/Dev/Lrng
of Young Child
Factors that
Influence
Individual
Growth/Dev
App of Dev &
Curr Theory
Planning &
Implementing
Curriculum
Eval/Report
Student Progress
& Effect of
Instruction
Understanding
Professional / Legal
Responsibilities
Stout
Points
Available
05/06
%
7/08
%
33-36
73
-
11-12
76
-
13-15
61
-
35-36
78
-
14
82
-
8
80
-
26
Early
Childhood
Test
Category
Nature of
Growth/Dev/Lrng
of Young Child
Factors that
Influence
Individual
Growth/Dev
App of Dev &
Curr Theory
Planning &
Implementing
Curriculum
Eval/Report
Student Progress
& Effect of
Instruction
Understanding
Professional / Legal
Responsibilities
State
Points
Available
33-36
National
05/06 07/08 05/06 07/08
%
%
%
%
75
-
72
11-12
76
13-15
61
35-36
78
72
-
63
76
14
83
8
81
-
-
76
-
74
27
-
The following table displays the number and percent of Stout Examinees Scoring in Each
Quartile in Each Category. Quartiles are calculated using all examinees taking this test during the
testing period. The number of examinee records used to compute the quartiles was 3,397 in
2005/06.
Early
Childhood
Test
Category
Nature of
Growth/Dev/
Lrng of Young
Child
Factors that
Influence
Individual
Growth/Dev
App of Dev &
Curr Theory
Planning &
Implementing
Curriculum
Eval/Report
Student
Progress &
Effect of
Instruction
Understanding
Professional /
Legal
Responsibilities
Early
Childhood
Test
Category
Nature of
Growth/Dev/
Lrng of Young
Child
Factors that
Influence
Individual
Growth/Dev
App of Dev &
Curr Theory
Planning &
Implementing
Curriculum
Eval/Report
Student
Progress &
Effect of
Instruction
1st Q
Lowest
2nd Q
05/06
06/07
07/08
05/06
06/07
07/08
3
0
-
4
5
-
16%
0%
-
21%
56%
-
1
1
-
6
1
-
5%
11%
-
32%
11%
-
3
16%
3
4
44%
0
-
9
47%
5
5
56%
6
-
16%
0%
-
26%
67%
-
4
0
-
3
5
-
21%
0%
-
16%
56%
-
0
1
-
7
5
-
0%
11%
-
37%
56%
-
4th Q
Highest
3rd Q
05/06
06/07
07/08
05/06
06/07
07/08
7
3
-
5
1
-
37%
33%
-
26%
11%
-
8
7
-
4
0
-
42%
78%
-
21%
05
-
7
37%
6
0
0%
2
-
0
0%
5
0
0%
1
-
32%
22%
-
26%
11%
-
4
3
-
4
1
-
21%
33%
-
21%
11%
-
28
Understanding
Professional /
Legal
Responsibilities
10
2
-
10
1
-
53%
22%
-
53%
11%
-
Early Childhood: Content Knowledge
Praxis Test Code - 10022
Early Childhood: Content
Knowledge– from Datatel
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
2007
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing
Score:
Percent with WI Passing
Scores:
07/08
7
189
153
179
168-189
Average Percent Correct
Early
Childhood:
Content
Knowledge
Category
Language and
Literacy
Mathematics
Social Studies
Science
Health and
Physical
Stout
State
National
07/08
07/08
07/08
30
77
80
78
23
15
15
75
86
81
77
87
83
73
86
77
8
84
85
84
Points
Available
Range
29
Education
Creative and
Performing
Arts
8
95
96
89
Early
Childhood:
Content
Knowledge
1st Q
Lowest
2nd Q
3rd Q
4th Q
Highest
07/08
07/08
07/08
07/08
Language
and literacy
1
14%
1
14%
1
14%
1
14%
0
4
57%
1
14%
3
43%
2
29%
5
1
14%
4
57%
3
43%
2
29%
1
1
14%
1
14%
0
0%
2
29%
1
0%
71%
14%
14%
1
1
5
0
14%
14%
71%
0%
Mathematics
Social
Studies
Science
Health and
Physical
Education
Creative and
Performing
Arts
30
Family & Consumer Sciences Education
Praxis Test Code - 10120
According to the ETS report, the number of Family & Consumer Sciences Education (FCSE)
examinees increased in 2005/06 as did the lowest observed score and median score. FCSE data
from the ETS report and Datatel is as follows:
Family & Consumer Sciences
Education – from Datatel
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
2004*
2004
2005
2006
2007
20
730
470
590
14/20
70%
3
670
560
590
2/3
67%
5
670
560
590
4/5
80%
12
710
550
590
10/12
83%
15
740
510
590
10/15
67%
05/06
18
740
600
665
620-710
590
18/18
100%
06/07
14
740
590
655
630-680
590
14/14
100%
* - scores from no-fault year – “grandfathered in” as passing
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
03/04
23
730
510
600
600-660
590
18/23
78%
04/05
10
740
490
645
600-710
590
8/10
80%
07/08
13
730
530
640
600-710
590
11/13
85%
Comparing the category scores for UW-Stout with Wisconsin and national percent correct shows
that Family and Consumer Sciences Education results were the same as or higher than state and
national average percent correct in all categories.
Average Percent Correct
Stout
Points
03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
Available
%
%
%
%
%
The Family
14-16
85
86
93
85
79
Human Dev.
13
75
80
81
76
76
Management
11-12
75
86
84
85
82
FCSE Test
Category
Consumer
Econ
Nutrition /
Food
Clothing /
Textiles
Housing
FCS Educ.
13-15
58
72
69
69
64
17-20
73
70
82
66
69
11
75
76
78
83
82
9-12
22-23
77
81
78
79
81
85
72
83
77
82
31
FCSE Test
Category
Points
03/04
Available
%
The Family
14-16
85
Human Dev.
13
75
Management
11-12
76
Consumer
Econ
Nutrition /
Food
Clothing /
Textiles
Housing
FCS Educ.
State
National
04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
88
88
86
87
86
85
83
83
81
78
79
75
77
75
77
76
78
75
82
81
85
80
79
77
77
84
81
13-15
60
72
69
70
66
68
66
68
68
67
17-20
72
70
76
72
72
75
72
74
71
69
11
68
75
72
81
72
76
76
75
74
73
9-12
22-23
75
79
78
82
80
83
77
80
73
79
78
81
77
78
79
78
79
77
76
75
The following table displays the number and percent of Stout Examinees Scoring in Each
Quartile in Each Category. Quartiles are calculated using all examinees taking this test during the
testing period. The number of examinee records used to compute the quartiles was 1,021 in
2003/04, 1,113 in 2004/05 and 1,263 in 2005/06.
1st Q
Lowest
FCSE Test
Category
The Family
Human
Development
Management
Consumer
Economics
Nutrition / Food
Clothing /
Textiles
Housing
FCS Education
03/04
9
39%
6
26%
4
17%
10
43%
4
17%
3
13%
5
22%
5
22%
04/05
1
10%
1
10%
1
10%
1
10%
3
30%
2
20%
2
20%
1
10%
Human
Development
Management
06/07
2
14%
3
21%
1
7%
2
14%
4
29%
0
0%
8
57%
1
7%
07/08
3
23%
1
8%
2
15%
4
31%
4
31%
3
15%
3
23%
0
0%
03/04
8
35%
6
26%
7
30%
6
26%
11
48%
12
52%
7
30%
7
30%
04/05
4
40%
4
40%
1
10%
4
40%
2
20%
4
40%
2
20%
3
30%
03/04
5
22%
8
35%
9
04/05
5
50%
2
20%
3
05/06
7
39%
5
28%
4
05/06
5
28%
5
28%
7
39%
7
39%
3
17%
8
44%
4
22%
3
17%
06/07
5
36%
6
43%
4
29%
8
57%
4
29%
4
29%
1
7%
5
36%
07/08
5
38%
6
46%
4
31%
2
15%
2
15%
2
15%
4
31%
5
38%
4th Q
Highest
3rd Q
FCSE Test
Category
The Family
05/06
0
0%
2
11%
0
0%
3
17%
3
17%
3
17%
2
11%
1
6%
2nd Q
06/07
5
36%
3
21%
4
07/08
5
38%
3
23%
4
32
03/04
1
4%
3
13%
3
04/05
0
0%
3
30%
5
05/06
6
33%
6
33%
7
06/07
2
14%
2
14%
5
07/08
0
0%
3
23%
3
Consumer
Economics
Nutrition / Food
Clothing /
Textiles
Housing
9FCS Education
39%
4
17%
7
30%
5
22%
8
35%
4
17%
30%
1
10%
2
20%
2
20%
2
20%
4
40%
22%
3
17%
5
28%
6
33%
10
56%
8
44%
29%
3
21%
6
43%
9
64%
4
29%
3
21%
31%
5
38%
4
31%
4
31%
4
31%
2
15%
33
3%
3
13%
1
4%
3
13%
3
13%
7
30%
50%
4
40%
3
30%
2
20%
4
40%
2
20%
39%
5
28%
7
39%
1
6%
2
11%
6
33%
36%
1
7%
0
0%
1
7%
1
7%
5
36%
23%
2
15%
3
23%
5
38%
2
15%
6
46%
Health Education
Praxis Test Code - 20550
Health Education data from the ETS report and Datatel is as follows:
Content
ETS** Datatel* ETS** Datatel ETS Datatel ETS Datatel ETS
Test
03/04
2004
04/05
2005
05/06 2006 06/07 2007 07/08
Number of
6
14
9
15
10
6
Examinees:
Highest
Observed
790
810
830
830
790
780
Score:
Lowest
Observed
580
610
630
610
640
620
Score:
Median:
720
660
Average
710650Performance
750
780
Range:
WI Score
Needed to
610
610
610
610
610
Pass:
Number
with WI
5/6
14
9/9
15/15 10/10
6/6
Passing
Score:
Percent with
WI Passing
83%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Score:
*scores from no-fault year – “grandfathered in” as passing
**fewer than 10 tests, therefore no ETS reports for 2003/04 and 2004/05
Comparing the category scores for UW-Stout with Wisconsin and national percent correct shows
that Health Education results were the same as or higher than state and national average percent
correct in all categories except Healthy Relationships and Disease prevention.
Health Ed
Test
Category
Health Ed as
a Discipline
Promoting
Healthy
Lifestyles
Community
Health
Advocacy
Healthy
Relationships
Disease
Stout
Points
05/06 06/07 07/08
Available
%
%
%
17-19
72
69
-
36
74
72
-
12
81
77
-
22-24
69
75
-
17-18
69
63
34
Prevention
Health Ed
Pedagogy
11-12
Health Ed
Points
Test
Available
Category
Health Ed as
a Discipline
Promoting
Healthy
Lifestyles
Community
Health
Advocacy
Healthy
Relationships
Disease
Prevention
Health Ed
Pedagogy
78
74
-
State
National
05/06 06/07 07/08 05/06 06/07 07/08
%
%
%
%
%
%
17-19
68
68
-
67
67
-
36
72
73
-
72
72
-
12
73
72
-
73
73
-
22-24
71
70
-
70
70
-
17-18
62
63
-
66
64
-
11-12
69
70
-
67
67
-
35
The following table displays the number and percent of Stout Examinees Scoring in Each
Quartile in Each Category. Quartiles are calculated using all examinees taking this test during the
testing period. The number of examinee records used to compute the quartiles was 2,100.
Health Ed
Test
Category
Health Ed as a
Discipline
Promoting
Healthy
Lifestyles
Community
Health
Advocacy
Healthy
Relationships
Disease
Prevention
Health Ed
Pedagogy
1st Q
Lowest
2nd Q
4th Q
Highest
3rd Q
05/06
1
11%
1
06/07
1
10%
3
07/08
-
05/06
2
22%
3
06/07
3
30%
3
07/08
-
05/06
3
33%
3
06/07
4
40%
1
07/08
-
05/06
3
33%
2
06/07
2
20%
3
07/08
-
11%
30%
-
33%
30%
-
33%
10%
-
22%
30%
-
2
2
-
1
3
-
2
3
-
4
2
-
22%
20%
-
11%
30%
-
22%
30%
-
44%
20%
-
1
11%
0
0%
0
0%
3
30%
3
30%
1
10%
-
6
67%
5
56%
3
33%
2
20%
1
10%
5
50%
-
1
11%
3
33%
3
33%
1
10%
6
60%
0
0%
-
1
11%
1
11%
3
33%
4
40%
0
0%
4
40%
-
36
Marketing Education
Praxis Test Code – 10560
Data from the ETS report for Marketing Education reveals a decrease in examinees between
2003/04 and 2004/05. The passing rate was 62% in 2003/04 but increased in both subsequent
years to a 100% pass rate. Marketing Education data from the ETS report and Datatel is as
follows:
Marketing Education – from Datatel
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
2004*
21
810
480
600
14/21
67%
2004
6
820
660
600
6/6
100%
2005
13
810
580
600
12/13
92%
2006
13
820
610
600
13/13
100%
2007
5
780
610
600
5/5
100%
* - scores from no-fault year – “grandfathered in” as passing
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance
Range:
WI Score Needed to
Pass:
Number with WI
Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing
Score:
03/04
29
810
450
660
04/05
14
820
570
685
05/06
15
820
610
720
06/07
6
720
610
705
07/08
15
780
590
630
550-720
660-750
660-750
690-720
610-720
600
600
600
600
600
18/29
12/14
15/15
6/6
13/15
62%
86%
100%
100%
87%
37
Comparing the category scores for UW-Stout with Wisconsin and national percent correct shows
that Marketing Education had two categories where Stout results were the same as or higher than
state average percent correct and six categories the same or higher at the national.
Average Percent Correct
Marketing
Ed Test
Category
M Ed, Curr
Instr, Career
Planning
General
Marketing
Merchandising
Mktg Math
Comm & HR
Ad & Sales Pro
Personal Selling
Marketing
Ed Test
Category
M Ed, Curr
Instr, Career
Planning
General
Marketing
Merchandising
Mktg Math
Comm & HR
Ad & Sales
Pro
Personal
Selling
Stout
Points
03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
Available
%
%
%
%
%
23-25
74
79
80
73
71
21-23
69
79
82
82
70
14-21
11-12
16
13-14
14-15
61
56
77
66
73
67
64
83
74
77
64
68
84
76
82
69
64
82
72
73
67
60
81
74
80
Points
03/04
Available
%
04/05
%
State
National
05/06 06/07 07/08 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
23-25
74
79
80
77
74
77
77
77
76
75
21-23
74
78
83
82
73
77
80
80
79
78
14-21
11-12
16
67
62
79
67
65
84
69
70
83
70
61
86
72
64
81
71
66
83
69
66
85
69
66
83
68
66
84
68
64
83
13-14
70
74
79
72
74
76
74
75
75
73
14-15
75
77
83
79
82
80
80
79
79
80
The following table displays the number and percent of Stout Examinees Scoring in Each
Quartile in Each Category. Quartiles are calculated using all examinees taking this test during the
testing period. The number of examinee records used to compute the quartiles was 362 in
2003/04 and 412 in 2005/06.
Marketing
Ed Test
Category
M Ed, Curr &
Instr, Career
Plng
General
Marketing
1st Q
Lowest
2nd Q
03/04
7
04/05
4
05/06
2
06/07
1
07/08
6
03/04
7
04/05
3
05/06
7
06/07
4
07/08
3
24%
29%
13%
17%
40%
24%
21%
47%
67%
20%
13
45%
4
29%
2
13%
0
0%
8
53%
8
28%
3
21%
5
33%
4
67%
5
33%
38
Merchandising
Mktg Math
Comm & HR
Ad & Sales
Promotion
Personal
Selling
Marketing
Ed Test
Category
M Ed, Curr &
Instr, Career
Plng
General
Marketing
Merchandising
Mktg Math
Comm & HR
Ad & Sales
Promotion
Personal
Selling
15
2%
9
31%
8
28%
14
48%
9
31%
15
7%
3
21%
6
43%
2
14%
2
14%
3
20%
2
13%
4
27%
2
13%
1
7%
1
17%
0
0%
0
0%
1
17%
1
17%
3
20%
4
27%
5
33%
3
20%
0
0%
9
31%
9
31%
14
8%
6
21%
13
45%
6
43%
6
43%
3
21%
5
36%
7
50%
6
40%
6
40%
2
13%
5
33%
8
53%
2
33%
5
83%
6
100%
3
50%
5
83%
3
20%
7
47%
5
33%
6
40%
11
73%
4th Q
Highest
3rd Q
03/04
6
04/05
6
05/06
2
06/07
0
07/08
5
03/04
9
04/05
1
05/06
4
06/07
1
07/08
1
21%
43%
13%
0%
33%
31%
7%
27%
17%
7%
4
14%
5
17%
9
31%
6
21%
5
17%
6
21%
5
36%
6
43%
3
21%
4
29%
5
36%
4
29%
6
40%
4
27%
6
40%
9
60%
4
27%
3
20%
2
33%
1
17%
1
17%
0
0%
1
17%
0
0%
0
0%
6
40%
3
20%
1
7%
5
33%
3
20%
4
14%
0
10%
2
7%
1
3%
4
14%
1
13%
2
14%
0
7%
2
14%
1
7%
2
14%
1
7%
2
13%
2
13%
1
7%
0
0%
4
27%
3
20%
0
0%
2
33%
0
0%
0
0%
1
17%
0
0%
2
13%
3
20%
1
7%
4
27%
1
7%
1
7%
39
Middle School Subjects – Special Education
Praxis Test Code - 20146
According to the ETS report, there were fewer than 10 tests in Middle School Subjects for
Special Education; therefore no ETS data was reported for 2004/05. Special Education data from
the ETS report and Datatel is as follows:
Special Education
(Middle School)
(Cognitive/Hearing/Emotional/Visual/LD)
2004*
2004
2005
2006
2007
Content Knowledge – from Datatel
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
49
184
101
146
29/49
59%
1
151
151
146
1/1
100%
9
170
130
146
7/9
78%
28
185
122
146
15/28
54%
22
173
131
146
21/22
96%
* - scores from no-fault year – “grandfathered in” as passing
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
Score Needed to Pass:
Number with Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing
Score:
03/04
59
184
101
149
136-163
146
34/59
04/05
-
05/06
15
185
128
148
143-159
146
9
06/07
27
177
134
151
148-162
146
21/27
07/08
34
174
122
152
147-158
146
28/34
58%
-
60%
78%
82%
Comparing the category scores for UW-Stout with Wisconsin and national percent correct shows
that Special Education Stout results continue to be below the state and national average percent.
Average Percent Correct
Special
Education
Test
Category
Literature
Mathematics
History /
Social Studies
Science
Stout
Points
03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
Available
%
%
%
%
%
27-30
29-30
59
53
-
65
58
66
62
64
60
28-30
53
-
56
53
53
28-30
59
-
58
60
58
40
Special
Education
Points
03/04
Test
Available
%
Category
Literature
27-30
63
Mathematics
29-30
63
History /
Social
Studies
Science
State
04/05
%
National
05/06 06/07 07/08 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
-
72
71
70
69
72
70
63
62
-
71
66
69
66
72
68
28-30
54
-
58
59
57
55
-
59
59
58
28-30
63
-
63
62
63
62
-
62
61
63
The following table displays the number and percent of Stout Examinees Scoring in Each
Quartile in Each Category. Quartiles are calculated using all examinees taking this test during the
testing period. The number of examinee records used to compute the quartiles was 4,892 in
2003/04 and 4,714 in 2005/06.
Special
Education
Test
Category
Literature
Mathematics
History / Social
Studies
Science
Special
Education
Test
Category
Literature
Mathematics
History / Social
Studies
Science
1st Q
Lowest
03/04
20
34%
22
37%
11
19%
17
29%
04/05
-
05/06
4
27%
7
47%
4
27%
2
13%
2nd Q
06/07
8
30%
9
33%
8
30%
6
22%
07/08
12
35%
12
35%
10
29%
9
26%
03/04
14
24%
25
42%
27
46%
15
25%
04/05
-
04/05
-
05/06
3
20%
2
13%
0
0%
2
13%
06/07
7
26%
9
33%
12
44%
11
41%
07/08
9
26%
15
44%
13
38%
14
41%
4th Q
Highest
3rd Q
03/04
16
27%
7
12%
13
22%
16
27%
05/06
7
47%
5
33%
7
47%
10
67%
06/07
9
33%
5
19%
6
22%
6
22%
07/08
11
32%
6
18%
9
26%
7
21%
41
03/04
9
15%
5
8%
8
14%
11
19%
04/05
-
05/06
1
7%
1
7%
4
27%
1
7%
06/07
3
11%
4
15%
1
4%
4
15%
07/08
2
6%
1
3%
2
6%
4
12%
Technology Education
Praxis Test Code – 10050
Technology Education data from the ETS report and Datatel is as follows:
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
2005
2006
2007
84
750
560
590
79/84
94%
10
700
600
590
10/10
100%
42
730
580
590
40/42
95%
69
750
580
590
67/69
97%
35
720
550
590
32/35
91%
* - scores from no-fault year – “grandfathered in” as passing
Content Test from ETS
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
WI Score Needed to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
03/04
104
750
560
650
610-680
590
97/104
93%
04/05
45
740
580
650
630-690
590
44/45
98%
05/06
56
750
580
655
630-680
590
55/56
98%
06/07
38
720
560
650
630-680
590
35/38
92%
07/08
39
720
550
670
630-700
590
37/39
95%
Comparing the category scores for UW-Stout with Wisconsin and national percent correct shows
that Technology Education had 4/5 categories where Stout results were the same as or higher
than the state average percent correct and 5/5 categories the same or higher than the national in
2005/06.
Average Percent Correct
Tech Ed
Test
Category
Ped. & Prof
(T Ed)
Infor &
Communic
Technology
Construct
Tech
Manuf Tech
Energy /
Power/
Trans Tech
Stout
Points
03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
Available
%
%
%
%
%
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
42
Tech Ed
Test
Category
Ped. & Prof
(T Ed)
Infor &
Communic
Technology
Construct
Tech
Manuf
Tech
Energy /
Power/
Trans Tech
Points
03/04
Available
%
State
National
04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 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
76
81
80
76
79
76
74
78
73
74
20-24
75
80
75
76
80
75
80
75
74
73
22-23
74
78
75
75
81
72
70
71
70
73
The following table displays the number and percent of Stout Examinees Scoring in Each
Quartile in Each Category. Quartiles are calculated using all examinees taking this test during the
testing period. The number of examinee records used to compute the quartiles was 962 in
2003/04, 952 in 2004/05 and 957 in 2005/06.
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%
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%
14
31%
13
29%
21
47%
12
27%
05/06
24
43%
18
43%
17
30%
17
30%
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%
8
21%
9
23%
19
49%
9
23%
13
13%
17
16%
20
19%
16
15%
9
20%
11
24%
8
18%
13
29%
43
05/06
10
18%
9
16%
6
11%
17
30%
06/07
8
21%
6
16%
10
26%
14
37%
07/08
16
41%
6
15%
5
13%
14
36%
Energy/Power/
Trans Tech
23
22%
15
33%
26
46%
16
42%
18
46%
44
25
24%
15
33%
7
13%
9
24%
12
31%
Teaching Minors
Data on Teaching Minors from Datatel is as follows:
Broadfield Social Studies
(Economics/Geography/History/Sociology/
Psychology/Political Science/Citizenship)
2004*
2005
2006
2007
Content Knowledge – PRAX-10081
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
1
180
180
153
1/1
100%
0
153
-
1
183
183
153
1/1
100%
-
2004*
2004
2005
2006
2007
1
154
154
135
1/1
100%
1
135
135
135
1/1
100%
0
135
-
1
141
141
135
1/1
100%
1
141
141
135
1/1
100%
(Literature/Journalism/Speech/Composition)
2004
2005
2006
2007
Content Knowledge PRAX-10041
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
160
-
1
145
145
160
0/1
0%
160
-
-
* - scores from no-fault year – “grandfathered in” as passing
Mathematics
Content Knowledge – PRAX-10061
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score
WI Score Need to Pass:
Number with WI Passing Score
Percent with WI Passing Score
* - scores from no-fault year – “grandfathered in” as passing
Broadfield Language Arts
45
Student Artifact Reflection Ratings
for Benchmarks I, II and III
Beginning in fall 2004, all students in School of Education courses were required to develop
artifacts as evidence of their learning. This is part of the Performance Based Assessment
Requirements for the School of Education at UW-Stout. For each selected artifact, students were
required to write a reflection related to: the intended learning, new or unanticipated learning
gained from completing the artifact, and how each artifact related to Danielson’s domains and
components and the ten Wisconsin Teacher Standards. SOE faculty who graded the artifacts then
rated the reflections associated with that artifact. Each faculty member was required to submit a
copy of the reflection rating form to the SOE Dean’s Office for compilation of the data.
Artifacts and artifact reflections are required to meet the SOE Benchmarks. Course artifacts and
reflection ratings are reviewed by two faculty members during each transition point / Benchmark
stage. There is a Benchmark I interview and portfolio review required for each student at
Benchmark I: Acceptance into Teacher Education Program and Pre-student Teaching
Experiences. The Benchmark I means for each category on the reflection rubric ratings increased
from 2004 to 2005 and from 2005 to 2006 as follows:
Benchmark I
Intended
Unanticipated
Connections
2004
mean (N)
2.66 (379)
2.51 (379)
2.49 (379)
2005
mean (N)
2.78 (338)
2.77 (389)
2.62 (389)
2006
mean (N)
3.06 (356)
2.96 (356)
2.76 (353)
2007
mean (N)
2.79 (410)
2.84 (410)
2.70 (410)
It is interesting to note that for three consecutive years, means for Benchmark I reflections have
increased in all categories. In all years, teacher candidates are pretty good at reflecting on
Intended Learning. In other words, they have a good understanding of what they are supposed to
be learning from the learning process and artifacts they created. Teacher candidates scored
46
slightly lower overall for all three years in the category of Connections. Candidates seem to have
more difficulty connecting their learning to prior learning.
Another interview and portfolio review is required at Benchmark II: Admission to Student
Teaching. The Benchmark II means on the reflection rubric ratings increased in every category
except Intended Learning from 2004 to 2005 and from 2005 to 2006 as follows:
Benchmark II
Intended
Unanticipated
Connections
2004
mean (N)
2.74 (510)
2.63 (510)
2.76 (510)
2005
mean (N)
2.72 (776)
2.73 (776)
2.80 (774)
2006
mean (N)
2.80 (618)
2.76 (628)
2.88 (626)
2007
mean (N)
2.78 (757)
2.85 (757)
2.79 (757)
The final interview and portfolio review is at Benchmark III: Program Completion which takes
place at the end of student teaching. During student teaching, candidates are required to develop
at least two artifacts which are then rated by their cooperating teachers using the School of
Education reflection rubric. The Benchmark III means on the reflection rubric ratings increased
from 2004 to 2005 but decreased in all three categories from 2005 to 2006 as follows:
Benchmark III
Intended
Unanticipated
Connections
2004
mean (N)
3.42 (257)
3.36 (257)
3.39 (257)
2005
mean (N)
3.54 (237)
3.51 (237)
3.64 (237)
47
2006
mean (N)
3.36 (290)
3.27 (290)
3.38 (284)
2007
mean (N)
3.51 (675)
3.42 (675)
3.57 (675)
The overall pattern on reflection ratings increased in all three categories from 2004 to 2005 for
all three benchmarks. The overall pattern on reflection ratings from 2005 to 2006 was an increase
in reflection ratings in all three categories at the Benchmark I and II levels. However, from 2005
to 2006, Benchmark III reflection ratings decreased in all three categories.
Summary of All SOE Programs
Benchmark I
Intended
Unanticipated
Connections
Benchmark II
Intended
Unanticipated
Connections
Benchmark III
Intended
Unanticipated
Connections
2004
mean (N)
2.66 (379)
2.51 (379)
2.49 (379)
2005
mean (N)
2.78 (338)
2.77 (389)
2.62 (389)
2006
mean (N)
3.06 (356)
2.96 (356)
2.76 (353)
2007
mean (N)
2.79 (410)
2.84 (410)
2.70 (410)
2.74 (510)
2.63 (510)
2.76 (510)
2.72 (776)
2.73 (776)
2.80 (774)
2.80 (618)
2.76 (628)
2.88 (626)
2.78 (757)
2.85 (757)
2.79 (757)
3.42 (257)
3.36 (257)
3.39 (257)
3.54 (237)
3.51 (237)
3.64 (237)
3.36 (290)
3.27 (290)
3.38 (284)
3.51 (675)
3.42 (675)
3.57 (675)
The charts on the following page are graphic representations of the data above. One would
anticipate seeing growth in each category (Intended, Unanticipated, and Connections) as teacher
candidates progress from level to level. In other words, Benchmark II means should be higher
than Benchmark I means. In that case, our assessment system needs to establish inter-rater
reliability. In addition, it would be better to track teacher candidate progress from level to level
in the year that they progress. In other words, look at 2004 Benchmark I completers and means,
then 2005 Benchmark II completers and means, then 2006 Benchmark III completers and means.
Currently, the SOE assessment system does not track candidate development in this manner.
48
49
The grades earned by each artifact were also compiled for 2004 and 2005 for Benchmarks I and
II. Cooperating teachers were not asked to grade the artifacts for student teaching (Benchmark
III). The pattern of artifact grades is very similar in 2004 and 2005.
• A for 50% in 2004 and 50% in 2005
• B for 16.6% in 2004 and 8.3% in 2005
• C for 2% in 2004 and 1.3% in 2005
• D and F less than 0.1%
• No grade given for 31% in 2004 and 40.1% in 2005.
Starting in the fall of 2006, the grades received on the reflections documents were no longer
entered into the Datatel system.
50
The table below depicts the reflection ratings for the category of Intended Learning by SOE
program for 2004, 2005, and 2006. Note: “OTHER” are students with a major that is not SOE
(i.e. pre-education, business administration, etc.)
Reflections – Intended Learning
Mean (N)
2004
2.07 (15)
2.58 (137)
2.53 (43)
3.00 (91)
2.84 (31)
2.51 (63)
Mean (N)
2005
2.00 (1)
2.82 (28)
2.82 (157)
2.68 (60)
2.56 (43)
2.69 (13)
2.89 (84)
Mean (N)
2006
2.67 (3)
3.41 (22)
3.06 (119)
3.26 (19)
2.90 (61)
3.00 (56)
3.05 (61)
2.66 (379)
2.78 (338)
3.06 (356)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
MBE
SPED / VR
TE
CTET
Other
Aggregate *
1.89 (9)
2.80 (332)
2.63 (54)
3.30 (61)
2.33 (24)
1.80 (30)
2.52 (21)
2.79 (580)
2.69 (32)
2.48 (40)
2.37 (19)
2.47 (83)
1.50 (2)
2.62 (13)
2.76 (386)
3.24 (89)
3.06 (70)
2.38 (26)
2.04 (28)
2.74 (510)
2.72 (776)
2.80 (618)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
MBE
SPED / VR
TE
CTET
Other
Aggregate *
3.10 (20)
3.44 (117)
3.38 (26)
3.32 (50)
3.70 (27)
3.53 (17)
3.29 (17)
3.63 (106)
3.47 (15)
3.53 (60)
3.75 (8)
3.31 (32)
3.25 (8)
3.49 (147)
3.54 (26)
2.97 (36)
3.00 (9)
3.29 (49)
3.42 (257)
3.54 (237)
3.36 (290)
Program
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
MBE
SPED / VR
TE
CTET
Other
Aggregate *
Mean (N)
2007
2.75 (4)
2.66 (44)
2.88 (138)
3.05 (41)
2.53 (73)
2.91 (32)
2.75 (55)
3.00 (1)
2.73 (22)
2.50 (2)
2.30 (27)
2.82 (426)
2.95 (81)
2.89 (76)
2.73 (71)
2.42 (52)
2.57 (22)
3.38 (26)
3.58 (314)
3.65 (40)
3.13 (45)
3.72 (25)
3.43 (201)
3.71 (24)
Means calculated on a 4-point scale where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and 4=advanced
basic.
* - Aggregate “N” is slightly lower than the actual sum of “N” from all programs. This occurs when
the reflection data is included twice because students may be enrolled in multiple programs.
The table below depicts the reflection ratings for the category of New and Unanticipated
Learning by SOE program for 2004, 2005, and 2006.
51
Reflections – New and Unanticipated Learning
Mean (N)
2004
2.07 (15)
2.35 (137)
2.42 (43)
2.86 (91)
2.52 (31)
2.51 (63)
Mean (N)
2005
2.00 (1)
2.79 (28)
2.78 (157)
2.63 (60)
2.67 (43)
2.77 (13)
2.88 (85)
Mean (N)
2006
2.67 (3)
3.55 (22)
3.03 (119)
3.32 (19)
2.80 (61)
2.63 (56)
2.93 (61)
2.51 (379)
2.77 (389)
2.96 (356)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
MBE
SPED / VR
TE
CTET
Other
Aggregate *
2.00 (9)
2.68 (332)
2.67 (54)
2.77 (61)
2.45 (64)
2.17 (30)
2.57 (21)
2.78 (580)
2.59 (32)
2.60 (40)
2.53 (19)
2.53 (83)
2.00 (2)
2.31 (13)
2.75 (391)
3.01 (90)
3.07 (70)
2.34 (29)
2.13 (30)
2.63 (510)
2.73 (776)
2.76 (628)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
MBE
SPED / VR
TE
CTET
Other
Aggregate *
3.20 (20)
3.24 (117)
3.54 (26)
3.44 (50)
3.47 (74)
3.53 (17)
3.35 (17)
3.57 (106)
3.33 (15)
3.52 (60)
3.75 (8)
3.34 (32)
3.13 (8)
3.38 (147)
3.27 (26)
2.86 (36)
3.33 (9)
3.22 (49)
3.36 (257)
3.51 (237)
3.27 (290)
Program
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
MBE
SPED / VR
TE
CTET
Other
Aggregate *
52
Mean (N)
2007
3.50 (4)
2.70 (44)
2.94 (138)
2.88 (41)
2.70 (73)
2.84 (32)
2.87 (55)
3.00 (1)
2.73 (22)
2.50 (2)
2.48 (27)
2.87 (426)
3.07 (81)
2.87 (76)
2.77 (71)
2.63 (52)
2.83 (23)
3.38 (26)
3.46 (314)
3.55 (40)
2.91 (45)
3.72 (25)
3.37 (201)
3.63 (24)
The table below depicts the reflection ratings for the category of Connections Drawn to
Domains/Components and Wisconsin Teacher Standards by SOE program for 2004, 2005, and
2006.
Reflections – Connections to Domains, Components and Wisconsin Teacher Standards
Mean (N)
2004
2.27 (15)
2.58 (137
2.60 (43)
2.16 (91)
2.80 (50)
2.54 (63)
Mean (N)
2005
2.00 (1)
2.68 (28)
2.75 (157)
2.42 (60)
2.07 (43)
2.62 (13)
2.76 (85)
Mean (N)
2006
2.33 (3)
3.18 (22)
2.97 (119)
3.05 (19)
2.44 (61)
2.52 (56)
2.61 (61)
2.49 (379)
2.62 (389)
2.76 (353)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
Benchmark MBE
II
SPED / VR
TE
CTET
Other
Aggregate *
2.11 (9)
2.89 (332)
2.67 (54)
2.64 (61)
2.36 (64)
2.20 (30)
2.37 (19)
2.95 (580)
2.34 (32)
2.13 (40)
2.32 (19)
2.41 (83)
2.50 (2)
2.23 (13)
3.06 (389)
2.76 (90)
2.61 (70)
2.21 (29)
2.50 (30)
2.76 (510)
2.80 (774)
2.88 (626)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
Benchmark MBE
III
SPED / VR
TE
CTET
Other
Aggregate *
3.00 (20)
3.46 (117)
3.42 (26)
3.26 (50)
3.45 (74)
3.53 (17)
3.35 (17)
3.74 (106)
3.73 (15)
3.67 (60)
3.75 (8)
3.41 (32)
3.38 (8)
3.53 (146)
3.58 (26)
2.64 (36)
3.44 (9)
3.42 (48)
3.39 (257)
3.64 (237)
3.38 (284)
Program
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
Benchmark MBE
I
SPED / VR
TE
CTET
Other
Aggregate *
53
Mean (N)
2007
3.00 (4)
2.45 (44)
2.86 (138)
2.54 (41)
2.56 (73)
2.63 (32)
2.75 (55)
3.00 (1)
2.86 (23)
1.50 (2)
2.33 (27)
2.96 (426)
2.58 (81)
2.44 (52)
2.79 (71)
2.44 (52)
2.83 (23)
3.35 (26)
3.63 (314)
3.73 (40)
3.00 (45)
3.76 (25)
3.55 (201)
3.79 (24)
Disposition Ratings
The School of Education has developed a system to assess candidate dispositions from the
beginning of the program through program completion. Dispositions of Teaching ratings are
completed for candidates in the undergraduate teacher education programs and the graduate pupil
services programs. The dispositions ratings are comprised of eight professional disposition
categories: attendance, preparedness, continuous learning, creating a positive climate, reflective,
thoughtful and responsive learner, cooperative/collaborative and respectful. These dispositions of
teaching are linked to the Wisconsin Teacher Standards and Wisconsin Pupil Service Standards.
Disposition of Teaching ratings have a four point scale where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging,
3=basic, and 4=advanced basic. Mean scores are then calculated based on this scale.
At the undergraduate teacher education level, candidates receive disposition ratings from the
course instructor for the introduction to the major course and the Foundations of Education
course for Benchmark I. Benchmark II candidates receive disposition rating from two of their
program methods/curriculum class instructors. For Benchmark III, cooperating teachers at each
student teaching placement rate each candidate at the completion of student teaching.
Although all undergraduate teacher education programs and graduate pupil services programs
use the same eight dispositions, the definitions of disposition ratings vary. The undergraduate
programs all use the same definitions.
Undergraduate Dispositions Summary
For the undergraduate dispositions, ratings increased on 7 of the 8 disposition areas from 2004 to
2005 for Benchmark I & II: preparedness, continuous learning, positive climate, reflective,
thoughtful and responsive listener, cooperative/collaborative and respectful. Those categories
with the largest increase of 0.3 or more were preparedness (2.66 to 2.96), continuous learning
(2.59 to 2.93), and positive climate (2.7 to 3.03). One category, attendance, decreased by 0.3
(3.47 to 3.16) in that same time period. Overall, candidates had the lowest means at Benchmarks
I and II for 2004 and 2005 in the following disposition categories: preparedness, continuous
learning, reflective, and thoughtful and responsive listener.
From 2005 to 2006 at the Benchmark I level, ratings increased in all eight disposition categories.
At the Benchmark II level during that period, ratings increased in all categories except
attendance. For 2006, teacher candidates had the lowest means at Benchmarks I and II in the
disposition categories of continuous learning and reflective. At Benchmark II, teacher candidates
had the highest means in the categories of cooperative/collaborative and respectful. The overall
pattern of means for all three assessment years (2004, 2005, and 2006) found Benchmark I
candidates rated highest on the dispositions of attendance and being respectful.
Cooperating teachers rate the dispositions for undergraduate student teachers at the Benchmark
III level. Comparing mean averages from 2004 to 2005, there was an increase in all eight
dispositions. All eight disposition means for 2004 and 2005 were above 3.0. At Benchmark III,
the four disposition categories with the lowest means in 2004 and 2005 were: preparedness,
continuous learning, reflective, and cooperative/collaborative. Again, the overall pattern of
means for all three assessment years (2004, 2005, and 2006) found Benchmark III candidates
rated highest on the dispositions of attendance and being respectful. At the Benchmark III level
54
during 2006, ratings stayed the same or increased in all categories except preparedness. For 2006
Benchmark III, the disposition categories with the lowest means were preparedness, continuous
learning, and cooperative/collaborative.
The table below depicts SOE unit means by Disposition category for each benchmark level.
SOE Unit Means by Category for Each Disposition Level
Attendance
BM I
BM II
BM III
Mean (N)
2004
3.38 (268)
3.55 (188)
3.68 (192)
Mean (N)
2005
3.18 (342)
3.49 (455)
3.79 (174)
Mean (N)
2006
3.43 (499)
3.43 (366)
3.84 (152)
Mean (N)
2007
3.27 (386)
3.35 (425)
3.86 (348)
Preparedness
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.33 (268)
3.13 (188)
3.49 (192)
2.45 (342)
3.27 (456)
3.70 (174)
2.88 (498)
3.37 (368)
3.57 (152)
2.87 (386)
3.32 (425)
3.70 (348)
Continuous Learning
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.28 (268)
2.99 (188)
3.43 (192)
2.33 (342)
3.13 (456)
3.53 (174)
2.70 (498)
3.19 (368)
3.57 (152)
2.63 (386)
3.23 (425)
3.65 (348)
Positive Climate
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.37 (268)
3.16 (188)
3.60 (192)
2.51 (342)
3.31 (454)
3.68 (174)
2.94 (498)
3.43 (368)
3.67 (152)
2.88 (386)
3.48 (425)
3.75 (348)
Reflective
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.35 (268)
2.98 (188)
3.47 (192)
2.34 (342)
3.06 (453)
3.57 (174)
2.71 (498)
3.20 (369)
3.60 (152)
2.71 (386)
3.17 (425)
3.69 (348)
Thoughtful &
Responsive Listener
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.38 (268)
3.03 (188)
3.56 (192)
2.45 (342)
3.11 (454)
3.67 (174)
2.78 (498)
3.28 (369)
3.68 (152)
2.76 (386)
3.31 (425)
3.74 (348)
Cooperative /
Collaborative
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.44 (268
3.16 (188)
3.45 (192)
2.47 (341)
3.30 (453)
3.59 (174)
2.99 (498)
3.57 (369)
3.57 (152)
2.75 (386)
3.56 (425)
3.67 (348)
Respectful
BM I
BM II
BM III
2.69 (268)
3.47 (188)
3.69 (192)
2.69 (341)
3.55 (454)
3.83 (174)
3.18 (498)
3.75 (369)
3.83 (152)
3.15 (386)
3.73 (425)
3.87 (348)
Disposition Category
Level
Means calculated on a 4-point scale where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and 4=advanced
basic.
* - Aggregate “N” is slightly lower than the actual sum of “N” from all programs. This occurs when the
disposition data is included twice because students may be enrolled in multiple programs.
55
The Benchmark I, II and III patterns of highest and lowest category means for 2004, 2005 and 2006 vary by program. The highest and
lowest disposition means patterns for specific programs/certifications are as follows:
Disposition Highs and Lows by Program
2004
Program
Level
Highest
Lowest
APSCI
ARTED
ECE
FCSE
MBE
SPED
Benchmark
I
Benchmark
II
Benchmark
III
Benchmark
I
Benchmark
II
Benchmark
III
Benchmark
I
Benchmark
II
Benchmark
III
Benchmark
I
Benchmark
II
Benchmark
III
Benchmark
I
Benchmark
II
Benchmark
III
Benchmark
I
Benchmark
II
Benchmark
III
2005
Highest
2006
Lowest
Highest
Lowest
No clear pattern
No data
No data
No clear pattern
No data
No data
Attendance
No data
No data
Reflective/Preparedness
No data
No data
Attendance
No data
Respectful/R
eflective
Preparedness
No data
Preparedness
Respectful
Respectful
Respectful
Reflective
Preparedness
Reflective
Respectful
All others tied
Respectful
Thought/Resp Listener
Attendance
Continuous Learning
Reflective
Attendance
Attendance
Continuous Learning
Thought/Resp Listener
Reflective
Attendance
Attendance
Attendance/Prep
ared
Continuous
Learning
Reflective
Continuous
Learning
Attendance
Respectful
Attendance
Continuous Learning
Continuous Learning
Continuous Learning
Attendance
Respectful
Respectful
Reflective
Reflective/Preparedness
Reflective
Attendance
Attendance
Respectful
Reflective
Reflective
Reflective
Attendance
Attendance
Respect/Though
t
Reflective
Preparedness
Preparedness
Attendance
Cooptive/Col
laborative
Attendance
Reflective
Continuous Learning
Cooptive/Collaborative
Respectful
Respectful
Respectful
Attendance
Attendance
Continuous
Learning
Respectful
Respectful
Attendance
Continuous Learning
Continuous Learning
Pos Climate/Reflective
Attendance
Attendance
Respectful
Reflective
Reflective
Preparedness
Respectful
Attendance
Attendance
Continuous
Learning
Reflective/Cont
Lrng
Respectful/Cont
Lrng
Attendance
Attendance
Att/Respect/CL
Continuous Learning
Reflective/Cont Lrng
Prepared/Pos Climate
56
2007
Highest
Lowest
TE
Benchmark
I
Benchmark
II
Benchmark
III
Attendance
No clear
pattern
Attendance/R
espectful
Reflective/Cont Lrng
No clear pattern
Preparedness
Attendance
Respectful
Respectful
Preparedness
Attendance
Reflective/Prepard/
CL
Attendance
No data
Respectful
Preparedness
No data
Preparedness
Dispositions – Attendance by Level and Program
Program
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
MBE
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Mean (N)
2004
3.38 (29)
3.30 (125)
3.52 (25)
3.23 (39)
Mean (N)
2005
3.00 (1)
3.04 (25)
3.28 (156)
3.36 (33)
2.25 (36)
Mean (N)
2006
3.67 (3)
3.31 (29)
3.49 (194)
3.33 (21)
3.00 (43)
Mean (N)
2007
2.70 (10)
3.24 (50)
3.51 (162)
3.26 (19)
2.84 (49)
3.54 (37)
3.34 (32)
3.00 (1)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
3.65 (23)
3.54 (28)
3.24 (38)
3.41 (49)
3.48 (75)
3.52 (108)
3.38 (268)
3.18 (342)
3.43 (499)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
MBE
3.64 (118)
2.78 (18)
3.60 (48)
3.08 (13)
3.62 (308)
3.28 (36)
3.31 (45)
3.00 (1)
3.43 (272)
3.37 (51)
3.37 (30)
3.38 (29)
3.30 (267)
3.04 (51)
3.69 (42)
3.75 (4)
3.53 (17)
3.77 (13)
3.71 (14)
2.42 (26)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
57
Benchmark III
3.00 (1)
2.89 (37)
-
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
3.71 (21)
-
3.55 (188)
3.49 (455)
3.43 (366)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
MBE
3.19 (32)
3.89 (71)
3.44 (16)
3.75 (24)
3.50 (20)
3.80 (96)
3.70 (10)
3.91 (23)
3.88 (8)
3.86 (72)
3.63 (24)
3.91 (11)
3.63 (30)
3.88 (162)
3.78 (32)
3.87 (15)
3.67 (9)
3.76 (38)
4.00 (4)
3.82 (22)
4.00 (4)
3.85 (27)
3.92 (12)
3.93 (84)
-
3.68 (192)
3.79 (174)
3.84 (152)
2.50 (4)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
3.92 (13)
Means calculated on a 4-point scale where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and
4=advanced basic.
* - Aggregate “N” is slightly lower than the actual sum of “N” from all programs. This occurs
when the disposition data is included twice because students may be enrolled in multiple programs.
58
Dispositions – Preparedness by Level and Program
Mean (N)
Mean (N)
Program
2004
2005
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
MBE
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2006
Mean (N)
2007
2.55 (29)
2.16 (125)
2.68 (25)
2.59 (39)
2.00 (1)
2.48 (25)
2.31 (156)
2.58 (33)
2.53 (36)
2.33 (3)
3.28 (29)
2.73 (193)
3.10 (21)
3.05 (43)
3.00 (10)
3.18 (50)
2.77 (162)
2.95 (19)
2.67 (49)
3.00 (37)
3.22 (32)
4.00 (1)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
2.35 (23)
2.21 (28)
2.79 (38)
2.45 (49)
2.65 (75)
3.03 (108)
2.33 (268)
2.45 (342)
2.88 (498)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
MBE
3.07 (118)
2.61 (18)
3.46 (48)
3.00 (13)
3.29 (309)
2.89 (36)
3.33 (45)
4.00 (1)
3.46 (272)
3.02 (51)
3.25 (32)
3.28 (29)
3.39 (267)
2.96 (51)
3.29 (42)
3.25 (4)
3.00 (1)
3.12 (17)
3.46 (37)
3.23 (13)
-
3.21 (14)
3.43 (21)
-
2.54 (26)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
3.13 (188)
3.27 (456)
3.37 (368)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
3.13 (32)
3.61 (71)
3.55 (20)
3.80 (96)
3.88 (8)
3.61 (72)
2.75 (4)
59
3.57 (30)
3.68 (162)
FCSE
MBE
3.63 (16)
3.67 (24)
3.40 (10)
3.57 (23)
3.38 (24)
3.55 (11)
3.59 (32)
3.67 (15)
3.22 (9)
3.47 (38)
3.75 (4)
3.50 (22)
3.50 (4)
3.48 (27)
3.92 (12)
3.75 (84)
-
3.49 (192)
3.70 (174)
3.57 (152)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
3.92 (13)
Means calculated on a 4-point scale where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and
4=advanced basic.
* - Aggregate “N” is slightly lower than the actual sum of “N” from all programs. This occurs
when the disposition data is included twice because students may be enrolled in multiple programs.
60
Dispositions – Continuous Learning by Level and Program
Program
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
MBE
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2004
2.59 (29)
2.10 (125)
2.60 (25)
2.56 (39)
Mean (N)
2005
2.00 (1)
2.40 (25)
2.09 (156)
2.55 (33)
2.50 (36)
Mean (N)
2006
3.00 (3)
3.24 (29)
2.34 (193)
3.10 (21)
2.93 (43)
Mean (N)
2007
3.50 (10)
3.06 (50)
2.36 (162)
2.95 (19)
2.59 (49)
2.30 (23)
2.04 (28)
2.58 (38)
2.53 (49)
2.47 (75)
3.15 (108)
2.65 (37)
3.19 (32)
3.00 (1)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
2.28 (268)
2.33 (342)
2.70 (498)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
MBE
2.87 (118)
2.78 (18)
3.35 (48)
3.08 (13)
3.08 (309)
3.00 (36)
3.47 (45)
4.00 (1)
3.22 (272)
3.08 (51)
3.16 (32)
3.45 (29)
3.14 (267)
3.29 (51)
3.40 (42)
3.00 (4)
3.00 (1)
2.76 (17)
3.35 (37)
3.08 (13)
-
3.14 (14)
3.57 (21)
-
2.31 (26)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
2.99 (188)
3.13 (456)
3.19 (368)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
3.19 (32)
3.51 (71)
3.65 (20)
3.57 (96)
3.63 (8)
3.51 (72)
3.00 (4)
61
3.70 (30)
3.62 (162)
FCSE
MBE
3.31 (16)
3.50 (24)
3.00 (10)
3.39 (23)
3.42 (24)
3.45 (11)
3.59 (32)
3.73 (15)
3.33 (9)
3.53 (38)
3.25 (4)
3.50 (22)
4.00 (4)
3.78 (27)
3.67 (12)
3.68 (84)
-
3.43 (192)
3.53 (174)
3.57 (152)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
3.85 (13)
Means calculated on a 4-point scale where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and
4=advanced basic.
* - Aggregate “N” is slightly lower than the actual sum of “N” from all programs. This occurs
when the disposition data is included twice because students may be enrolled in multiple programs.
62
Dispositions – Positive Climate by Level and Program
Program
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
MBE
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2004
----2.76 (29)
2.15 (125)
2.68 (25)
2.69 (39)
Mean (N)
2005
2.00 (1)
2.72 (25)
2.19 (156)
2.76 (33)
2.94 (36)
Mean (N)
2006
2.67 (3)
3.45 (29)
2.56 (193)
3.05 (21)
3.42 (43)
Mean (N)
2007
3.40 (10)
3.32 (50)
2.56 (162)
3.00 (19)
3.06 (49)
2.35 (23)
2.25 (28)
2.74 (38)
2.71 (49)
2.85 (75)
3.32 (108)
3.03 (37)
3.31 (32)
3.00 (1)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
2.37 (268)
2.51 (342)
2.94 (498)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
MBE
3.05 (118)
2.94 (18)
3.52 (48)
3.23 (13)
3.29 (309)
3.11 (36)
3.44 (45)
4.00 (1)
3.47 (272)
3.20 (51)
3.47 (32)
3.41 (29)
3.45 (267)
3.37 (51)
3.62 (42)
3.25 (4)
3.00 (1)
3.12 (17)
3.54 (35)
3.31 (13)
-
3.36 (14)
3.81 (21)
-
2.62 26
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
3.16 (188)
3.31 (454)
3.43 (368)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
3.22 (32)
3.75 (71)
3.55 (20)
3.74 (96)
3.88 (8)
3.71 (72)
3.25 (4)
63
3.60 (30)
3.75 (162)
FCSE
MBE
3.50 (16)
3.58 (24)
3.20 (10)
3.78 (23)
3.54 (24)
3.36 (11)
3.78 (32)
3.80 (15)
3.78 (9)
3.66 (38)
3.50 (4)
3.64 (22)
3.50 (4)
3.78 (27)
3.83 (12)
3.76 (84)
-
3.60 (192)
3.68 (174)
3.67 (152)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
3.77 (13)
Means calculated on a 4-point scale where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and
4=advanced basic.
* - Aggregate “N” is slightly lower than the actual sum of “N” from all programs. This occurs
when the disposition data is included twice because students may be enrolled in multiple programs.
64
Dispositions – Reflective by Level and Program
Program
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
MBE
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2004
2.69 (29)
2.36 (125)
2.20 (25)
2.49 (39)
Mean (N)
2005
2.00 (1)
2.32 (25)
2.19 (156)
2.15 (33)
2.58 (36)
Mean (N)
2006
2.33 (3)
3.38 (29)
2.37 (193)
2.71 (21)
2.98 (43)
Mean (N)
2007
3.50 (10)
3.14 (50)
2.44 (162)
2.63 (19)
2.80 (49)
2.26 (23)
2.04 (28)
2.63 (38)
2.49 (49)
2.49 (75)
3.17 (108)
2.68 (37)
3.31 (32)
3.00 (1)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
2.35 (268)
2.34 (342)
2.71 (498)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
MBE
2.88 (118)
2.61 (18)
3.38 (48)
2.85 (13)
3.03 (309)
2.72 (36)
3.45 (44)
4.00 (1)
3.24 (272)
3.04 (52)
3.19 (32)
3.38 (29)
3.07 (267)
3.29 (51)
3.19 (42)
3.00 (4)
3.00 (1)
2.76 (17)
3.34 (35)
3.08 (13)
-
3.29 (14)
3.52 (21)
-
2.46 (26)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
2.98 (188)
3.06 (453)
3.20 (369)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
3.25 (32)
3.59 (71)
3.45 (20)
3.63 (96)
3.88 (8)
3.58 (72)
65
3.25 (4)
3.63 (30)
3.70 (162)
FCSE
MBE
3.25 (16)
3.46 (24)
3.10 (10)
3.57 (23)
3.50 (24)
3.36 (11)
3.63 (32)
3.47 (15)
3.44 (9)
3.53 (38)
3.50 (4)
3.50 (22)
3.75 (4)
3.67 (27)
3.75 (12)
3.73 (84)
-
3.47 (192)
3.57 (174)
3.60 (152)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
3.85 (13)
Means calculated on a 4-point scale where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and
4=advanced basic.
* - Aggregate “N” is slightly lower than the actual sum of “N” from all programs. This occurs
when the disposition data is included twice because students may be enrolled in multiple programs.
66
Dispositions – Thoughtful & Responsive Listener by Level and Program
Program
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
MBE
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2004
2.69 (29)
2.18 (125)
2.72 (25)
2.67 (39)
Mean (N)
2005
2.00 (1)
2.64 (25)
2.18 (156)
2.29 (33)
2.89 (36)
Mean (N)
2006
2.67 (3)
3.21 (29)
2.53 (193)
2.95 (21)
3.00 (43)
Mean (N)
2007
3.50 (10)
3.12 (50)
2.53 (162)
2.95 (19)
2.63 (49)
2.30 (23)
2.36 (28)
2.87 (38)
2.53 (49)
2.64 (75)
3.06 (108)
2.89 (37)
3.38 (32)
3.00 (1)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
2.38 (268)
2.45 (342)
2.78 (498)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
MBE
2.84 (118)
2.94 (18)
3.52 (48)
3.08 (13)
3.08 (309)
2.97 (36)
3.41 (44)
4.00 (1)
3.31 (272)
3.19 (52)
3.25 (32)
3.41 (29)
3.26 (267)
3.33 (51)
3.36 (42)
3.00 (4)
3.00 (1)
2.76 (17)
3.31 (36)
3.08 (13)
-
3.07 (14)
3.71 (21)
-
2.35 (26)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
3.03 (188)
3.11 (454)
3.28 (369)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
3.25 (32)
3.69 (71)
3.65 (20)
3.72 (96)
3.88 (8)
3.61 (72)
3.50 (4)
67
3.63 (30)
3.73 (162)
FCSE
MBE
3.56 (16)
3.50 (24)
3.10 (10)
3.65 (23)
3.83 (24)
3.55 (11)
3.81 (32)
3.80 (15)
3.56 (9)
3.58 (38)
3.50 (4)
3.59 (22)
3.75 (4)
3.67 (27)
3.92 (12)
3.71 (84)
-
3.56 (192)
3.67 (174)
3.68 (152)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
3.92 (13)
Means calculated on a 4-point scale where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and
4=advanced basic.
* - Aggregate “N” is slightly lower than the actual sum of “N” from all programs. This occurs
when the disposition data is included twice because students may be enrolled in multiple programs.
68
Dispositions – Cooperative / Collaborative by Level and Program
Program
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
MBE
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2004
2.62 (29)
2.20 (125)
2.72 (25)
2.82 (39)
Mean (N)
2005
2.00 (1)
2.60 (25)
2.19 (159)
2.61 (33)
2.63 (35)
Mean (N)
2006
3.00 (3)
3.31 (29)
2.54 (193)
3.29 (21)
3.51 (43)
Mean (N)
2007
3.30 (10)
3.40 (50)
2.44 (162)
2.26 (19)
2.67 (49)
2.78 (23)
2.25 (28)
2.89 (38)
2.67 (49)
2.96 (75)
3.42 (108)
2.95 (37)
3.44 (32)
3.00 (1)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
2.44 (268)
2.47 (341)
2.99 (498)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
MBE
2.92 (118)
2.94 (18)
3.83 (48)
2.92 (13)
3.29 (309)
3.00 (36)
3.43 (44)
4.00 (1)
3.65 (272)
3.23 (52)
3.59 (32)
3.52 (29)
3.59 (267)
3.37 (51)
3.60 (42)
3.25 (4)
3.00 (1)
3.06 (17)
3.77 (35)
3.31 (13)
-
3.07 14
3.90 (21)
-
2.62 (26)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
3.16 (188)
3.30 (453)
3.57 (369)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
3.16 (32)
3.62 (71)
3.45 (20)
3.69 (96)
3.75 (8)
3.54 (72)
3.50 (4)
69
3.47 (30)
3.72 (162)
FCSE
MBE
3.31 (16)
3.42 (24)
3.00 (10)
3.52 (23)
3.54 (24)
3.36 (11)
3.59 (32)
3.40 (15)
3.44 (9)
3.50 (38)
3.50 (4)
3.55 (22)
3.50 (4)
3.70 (27)
3.50 (12)
3.71 (84)
-
3.45 (192)
3.59 (174)
3.57 (152)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
3.85 (13)
Means calculated on a 4-point scale where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and
4=advanced basic.
* - Aggregate “N” is slightly lower than the actual sum of “N” from all programs. This occurs
when the disposition data is included twice because students may be enrolled in multiple programs.
70
Dispositions – Respectful by Level and Program
Mean (N)
Program
2004
APSCI
3.34 (29)
ARTED
2.36 (125)
ECE (EC)
3.00 (25)
FCSE
3.10 (39)
MBE
Benchmark I
Benchmark II
Benchmark III
Mean (N)
2005
2.00 (1)
2.84 (25)
2.28 (156)
2.82 (33)
3.19 (36)
Mean (N)
2006
2.67 (3)
3.55 (29)
2.95 (193)
3.24 (21)
3.67 (43)
Mean (N)
2007
3.30 (10)
3.44 (50)
3.02 (162)
3.05 (19)
3.12 (49)
3.35 (37)
2.92 (49)
3.01 (75)
3.45 (108)
3.08 (37)
3.50 (32)
4.00 (1)
(MKTED)
2.35 (23)
2.96 (28)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
2.69 (268)
2.69 (341)
3.18 (498)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
MBE
3.39 (118)
3.17 (18)
3.77 (48)
3.38 (13)
3.57 (309)
3.25 (36)
3.59 (44)
4.00 (1)
3.85 (272)
3.27 (52)
3.88 (32)
3.45 (29)
3.79 (267)
3.39 (51)
3.88 (42)
3.57 (14)
3.90 (21)
-
3.00 (26)
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
3.50 (4)
3.00 (1)
3.24 (17)
3.81 (36)
3.38 (13)
-
3.47 (188)
3.55 (454)
3.75 (369)
APSCI
ARTED
ECE (EC)
FCSE
3.25 (32)
3.83 (71)
3.69 (16)
3.80 (20)
3.84 (96)
3.50 (10)
4.00 (8)
3.83 (72)
3.83 (24)
3.50 (4)
71
3.80 (30)
3.88 (162)
3.91 (32)
MBE
3.67 (24)
3.96 (23)
3.45 (11)
3.73 (15)
3.89 (9)
3.76 (38)
3.25 (4)
3.86 (22)
4.00 (4)
3.89 (27)
3.92 (12)
3.88 (84)
-
(MKTED)
SPED / VR
TE
Career, TE &
Training
Other
Aggregate *
3.92 (13)
3.69 (192)
3.83 (174)
3.83 (152)
Means calculated on a 4-point scale where 1=unsatisfactory, 2=emerging, 3=basic, and
4=advanced basic.
* - Aggregate “N” is slightly lower than the actual sum of “N” from all programs. This occurs
when the disposition data is included twice because students may be enrolled in multiple programs.
72
Pre-Student Teaching Ratings
Beginning in fall 2004, SOE pre-student teaching final ratings were related to the final
student teacher evaluation. Both the pre-student teacher and student teacher evaluation
ratings were based on the Danielson four domains/components and the Wisconsin
Teacher Standards. The pre-student teaching experience varies among programs and
depends to some extent upon how comfortable the cooperating teacher is with involving
the candidate with students in the classroom. Cooperating teachers rate the candidates on
the extent to which they meet the competency on a scale of NA= not
achieved/unsatisfactory, 1=very limited achievement, 2=limited achievement.
In the case of Early Childhood Education, faculty members who teach the participation
class observe the candidates participating with school children in tutoring or one-one-one
sessions. These Early Childhood Education instructors then do the final ratings at the
kindergarten and primary levels. At the infant, toddler and preschool level, the lab
teachers who are the head teachers in the classroom do the ratings. However, the items
and language differs on the forms and the data from this is not included in this report.
The table on the following page shows the compiled frequency results for the calendar
years of 2004, 2005, and 2006. The frequency patterns indicates that candidates achieved
most of the competencies related to the domains/components and selected Wisconsin
Teacher Standards. Because of this, only the competencies not appropriate/not achieved
will be identified by domain. The competencies not achieved/appropriate are as follows:
o Domain I: Planning and Preparation Elements
o Item 4: Shows some understanding of assessing student learning
o Domain II: The Classroom Environment
o Item 3: Aware of classroom procedures
o Domain III: Instruction
o Item 7: Assists in classroom activities
o Domain IV: Professional Responsibilities/Personal Characteristics
o WI Teacher Standards
o Standard 8: Knows how to test students for progress.
For graduate student preclinical data, see the Graduate Programs section of this report.
73
Pre-student Teaching Results
This table includes only data from the general form and does not include all majors.
Scale: NA-Not applicable in this teaching situation, 1 –Unsatisfactory/not achieved, s2–Emerging/achieved with limited degree
2004
Frequencies
Domain I:
Planning and Preparation
1. Shows knowledge of
content and pedagogy
2. Shows knowledge of
student characteristics
3. Shows some understanding
of instructional objectives
4. Shows some understanding
of assessing student
learning.
Domain II:
The Classroom Environment
1. Displays respect and
rapport
2. Notices sensitivity to
learning, cultural and racial
differences in pupils
3. Aware of classroom
procedures
4 Shows understanding of
behavior management
5. Initiates interaction with
students
Domain III:
Instruction
1. Exhibits appropriate oral
language usage
2. Exhibits appropriate written
language usage
3. Exhibits appropriate voice
projection
4. Recognizes the importance
of student involvement
5. Provides appropriate
feedback to student
6. Displays a sense of
flexibility and
responsiveness
7. Assists in classroom
activities
8. ? Check Datatel code
2005
Frequencies
2006
Frequencies
2007
Frequencies
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
6
0
132
5
7
119
14
1
164
10
3
152
6
0
132
5
11
115
8
0
171
34
1
130
8
0
130
1
4
126
13
0
166
8
0
157
101
0
37
56
10
65
61
0
118
66
1
98
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
1
0
137
4
1
126
0
0
179
1
1
163
28
1
109
6
5
120
3
0
176
5
1
159
75
0
63
94
0
37
69
1
109
47
1
117
29
7
102
9
4
118
4
4
171
7
0
158
2
9
127
7
7
117
3
7
169
2
1
162
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
5
0
133
1
5
125
3
0
176
3
0
162
15
0
123
12
2
117
14
0
165
17
0
148
7
1
130
3
8
120
8
2
169
28
3
134
7
0
131
2
2
127
6
0
173
31
0
134
4
3
131
5
4
122
4
5
170
2
3
160
3
1
134
2
2
127
5
1
173
4
4
157
72
2
64
52
3
76
69
3
107
46
2
117
137
0
1
128
0
3
175
0
4
164
0
1
74
2004
Frequencies
Domain IV:
Professional Responsibilities /
Personal Character
1. Demonstrates potential to
grow & develop
professionally
2. Shows active interest &
willingness to participate in
classroom activities
3. Has poise & confidence
4. Indicates sense of
responsibility and
dependability.
5. Exhibits good judgment,
self-control & tact
6. Shows interest in students
7. Presents a professional
appearance
8. Displays a positive attitude
Select Wisconsin
Teacher Standards
1. Knows the subjects they are
teaching
2. Knows how children grow
3. Understands that children
learn differently
6. Communicates well
7. Plans instruction based on
knowledge of subject
matter, students and
curriculum goals
8. Knows how to test for
student progress
2005
Frequencies
2006
Frequencies
2007
Frequencies
NA
1
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
1
0
137
2
5
124
0
0
179
4
0
161
3
2
133
11
4
116
99
1
79
2
1
162
3
2
5
6
130
130
1
2
6
1
124
128
0
0
3
3
176
176
2
3
3
2
160
160
3
0
135
1
3
127
9
1
169
4
0
161
2
2
2
1
134
135
0
0
3
5
128
126
9
9
2
1
168
169
2
2
0
0
163
163
2
0
136
2
0
129
8
0
171
3
1
161
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
NA
1
2
12
6
120
7
5
119
16
1
162
13
2
150
16
41
3
2
119
95
10
10
2
3
119
118
18
15
3
1
158
163
17
39
2
2
146
124
9
107
1
1
128
30
5
35
5
3
121
93
13
70
2
0
164
109
4
68
1
1
160
96
135
0
3
78
0
53
117
0
62
70
1
94
Scale: NA-Not applicable in this teaching situation, 1 –Unsatisfactory/not achieved, 2–Emerging/achieved with limited degree
75
Student Teacher Performance Ratings
on Domains/Component and Wisconsin Teacher Standards
The School of Education uses Danielson’s domains/components and the Wisconsin
Teacher Standards as part of the framework for student teacher competency evaluations.
Cooperating teachers utilize these competencies to rate student teachers on their final
performance evaluation. Means are calculated on a 4-point scale where 1=unsatisfactory,
2=emerging, 3=basic, and 4=advanced basic.
Examination of the overall domain mean scores in 2004, 2005 and 2006 reveals that,
although means decreased for all four domains, there is a consistent pattern on each of the
domains with the same rank order for all three years.
Danielson’s Domain
Mean
Rank
2004
2005
2006
2007
Domain 4:
Professional
Responsibilities
Highest
3.39
3.50
3.42
3.44
Domain 2:
The Classroom
Environment
2nd -- tied
3.34
3.40
3.28
3.37
Domain 3:
Instruction
2nd -- tied
3.28
3.38
3.25
3.37
Domain 1:
Planning and
Preparation
4th
Lowest
3.26
3.34
3.22
3.30
Error! Not a valid link.
76
As each student teacher was assessed on the Danielson Domains at the end of student
teaching in 2006, program means were calculated and compared to SOE Unit means as
follows. See Appendix A for a detailed breakdown of Domains and Components by
program.
Student Teaching Domain Means by Program
Student Teaching
Domains
Rank
Domain 1: Planning & Preparation
1
TECED
2
SPED
3
FCSE
4
ECE
5
MBE
6
ARTED
7
C & TE
Domain 2: Classroom Environment
1
TECED
1
SPED
3
ECE
4
MBE
4
FCSE
4
C & TE
7
ARTED
Domain 3: Instruction
1
SPED
2
TECED
3
FCSE
4
ECE
5
C & TE
6
ARTED
7
MBE
Domain 4: Professional
Responsibilities
1
ECE
2
TECED
3
SPED
4
FCSE
5
ARTED
6
MBE
-C & TE*
Ï or Ð
SOE Unit Mean
3.30
3.42 Ï
3.41 Ï
3.28 Ð
3.27 Ð
3.24 Ð
3.21 Ð
3.02 Ð
3.37
3.40 Ï
3.40 Ï
3.39 Ï
3.23 Ð
3.23 Ð
3.23 Ð
3.14 Ð
3.37
3.47 Ï
3.45 Ï
3.39 Ï
3.34 Ð
3.25 Ð
3.21 Ð
3.15 Ð
3.44
3.51 Ï
3.47 Ï
3.46 Ï
3.37 Ð
3.14 Ð
3.10 Ð
3.16 Ð
* mean reflects responses on 4a,b,c,e only
77
Within each of Danielson’s four domains, the SOE unit had a consistent pattern of
highs and lows on means for academic years 2004 and 2005, calendar years 2005
and 2006 and average totals as follows:
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
High: 1e: Designing coherent instruction
Low: 1d: Demonstrating knowledge of resources
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
3.45
3.4
3.35
3.3
2004
2005
2006
3.25
3.2
3.15
3.1
3.05
3
1a.
Demonstrating
knowledge of
content &
pedagogy
1c. Selecting
instructional
goals
1e. Designing
coherent
instruction
78
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
High: 2e: Organizing physical space
Low: 2d: Managing student behavior
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2004
2005
2006
2a. Creating
2b.
2c. Managing 2d. Managing
2e.
an
Establishing classroom
student
Organizing
environment a culture of procedures
behavior
physical
of respect &
learning
space
rapport
79
Domain 3: Instruction
High: 3e: Demonstrating flexibility & responsiveness
High: 3d: Providing feedback to students (tie for 1st in 2006)
Low: 3b: Using questioning & discussion techniques
Domain 3: Instruction
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2004
2005
2006
3a.
Communicating
clearly &
accurately
3b. Using
questioning &
discussion
techniques
3c. Engaging
students in
learning
80
3d. Providing
feedback to
students
3e.
Demonstrating
flexibility &
responsiveness
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
High: 4d: Showing professionalism
Low: 4c: Communicating with families
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2004
2005
2006
4a. Reflecting
on teaching
4b. Maintaining
4c.
4d. Contributing 4e. Growing &
4f. Showing
accurate
Communicating
to school &
developing
professionalism
records
with families
district
professionally
81
Likewise a check of the 22 components in Danielson’s framework reveals a consistent pattern of mean
score rankings in 2004, 2005 and 2006. In 2007, 2a creating an environment of respect and rapport was
new to the list. The six components with the highest mean scores and highest average total means are as
follows:
To fill this in the missing numbers I will have to recreate the data sets because the numbers do not
match the old reports
Danielson’s
Component
4f. Showing
professionalism
4d. Contributing
to the school &
district
4a. Reflecting on
teaching
2a. Creating
environment of
respect and rapport
2e. Organizing
physical space
4e. Growing &
developing
professionally
Mean
Rank
Calendar
Year
2004
Calendar Calendar
Year
Year
2005
2006
Calendar
Year
2007
Average
All
Years
Highest
3.67
3.77
3.57
3.57
3.65
2nd
highest
3.50
3.57
3.52
3.52
3.53
3rd
highest
3.43
3.52
3.45
3.49
3.47
3.33
3.48
4th
highest
5th
highest tie
5th
highest tie
3.46
3.52
3.41
3.47
3.47
3.36
3.50
3.38
3.47
3.43
Inspection of the components with the lowest mean scores shows a consistent pattern in
2004, 2005 and 2006. In 2006, 1f assessing student learning and 3b using questioning and
discussion techniques are new to the list. The six components with the lowest mean
scores and lowest average total means are as follows:
Danielson’s
Component
4c. Communicating
with families
2d. Managing
student behavior
1d. Demonstrating
knowledge of
resources
1f. Assessing
student learning
3b. Using
questioning and
discussion
Mean
Rank
Calendar
Year
2005
Calendar Calendar
Year
Year
2005
2006
Calendar
Year
2007
Average
All
Years
Lowest
3.23
3.29
3.22
3.17
3.23
2nd lowest
3.26
3.27
3.11
3.22
3.22
3rd lowest
- tied
3.15
3.31
3.15
3.24
3.21
3rd lowest
- tied
3.23
3.33
3.18
3.24
3.25
5th
lowest
3.25
3.28
3.12
3.26
3.23
82
techniques
2c. Managing
classroom
procedures
6th lowest
3.23
3.32
3.21
3.26
3.29
Each student teacher was also assessed on the 10 Wisconsin State Teacher Standards at
the end of student teaching in 2004, 2005 and 2006. A consistent pattern was found on
the mean scores. The UW-Stout candidates rated highest on two Wisconsin teacher
standards with mean scores and average total means as follows:
Wisconsin Teacher
Standard
9. Reflection
highest mean
10. Collaboration
2nd highest mean
Calendar
Year
2004
Calendar
Year
2005
Calendar
Year
2006
Calendar
Year
2007
Average
All Years
3.34
3.46
3.34
3.44
3.40
3.28
3.48
3.37
3.43
3.39
The two lowest teacher standard means for 2004, 2005 and the average total mean scores
were revealed as follows:
Wisconsin Teacher
Standard
8. Assessment
lowest mean
3. Diverse learners
2nd lowest mean
Calendar
Year
2004
Calendar
Year
2005
Calendar
Year
2006
Calendar
Year
2007
Average
All Years
3.19
3.28
3.13
3.23
3.21
3.18
3.29
3.16
3.27
3.23
As each student teacher was assessed on the 10 Wisconsin State Teacher Standards at the
end of student teaching in 2006, program means were calculated and compared to SOE
Unit means as follows. These results should be compared to the EBI ratings provided by
exiting student teachers within each program (see page 87).
83
1.
C
2.
o
D
ev nte
3.
n
el
4.
D
op t
iv
In
e
m
st
en
ru rse
c
L
5.
tio
ea t
Le
na
r
ar
l S ner
ni
s
ng tra
t
e
En
gi
es
6.
vi
r
7. Com onm
Pl
en
an mu
t
ni
ni
ca
ng
t io
In
n
st
ru
8.
ct
As
se ion
ss
m
9.
en
10 Re
t
. C f le
ct
ol
io
la
bo n
ra
tio
n
Wisconsin Teacher Standards
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2004
2005
2006
84
As each student teacher was assessed on the 10 Wisconsin State Teacher Standards at the
end of student teaching in 2006, program means were calculated and compared to SOE
Unit means as follows. These results should be compared to the EBI ratings provided by
exiting student teachers within each program (see page 87).
Wisconsin Teacher Standards – Means by Program
Wisconsin
Teacher Standards
Rank
3.40
1. Content Knowledge
TECED
SPED
FCSE
ECE
MBE
ARTED
1
2
3
4
5
5
3.51 Ï
3.44 Ï
3.41 Ï
3.38 Ð
3.25 Ð
3.25 Ð
1
2
3
4
5
6
3.44 Ï
3.38 Ï
3.35 Ï
3.34 Ï
3.11 Ð
3.08 Ð
1
2
3
4
5
6
3.78 Ï
3.37 Ï
3.24 Ð
3.23 Ð
3.14 Ð
3.00 Ð
SPED
TECED
FCSE
MBE
ECE
ARTED
1
2
3
4
5
5
3.56 Ï
3.51 Ï
3.38 Ï
3.17 Ð
3.21 Ð
3.21 Ð
1
2
3
4
5
5
3.67 Ï
3.48 Ï
3.40 Ð
3.38 Ð
3.25 Ð
3.25 Ð
Ï or Ð
SOE Unit Mean
1
2
3
3
5
6
3.55 Ï
3.43 Ï
3.33 Ð
3.33 Ð
3.25 Ð
3.18 Ð
1
2
3
4
5
6
3.67 Ï
3.51 Ï
3.38 Ð
3.35 Ð
3.33 Ð
3.29 Ð
1
2
3
4
4
6
3.40 Ï
3.31 Ï
3.15 Ð
3.11 Ð
3.11 Ð
3.08 Ð
1
2
3
4
5
6
3.67 Ï
3.57 Ï
3.41 Ð
3.38 Ð
3.29 Ð
3.25 Ð
3.37
3.41
7. Planning Instruction
SPED
TECED
FCSE
ECE
MBE
ARTED
3.23
8. Assessment
TECED
FCSE
ECE
SPED
ARTED
MBE
3.44
9. Reflection
SPED
TECED
ECE
FCSE
ARTED
MBE
3.41
5. Learning Environment
SPED
TECED
ECE
FCSE
MBE
ARTED
FCSE
TECED
ECE
SPED
MBE
ARTED
3.32
4. Instructional Strategies
Rank
6. Communication
3.27
3. Diverse Learners
SPED
TECED
FCSE
ECE
ARTED
MBE
Wisconsin
Teacher Standards
3.33
2. Development
SPED
TECED
ECE
FCSE
ARTED
MBE
Ï or Ð
SOE Unit Mean
3.43
10. Collaboration
TECED
SPED
ECE
FCSE
ARTED
MBE
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
3.60 Ï
3.56 Ï
3.44 Ï
3.34 Ð
3.14 Ð
3.08 Ð
Each of the program/certification areas has been inspected to determine patterns in
student teacher competency ratings from cooperating teachers. The highest and lowest
component rating means and the Wisconsin Teacher Standards rating means for each
program for calendar years 2004, 2005, and 2006 and average total mean revealed are
displayed below and on the following pages. See Appendix A for a detailed breakdown
of Domains and all Components by program.
To fill this in the missing numbers, I will have to recreate the data sets {or if you all have
data from previous years?}
Art Education
2004
2005
2006
2007
None
3.39
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
High
1e.
Designing coherent instruction
Low
1b.
Demonstrating knowledge of
students
2.72
2.90
None
3.04
3.14
3.31
None
3.32
2.90
2.90
None
2.96
None
3.36
None
3.07
None
None
3.36
2.46
None
3.29
3.29
3.11
3.11
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
High
2a.
Low
2d.
Creating an environment of
respect & rapport
Managing student behavior
Domain 3: Instruction
High
3e.
Low
3b
Demonstrating flexibility and
responsiveness
Using questioning and
discussion techniques
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
High
Low
4f.
4c.
Showing professionalism
Communicating with families
2.50
2.95
WI Teacher Standards
High
Low
7
9
8
2
Diverse lesson plans
Self evaluation
Assessment
Know how to grow students
2.71
2.93
None
Note: ArtEd did not have question 4f in previous years. An accommodation was not made when
determining means and averages for the chart above.
86
Average
All Years
To fill this in the missing numbers, I will have to recreate the data sets {or if you all have
data from previous years?}
Early Childhood Education
2004
2005
2006
2007
3.51
3.44
3.31
3.40
3.11
3.22
3.09
3.09
3.52
3.39
3.56
3.31
3.43
3.12
3.49
3.30
3.28
3.41
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
High
1b.
Low
1d.
Demonstrating knowledge of
students
Demonstrating knowledge of
resources
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
High
Low
2e.
2d.
Organizing physical space
Managing student behavior
Domain 3: Instruction
High
3d.
Provide feedback to students
Low
3b.
Using questioning &
discussion techniques
3.27
3.29
3.11
3.22
3.39
3.41
3.61
3.28
3.67
3.36
3.21
3.35
3.10
3.44
3.15
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
High
Low
4d.
4c.
Contribute to school & district
Communicating with families
WI Teacher Standards
High
Low
10.
8.
Connected
Assessment
3.15
87
Average
All Years
To fill this in the missing numbers, I will have to recreate the data sets {or if you all have
data from previous years?}
Family & Consumer Sciences
Education
2004
2005
2006
2007
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
High
1e.
Design coherent instruction
2.80
3.41
Low
1d.
Demonstrating knowledge of
resources
3.00
3.14
3.40
3.20
3.62
3.24
3.40
3.45
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
High
Low
2e.
2d.
Organizing physical space
Managing student behavior
3.00
3.50
Domain 3: Instruction
High
3c.
Engages students in learning
Low
3b.
Using questioning &
discussion techniques
Demonstrating flexibility &
responsiveness
3e.
3.21
3.25
2.60
3.34
3.36
3.50
3.00
3.34
3.00
3.06
3.00
2.00
3.59
3.00
3.43
3.50
2.60
3.00
3.55
3.24
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
High
Low
4f.
4c.
Professionalism
Communicating with families
WI Teacher Standards
High
Low
6.
3.
Communicate well
Diverse Learners
Note: FCSE did not have question 2e in previous years. An accommodation was not made when
determining means and averages for the chart above.
88
Average
All Years
To fill this in the missing numbers, I will have to recreate the data sets {or if you all have
data from previous years?}
Marketing and Business Education
2004
2005
2006
2007
3.65
3.46
3.25
3.42
2.83
3.00
3.00
3.50
2.67
3.00
Average
All Years
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
High
1d.
Low
1b.
Demonstrating knowledge of
resources
Demonstrating knowledge of
students
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
High
2a.
Low
2c
2d.
Creating environment of
respect and rapport
Managing classroom
procedures
Managing student behavior
3.35
3.11
2.50
3.00
3.53
3.47
3.39
3.18
3.25
2.75
3.25
3.25
3.00
3.00
Domain 3: Instruction
High
3d.
3a.
Low
3e.
Providing feedback to students
Communicating clearly &
accurately
Demonstrating flexibility and
responsiveness
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
High
Low
4f.
4c.
Showing professionalism
Communicating with families
None
3.00
2.86
2.22
3.50
2.75
3.65
3.38
2.83
2.73
3.33
3.00
WI Teacher Standards
High
Low
7.
3.
Planning instruction
Diverse
Note: MBE did not have question 4f in previous years. An accommodation was not made when determining
means and averages for the chart above.
89
To fill this in the missing numbers, I will have to recreate the data sets {or if you all have
data from previous years?}
Special Education
2004
2005
2006
2007
3.38
3.38
3.46
3.31
3.00
2.78
3.13
3.31
3.00
3.44
3.44
3.44
3.44
3.33
3.38
3.31
2.78
3.33
3.11
2.78
3.67
3.22
Average
All Years
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
High
Low
1b
1d.
1e.
1f.
1a.
1c.
Demonstrate knowledge of students
Demonstrate knowledge of resources
Designing coherent instruction
Assessment
Demonstrating knowledge of content
& pedagogy
Selecting instructional goals
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
High 2b. Creating a culture of learning
Low 2d. Managing student behavior
Domain 3: Instruction
Demonstrating flexibility &
High 3e.
responsiveness
3b. Using questioning & discussion
techniques
3d.
Providing feedback to students
Low
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
High 4f.
Showing professionalism
Low 4b. Maintaining accurate records
3.38
3.54
3.11
3.78
3.25
3.38
2.67
3.33
3.33
3.25
3.50
WI Teacher Standards
High 3.
Diverse
Low 8.
Assessment
None
3.46
3.00
3.11
3.78
3.22
2.78
2.78
3.78
3.11
Note: SpEd did not have question 4f in previous years. An accommodation was not made when determining
means and averages for the chart above.
90
To fill this in the missing numbers, I will have to recreate the data sets {or if you all have
data from previous years?}
Technology Education
2004
2005
2006
3.50
3.59
3.45
3.14
3.46
3.35
3.71
3.68
3.59
3.21
3.38
3.20
2007
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
High
1d.
Low
1b.
Demonstrating knowledge of
resources
Demonstrating knowledge of
student
3.53
3.36
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
High
2a.
Low 2d.
Domain 3:
High 3e.
Low
3b.
3a.
Creating an environment of
respect & rapport
Managing student behavior
Instruction
Demonstrating flexibility and
responsiveness
Using questioning &
discussion techniques
Communicating clearly and
accurately
3.53
3.07
3.39
3.29
3.35
3.52
3.20
3.62
3.37
3.37
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
High
Low
4b.
4c.
Maintaining accurate records
Communicating with families
3.29
3.38
3.68
3.34
3.55
3.26
3.67
3.04
3.50
3.64
3.65
3.60
3.37
WI Teacher Standards
High
Low
10.
3.
Collaboration
Diverse
Note: TE did not have question 4f in previous years. An accommodation was not made when determining
means and averages for the chart above.
91
Average
All Years
92
Student Teaching Minors
In addition to student teaching in their majors (programs), UW-Stout students can
add a teaching minor. A teaching minor requires student teaching in that area for
certification.
In 2004, 2005, and 2006, 30 ECE (5 additional students added this report)
candidates student taught in Early Childhood Special Education (took SPED-482), 4
FCSE candidates student taught in Health Education, and 2 TECED candidates
student taught in History Education (no new students). The student teaching data for
each of these minors in 2004, 2005, 2006 and average total are given as follows:
Early Childhood Special Education
2004
2005
2006
Average
All Years
3.60
3.65
3.80
3.67
3.50
3.32
3.75
3.41
3.60
3.78
4.00
3.79
3.60
3.47
3.40
3.48
3.80
3.79
3.80
3.79
3.20
3.55
3.60
3.50
3.80
3.80
3.75
3.55
3.80
3.60
3.77
3.60
3.50
3.25
3.80
3.25
4.00
3.40
3.79
3.28
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
High
Low
1b.
1d.
Demonstrating knowledge of
student
Demonstrating knowledge of
resources
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
High
2b.
Low
2d.
Establishing a culture of
learning
Managing student behavior
Domain 3: Instruction
High
Low
3e.
3b.
Demonstrating flexibility and
responsiveness
Using questioning & discussion
techniques
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
High
Low
4a.
4c.
Reflecting on teaching
Communicating with families
WI Teacher Standards
High
Low
9.
8.
Reflection
Assessment
68
2004
2005
2006
Average
All Years
Assessing student learning
3.00
3.20
None
3.17
Demonstrating knowledge of
content & pedagogy
Demonstrating knowledge of
resources
Designing coherent instruction
3.00
2.80
None
2.83
3.00
2.80
None
2.83
3.00
2.80
None
2.83
3.00
3.20
None
3.17
2.00
2.80
None
2.67
Communicating clearly &
accurately
3.00
3.25
None
3.20
Engaging students in learning
2.00
2.80
None
2.67
None
3.25
None
3.25
2.00
2.60
None
2.50
3.00
3.00
3.40
2.60
None
None
3.33
2.67
Health Education
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
High
1f.
1a.
Low
1d.
1e.
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
High
2a.
Low
2d.
Creating an environment of
respect and rapport
Managing student behavior
Domain 3: Instruction
High
Low
3a.
3c.
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
High
4f.
Low
4d.
Showing professionalism
Contributing to the school and
district
WI Teacher Standards
High
Low
8.
9.
Assessment
Reflection
69
History Education
2004
2005
2006
Average
All Years
None
3.50
None
3.50
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
High
Low
1d.
Demonstrating knowledge of
resources
1b.
Demonstrating knowledge of
students
None
None
2.50
Creating an environment of
respect and rapport
Establishing a culture of
learning
Managing student behavior
None
3.00
None
3.00
None
3.00
None
3.00
None
3.00
None
3.00
Managing classroom
procedures
Organizing physical space
None
2.50
None
2.50
None
2.50
None
2.50
None
3.00
None
3.00
None
3.00
None
None
3.00
2.50
None
3.00
2.50
None
3.50
None
3.50
None
2.50
None
2.50
None
None
None
4.00
2.50
2.50
None
None
None
4.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment
2a.
High
2b.
2d.
2c.
Low
2e.
Domain 3: Instruction
3a.
High
3b.
Low
3c.
3d.
Communicating clearly &
accurately
Using questioning & discussion
techniques
Engaging students in learning
Providing feedback to students
3.00
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
High
4a.
Low
4d.
Reflecting on teaching
Contributing to the school and
district
WI Teacher Standards
High
Low
10.
2.
3.
Collaboration
Development
Diverse Learners
70
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI)
for Exiting Student Teachers
The Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) of exiting student teachers is administered via
computer at the end of student teaching for the purpose of unit assessment. Of the 180 student
teachers attempted to survey, 156 surveys were returned. This is an overall response rate of 87%
for 2005/06. In 2006, Stout’s response rate was higher than the aggregate response rate for
Carnegie class institutions (77%) and all participating institutions (68%). Of the 231 student
teachers attempted to survey in 2005, 179 surveys were returned. This is an overall response rate
of 78% for 2004/05. This compares with the May, 2004 EBI UW-Stout results of 121/176 which
was a return rate of 69%.
In making comparisons between 2005 and 2004, note that the 2004 data was collected in May
and June 2004, before the School of Education fully implemented PI 34. Benchmark
requirements, content test, e-portfolio artifact and reflection requirements, dispositions of
teaching, etc. were implemented for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Review and
PI 34 requirements.
EBI Factor Reliabilities
EBI Factor
Factor 1 . Satisfaction with Quality of School Activities
Factor 2 . Teacher Education Degree Furthered Career
Factor 3 . Importance of Abilities to Foster Student Development
Factor 4 . Degree Enhanced Abilities to Foster Student Development
Factor 5 . Importance of Ability to Develop Curricula
Factor 6 . Degree Enhanced Ability to Develop Curricula
Factor 7 . Importance of Classroom Equity and Diversity
Factor 8 . Degree Enhanced Classroom Equity and Diversity
Factor 9 . Importance of Ability to Manage Constituencies
Factor 10 . Degree Enhanced Ability to Manage Constituencies
Factor 11 . Importance of Ability to Assess Learning
Factor 12 . Degree Enhanced Ability to Assess Learning
Factor 13 . Satisfaction with Career Choice
Factor 14 . Overall Program Effectiveness
71
Reliability
0.78
0.88
0.93
0.95
0.77
0.80
0.87
0.87
0.89
0.91
0.89
0.87
0.81
0.94
A longitudinal analysis was performed to compare the UW-Stout EBI results on the 14 factors.
Differences in factor mean scores are noted in the table below and are sorted from highest
difference to lowest difference. Factors with the highest means were Student Teaching
Experiences, Support Services, and Satisfaction with Faculty and Course. Factors with the lowest
means were Management of Educational Constituencies and Career Services. Student teachers
responded on a 7 point scale with 1= not at all, 4 = moderately and 7 = extremely.
EBI Factor Means Highest Difference to Lowest Difference
EBI Factor
Factor 9: Administration Services
Factor 3: Research Methods, Professional
Development, Societal Implications
Factor 14: Overall Program Effectiveness
Factor 1: Quality of Instruction
Factor 10: Support Services
Factor 5: Classroom Equity and Diversity
Factor 7: Assessment of Student Learning
Factor 2: Learning Theories, Teaching
Pedagogy/Techniques
Factor 8: Satisfaction with Faculty and
Course
Factor 4: Aspects of Student Development
Factor 11: Fellow Students in Program
Factor 13: Career Services
Factor 6: Management of Educational
Constituencies
Factor 12: Student Teaching
Experiences
2003/4
2004/5 2005/6 2006/7
Ï or Ð from
2005/6 to 2006/7
Ï
Ï
4.47
4.46
4.74
5.11
4.12
4.24
4.36
4.65
4.72
4.45
5.25
4.63
4.79
4.07
4.37
4.99
4.68
4.93
4.51
4.65
5.27
4.70
5.06
4.80
4.93
5.54
4.93
5.23
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
Ï
4.65
4.70
4.90
5.04
Ï
5.32
5.33
5.36
5.50
Ï
4.77
5.24
3.69
4.85
5.34
3.83
5.05
5.41
4.23
5.18
5.43
4.25
Ï
Ï
Ï
3.95
3.91
4.24
4.19
Ð
5.71
5.49
5.78
5.69
Ð
On the EBI questions level, the student teachers respond on a 7 point scale with 1=not at all, 4=
moderately and 7=extremely. When conducting a longitudinal comparison of the questions with
the greatest positive difference between 2006 question means and 2007 question means, the
following positive differences were found:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Q29 – The degree that coursework addresses: Educational policy
Q28 – The degree that coursework addresses: School Law
Q24 – The degree that coursework addresses: Teaching Methods (pedagogy)
Q30 – The degree that coursework addresses: Professional Ethics
Q62 – Satisfaction with: Academic advising by faculty
Q38 – The degree that coursework enhances your ability to: Develop curricula
Q52 – The degree that coursework enhances your ability to: Teach children with diverse
academic backgrounds
Q63 – Satisfaction with: Academic advising by non-faculty
Q64 – Satisfaction with: Availability of courses
72
•
•
•
•
•
•
Q18 – Quality of: Feedback on assignments (other than grades)
Q51 - The degree that coursework enhances your ability to: Teach children from diverse
ethnic backgrounds
Q25 – The degree that coursework addresses: Collaboration with colleagues
Q67 – Satisfaction with: Training to utilize Education School’s computing resources
Q54 - The degree that coursework enhances your ability to: Teach areas in your content
field
Q67 – Satisfaction with: Availability of School’s computers
Conversely, on the EBI question level, the greatest negative difference between 2006 and 2007
question means are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Q48 - The degree that coursework enhances your ability to: Work with colleagues in your
school
Q19 – The degree that coursework addresses: Theories of human development
Q49 - The degree that coursework enhances your ability to: Work with school
administrators
Q21 – The degree that coursework addresses: Learning theories
Q36 - The degree that coursework enhances your ability to: Foster social development of
students
Q47 - The degree that coursework enhances your ability to: Deal with school politics
Q68 – Satisfaction with characteristics of your fellow students: Academic quality
It should be noted that several EBI questions did not relate to any EBI factor. Data for these
items is not provided in this report.
73
Trend Analysis of All EBI Factors
The table on the following page depicts a longitudinal analysis comparing the questions with differences
between 2006 means and 2007 means. Differences in question mean scores are noted and are sorted
from highest positive difference to lowest negative difference
74
EBI Factor and Question
Factor 1: Quality of Instruction
Q17 – Quality of: Teaching
Q18 - Quality of: Feedback on assignments (other than grades)
Factor 2: Learning Theories, Teaching
Pedagogy/Techniques
Q24 – Coursework addresses: Teaching methods
Q19 – Coursework addresses: Theories of Hum Dev
Q21 – Coursework addresses: Learning theories
Q20 – Coursework addresses: Classroom Management
Q31 – Coursework addresses: Impact of tech on schools
Factor 3: Research Methods, Professional Development,
Societal Implications
Q27 – Coursework addresses: Professional development
Q30 – Coursework addresses: Professional ethics
Q32 – Coursework addresses: Impact of societal changes on
schools
Q23 – Coursework addresses: Inquiry/research skills
Q29 – Coursework addresses: Educational policy
Q28 – Coursework addresses: School law
Factor 4: Aspects of Student Development
Q34 – Coursework enhances ability to: Effectively develop a
lesson plan
Q35 – Coursework enhances ability to: Foster intellectual
development of students
Q46 – Coursework enhances ability to: Actively engage
students in learning process
Q44 – Coursework enhances ability to: Encourage positive
social interaction among students
Q38 – Coursework enhances ability to: Develop curricula
Q36 – Coursework enhances ability to: Foster social
development of students
Q37 – Coursework enhances ability to: Foster student’s
personal development
Q33 – Coursework enhances ability to: Foster classroom
collaboration
Q45 – Coursework enhances ability to: Encourage self
motivation to students
Q41 – Coursework enhances ability to: Foster holistic learning
Q40 – Coursework enhances ability to: Manage student
behavior
Factor 5: Classroom Equity and Diversity
Q42 – Coursework enhances ability to: Establish equity in the
classroom
Q52 – Coursework enhances ability to: Teach children with
diverse academic backgrounds
Q51 – Coursework enhances ability to: Teach children from
diverse ethnic backgrounds
Factor 6: Management of Education Constituencies
Q48 – Coursework enhances ability to: Work with colleagues
in your school
Q50 – Coursework enhances ability to: Work effectively with
parents
Q49 – Coursework enhances ability to: Work with school
administrators
2003/4
2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8
Ï or Ð from
2006/7 to
2007/8
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
4.45
4.62
4.27
4.37
4.67
4.06
4.65
4.86
4.44
4.93
5.11
4.74
4.90
5.08
4.70
4.65
4.70
4.90
5.04
5.00
4.95
4.70
4.86
4.26
4.50
4.86
4.73
4.83
4.54
4.56
4.97
5.05
5.10
4.70
4.70
5.38
4.97
5.03
4.87
4.95
5.29
5.02
4.98
4.93
4.78
Ð
Ï
Ð
Ï
Ð
4.12
4.24
4.36
4.65
4.51
Ð
4.70
4.47
4.77
4.56
5.06
4.55
5.16
4.96
5.17
4.97
Ï
Ï
4.24
4.42
4.57
4.74
4.58
Ð
3.75
3.34
4.77
3.92
3.51
4.85
3.94
3.54
5.05
4.47
4.03
5.18
4.42
4.02
3.89
5.16
Ð
Ð
Ð
5.69
5.45
5.82
5.95
5.86
Ð
-
-
-
-
5.34
-
5.04
5.05
5.25
5.46
5.29
Ð
4.80
4.87
5.17
5.33
5.23
Ð
4.91
5.04
5.20
5.59
5.22
Ð
4.79
4.81
5.13
5.09
5.18
Ï
4.83
4.77
4.97
5.11
5.13
Ï
4.47
4.70
4.88
5.01
5.04
Ï
-
-
-
-
5.03
-
4.13
4.44
4.58
4.80
4.72
Ð
4.14
4.26
4.43
4.61
4.68
Ï
4.63
4.68
4.70
4.93
4.97
Ï
4.69
4.70
4.96
5.01
5.04
Ï
4.63
4.66
4.56
4.93
4.97
Ï
4.58
4.64
4.58
4.86
4.90
Ï
3.95
3.91
4.24
4.19
4.20
Ï
4.10
4.22
4.60
4.48
4.46
Ð
4.39
4.02
4.45
4.47
4.33
Ð
3.78
3.83
4.10
4.02
4.11
Ï
75
EBI Factor and Question
Q47 – Coursework enhances ability to: Deal with school
politics
Factor 7: Quality of Instruction
Q56 – Coursework enhances ability to: Informally assess
student learning
Q55 – Coursework enhances ability to: Formally assess
student learning
Factor 8: Satisfaction with Faculty and Courses
Q61 – Satisfaction with: Average size of classes
Q58 – Satisfaction with: Accessibility of instructors outside of
class
Q59 – Satisfaction with: Instructor’s responsiveness to student
concerns
Q60 – Satisfaction with: Amount of work required
Factor 9: Administration Services
Q63 – Satisfaction with: Non-faculty academic advising
Q62 – Satisfaction with: Faculty academic advising
Q64 – Satisfaction with: Availability of courses
Factor 10: Support Services
Q65 – Satisfaction with: Quality of library resources
Q66 – Satisfaction with: Availability of computers
Q67 – Satisfaction with: Training for computing
Factor 11: Fellow Students in Program
Q70 – Satisfaction with: Level of camaraderie
Q71 – Satisfaction with: Commitment to teaching profession
Q69 – Satisfaction with: Ability to work in teams
Q68 – Satisfaction with: Academic quality
Factor 12: Student Teaching Experience
Q75 – Satisfaction with: Quality of cooperating teacher
Q77 - Satisfaction with: Support from teachers in school
Q76 – Satisfaction with: Quality of university supervision
Q74 – Satisfaction with: Quality of Learning Experience
Q73 – Satisfaction with: Choice of assignments
Q72 – Satisfaction with: Process of securing a position
Factor 13: Career Services
Q80 – Satisfaction with: Notice of job openings
Q79 – Satisfaction with: Assistance in preparation for
permanent job search
Q83 – Satisfaction with: Number of interviews had
w/employers
Q82 – Satisfaction with: Quality of schools recruiting on
campus
Q81 – Satisfaction with: Number of schools recruiting on
campus
Factor 14: Overall Program Effectiveness
Q88 – Will you recommend your program to a friend?
Q86 – Did the program fulfill your expectations?
Q87 – How do you rate the value of investment you made in
the program?
2003/4
2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8
Ï or Ð from
2006/7 to
2007/8
3.50
3.50
3.81
3.78
3.88
Ï
4.79
4.93
5.06
5.23
5.29
Ï
4.81
4.85
-
-
5.32
-
4.77
4.99
-
-
5.25
-
5.32
5.76
5.33
5.78
5.36
5.87
5.50
6.02
5.44
5.99
Ð
Ð
5.25
5.24
5.27
5.39
5.49
Ï
5.09
5.07
5.14
5.28
5.26
Ð
5.17
4.47
4.45
4.66
4.24
5.25
5.49
5.41
4.85
5.24
5.32
5.23
5.32
5.71
6.18
5.76
5.96
5.05
3.69
-
5.18
4.46
4.69
4.43
4.35
4.99
5.47
5.10
4.37
5.34
5.48
5.24
5.35
5.49
5.82
5.61
5.68
5.06
3.83
-
5.21
4.74
4.73
4.74
4.72
5.27
5.51
5.40
4.89
5.41
5.51
5.47
5.39
5.78
6.11
5.94
5.99
5.34
4.23
-
5.35
5.11
5.09
5.14
5.06
5.54
5.75
5.67
5.16
5.43
5.54
5.42
5.48
5.69
5.92
5.78
5.92
5.24
4.25
-
5.04
4.89
4.94
4.92
4.89
5.29
5.64
5.43
4.66
5.35
5.53
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
5.44
Ï
5.21
5.20
Ð
5.58
6.00
5.89
5.80
5.77
5.01
5.00
Ð
-
-
-
-
4.32
-
3.61
3.57
3.91
4.07
3.82
Ð
3.37
3.51
3.81
4.02
3.62
Ð
-
-
-
-
3.58
-
4.72
5.08
4.59
4.07
4.27
4.00
4.51
4.76
4.54
4.80
5.11
4.81
4.48
4.77
4.44
Ð
Ð
Ð
4.48
3.91
4.23
4.45
4.24
Ð
76
4.06
4.54
Ï
Ï
Ð
Ð
Ð
-
As part of the benchmarking process, the UW-Stout student teacher results were compared to
those of student teachers in 6 selected institutions, to 20 institutions based on Carnegie Class and
to 47 participating institutions. The six selected institutions participating in the comparison group
include: Plymouth State University, Costal Carolina University, Fort Hays State University,
SUNY at Cortland, and University of South Caroline Upstate. Stout is the only University of
Wisconsin Institution to participate in EBI. The EBI results on the 14 factors are compared to
those other institutions in the table on the next page.
In 2006, Stout’s ranking among the comparison group institutions improved in all 14 factors.
Stout ranks third out of seven for Support Services. Stout is ranked seven out of seven for Fellow
Students in the Program. Examination based on the 17 institutions in the Carnegie Class in 2006
revealed that Stout ranks fourth for Support Services and fifth for Administrative Services. Stout
ranks the lowest in the factor for Fellow Students in the Program (16/17). Stout did not rank last
in any factor which is an improvement from 2005. When comparing all 47 institutions
participating in the EBI in 2006, UW-Stout’s highest factor was Support Services (16/47)
followed by Administrative Services (17/47). Stout ranks lowest in Fellow Students in the
Program (44/47) and Classroom Equity and Diversity (43/47).
77
EBI Factor Comparisons to External Groups
Institutional Rankings on EBI Factors
1. Quality of Instruction
2. Learning Theories, Teaching Pedagogy /
Techniques
3. Research Methods, Profession
Development, Societal Implications
4. Aspects of Student Develop
5. Classroom Equity and Diversity
6. Management of Education Constituencies
7. Assessment of Student Learning
8. Satisfaction with Faculty & Courses
9. Administration Services
10. Support Services
11. Fellow Students in Program
12. Student Teaching Experiences
13. Career Services
SOE
Year Mean
2004
2005
2006
2007
2004
2005
2006
2007
2004
2005
2006
2007
2004
2005
2006
2007
2004
2005
2006
2007
2004
2005
2006
2007
2004
2005
2006
2007
2004
2005
2006
2007
2004
2005
2006
2007
2004
2005
2006
2007
2004
2005
2006
2007
2004
2005
2006
2007
2004
2005
4.45
4.37
4.93
4.90
4.65
4.70
5.04
5.00
4.12
4.24
4.65
4.51
4.77
4.85
5.18
5.16
4.63
4.68
4.93
4.97
3.95
3.91
4.19
4.20
4.83
4.93
5.23
5.29
5.32
5.33
5.50
5.44
4.47
4.46
5.11
4.89
5.25
4.99
5.54
5.29
5.24
5.34
5.43
5.35
5.71
5.49
5.69
5.58
3.69
3.83
78
Rank in
7*
Rank in
22/20/17/19
Rank in
45/39/47/53
7
7
6
6
7
7
6
7
7
7
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
7
6
6
6
7
6
7
7
7
6
5
5
6
5
6
5
7
5
6
4
6
3
5
7
7
7
7
3
6
6
7
7
7
21/22
20/20
13/17
16/19
21/22
20/20
12/17
16/19
22/22
20/20
13/17
18/19
21/22
20/20
11/17
15/19
20/22
20/20
14/17
17/19
20/22
19/20
13/17
17/19
22/22
20/20
12/17
14/19
18/22
17/20
9/17
14/19
19/22
19/20
5/17
12/19
10/22
17/20
4/17
11/19
20/22
19/20
16/17
18/19
16/22
17/20
13/17
15/19
22/22
19/20
45/45
38/39
36/47
45/53
43/45
38/39
32/47
44/53
42/45
36/39
33/47
42/53
41/45
38/39
33/47
47/53
40/45
36/39
43/47
49/53
38/45
37/39
38/47
47/53
43/45
38/39
38/47
46/53
35/45
32/39
31/47
40/53
36/45
36/39
17/47
41/53
25/45
34/39
16/47
37/53
43/45
38/39
44/47
52/53
31/45
33/39
31/47
47/53
44/45
36/39
14. Overall Satisfaction with Your Program
2006
2007
2004
2005
2006
2007
4.25
4.06
4.72
4.07
4.80
4.48
6
6
5
7
6
7
10/17
14/19
17/22
20/20
11/17
17/19
30/47
38/53
30/45
39/39
32/47
49/53
Scale: 1-7 with 1=not at all, 4=moderately and 7=extremely.
*Comparison of 6 selected institutions in 2004/05, 2005/05, 2006/07, and 2007/08
**Comparisons to 22/20/17/19 institutions in Carnegie Class in 2004/05, 2005/05, 2006/07, and 2007/08
***Comparisons to other 45/39/47/53 participating institutions in 2004/05, 2005/05, 2006/07, and 2007/08
The 14 EBI factor means for each undergraduate teacher education program along with the unit
means for 2007/08 is shown below. Examination of the 2007/08 program means compared to the
unit means for each factors as follows:
EBI Factor Means by Program
EBI Factors /
Program
Rank
1. Quality of Instruction
FCSE
MBE
SPED
ECE
TECED
ArtEd
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. Learning Theories, Teaching
Pedagogy / Techniques
1
SPED
2
MBE
2
ECE
4
FCSE
5
TECED
6
ArtEd
3. Research Methods, Profession
Development, Societal Implications
1
SPED
2
ECE
3
MBE
4
FCSE
5
TECED
6
ArtEd
4. Aspects of Student Development
1
FCSE
2
SPED
3
ECE
4
MBE
Ï or Ð
SOE Unit Mean
4.90
TECED
ArtED
5
6
5. Classroom Equity and Diversity
5.90 Ï
5.64 Ï
5.18 Ï
4.13 Ï
4.35 Ð
4.22 Ð
SPED
ECE
MBE
FCSE
ArtEd
TECED
EBI Factors /
Program
5.00
5.60 Ï
5.57 Ï
5.18 Ï
4.87 Ð
4.65 Ð
4.34 Ð
5.46 Ï
5.37 Ï
5.24 Ï
5.22 Ï
4.40 Ð
4.29 Ð
Rank
Ï or Ð
SOE Unit Mean
1
2
3
4
5
6
7. Assessment of Student Learning
1
MBE
2
SPED
3
ECE
4
FCSE
5
ArtED
6
TECED
8. Satisfaction with Faculty &
Courses
1
FCSE
2
SPED
4.51
4.95 Ï
4.80 Ï
4.64 Ï
4.42 Ð
4.11 Ð
4.00 Ð
5.16
5.67 Ï
5.60 Ï
5.58 Ï
5.37 Ï
79
4.97
1
2
3
4
5
6
6. Management of Education
Constituencies
SPED
ECE
FCSE
MBE
ArtEd
TECED
4.54 Ð
4.25 Ð
4.20
4.88 Ï
4.75 Ï
4.42 Ï
4.39 Ï
3.72 Ð
3.25 Ð
5.29
5.86 Ï
5.69 Ï
5.49 Ï
5.42 Ï
5.15 Ð
4.84 Ð
5.44
6.42 Ï
5.77 Ï
MBE
ECE
ArtED
TECED
3
4
5
6
5.71 Ï
5.56 Ï
5.52 Ï
4.85 Ð
1
2
3
4
5
6.00 Ï
5.26 Ï
5.19 Ï
4.90 Ï
4.77 Ð
6
4.44 Ð
1
2
3
4
5
6
5.90 Ï
5.44 Ï
5.38 Ï
5.36 Ï
5.27 Ð
5.14 Ð
5.29
10. Support Services
MBE
FCSE
ArtEd
SPED
ECE
TECED
4.89
9. Administration Services
FCSE
SPED
MBE
ECE
ArtED
TECED
80
EBI Factors /
Program
Rank
11. Fellow Students in Program
1
SPED
2
MBE
3
FCSE
4
ECE
5
TECED
6
ArtEd
12. Student Teaching Experiences
1
FCSE
2
SPED
3
ECE
4
ArtEd
5
TECED
6
MBE
13. Career Services
SPED
ArtEd
FCSE
TECED
ECE
MBE
1
2
3
4
5
6
14. Overall Satisfaction with Your
Program
1
FCSE
2
ECE
3
MBE
4
SPED
5
ArtEd
6
TECED
Ï or Ð
SOE Unit Mean
5.35
5.62 Ï
5.61 Ï
5.50 Ï
5.35 Ï
5.24 Ð
5.18 Ð
5.58
5.86 Ï
5.84 Ï
5.76 Ï
5.58 Ï
5.24 Ð
5.21 Ð
4.06
4.53 Ï
4.44 Ï
4.32 Ï
4.09 Ï
4.03 Ð
3.01 Ð
4.48
5.50 Ï
4.92 Ï
4.86 Ï
4.79 Ï
3.80 Ð
3.66 Ð
81
Each EBI participating institution can add ten questions to the EBI Teacher Education Exit
Assessment which are institution specific. UW-Stout adds 10 questions that are closely related to
the Wisconsin Teaching Standards. Those results are provided in the table below. Between 2005
and 2006, means increased in all ten areas. From 2006 to 2007, means increased in all areas
except “creating instructional experiences adapted for students who learn differently”.
EBI SOE Specific Questions Related to Wisconsin Teacher Standards
Means
2004/5 2005/6 2006/7
N=179 N=142 N=156
To what degree were you prepared to…
1. Create meaningful learning experiences for students based on
your content knowledge?
2. Provide instruction that supports student learning and
intellectual, social and personal development?
3. Create instructional experiences adapted for students who
learn differently?
4. Use a variety of learning strategies to encourage critical
thinking and problem solving?
5. Create a learning environment that encourages positive social
interaction, active engagement in learning and selfmotivation?
6. Use effective verbal and nonverbal communication
techniques, media and technology to foster active inquiry,
collaboration and supportive interaction in the classroom?
7. Plan instruction based on knowledge of subject matter,
students, the community and curriculum goals?
8. Use formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate
student progress?
9. Reflect on teaching and evaluate the effects of choices and
actions on pupils, parents and others?
10. Foster relationships with colleagues, families and the
community to support student learning and well-being?
Scale 1-7 with 1=not at all, 4=moderately, 7=extremely
86
4.91
5.13
5.24
4.72
5.02
5.09
4.48
5.01
4.96
4.71
4.95
5.11
4.88
5.00
5.14
4.70
4.87
5.14
4.84
5.13
5.19
4.57
4.68
4.89
4.87
5.29
5.50
4.64
4.96
5.00
The table below identifies the program means for student teachers in 2004/05, 2005/06 and
2006/07 on each of the ten specific questions related to the Wisconsin Teacher Standards.
EBI SOE Specific Questions Related to Wisconsin Teacher Standards by Individual
Program
EBI Specific
Questions Related to
Wisconsin Teacher
Standards By
Program
Q1. Content
Q2. Development
Q3. Diverse learners
Q4. Instruction
strategies
Q5. Learning
environment
Q6. Communication
Q7. Planning
instruction
Q8. Assessment
Q9. Reflection
Q10. Collaboration
ArtEd
ECE
FCSE
MBE
SPED
TECED
Mean
(N)
Mean
(N)
Mean
(N)
Mean
(N)
Mean
(N)
Mean
(N)
5.17(6)
5.50 (8)
5.20(10)
4.83(6)
5.13 (8)
4.70(10)
4.17(6)
4.88 (8)
4.44(9)
4.33(6)
5.00 (8)
4.33(9)
5.33(6)
5.63 (8)
4.44(9)
4.67(6)
5.13 (8)
4.89(9)
5.00(6)
5.00 (8)
5.56(9)
4.33(6)
4.75 (8)
5.11(9)
3.83(6)
5.50 (8)
5.44(9)
3.83(6)
5.25 (8)
3.89(9)
5.47(36)
5.17 (58)
5.36(50)
5.22(36)
5.22 (58)
5.37(51)
4.72(36)
5.13 (56)
5.02(50)
5.08(36)
4.91 (58)
5.10(51)
5.36(36)
5.24 (58)
5.47(51)
4.78(36)
4.79 (57)
5.12(51)
5.31(36)
5.16 (58)
5.30(50)
4.67(36)
4.40 (58)
4.76(51)
5.40(36)
5.50 (58)
5.80(51)
5.39(36)
5.19 (58)
5.32(50)
5.27(11)
5.17 (6)
5.75(16)
5.00(11)
5.17 (6)
5.44(16)
4.90(11)
4.67 (6)
4.75(16)
5.00(11)
5.50 (6)
5.25(16)
4.64(11)
4.67 (6)
5.25(16)
5.09(11)
5.33 (6)
5.50(16)
4.91(11)
5.00 (6)
5.81(16)
4.55(11)
4.50 (6)
5.31(16)
5.00(11)
5.33 (6)
4.94(16)
4.73(11)
5.33 (6)
4.56(16)
5.62(13)
5.45 (11)
5.50(12)
4.77(13)
4.91 (11)
5.42(12)
4.54(13)
5.27 (11)
5.25(12)
5.23(13)
5.45 (11)
5.50(12)
5.38(13)
5.09 (11)
5.25(12)
5.46(13)
5.45 (11)
6.00(12)
5.46(13)
5.45 (11)
5.58(12)
5.00(13)
5.27 (11)
5.08(12)
5.00(13)
5.73 (11)
6.33(12)
5.00(13)
5.55 (11)
5.67(12)
Year
2004/5
2005/6
2006/7
2004/5
2005/6
2006/7
2004/5
2005/6
2006/7
2004/5
2005/6
2006/7
2004/5
2005/6
2006/7
2004/5
2005/6
2006/7
2004/5
2005/6
2006/7
2004/5
2005/6
2006/7
2004/5
2005/6
2006/7
2004/5
2005/6
2006/7
Scale 1-7 with 1=not at all, 4=moderately, 7=extremely
87
5.00(11)
5.30 (10)
5.58(12)
4.55(11)
5.30 (10)
5.50(12)
4.55(11)
5.89 (9)
6.36(12)
4.55(11)
5.22 (9)
5.92(12)
5.00(11)
5.44 (9)
5.75(12)
4.82(11)
4.89 (9)
5.08(12)
4.50(11)
5.89 (9)
5.17(12)
4.55(11)
5.67 (9)
5.25(12)
4.55(11)
6.00 (9)
5.83(12)
4.91(11)
5.56 (9)
5.75(12)
4.23(44)
4.86 (36)
4.69(42)
4.36(44)
4.57 (35)
4.52(42)
4.25(44)
4.56 (34)
4.57(42)
4.34(44)
4.69 (35)
4.86(42)
4.45(44)
4.34 (35)
4.60(42)
4.52(44)
4.63 (35)
4.81(42)
4.25(44)
4.77 (35)
4.60(42)
4.57(44)
4.69 (35)
4.63(41)
4.61(44)
4.60 (35)
5.05(41)
4.25(44)
4.11 (35)
4.64(42)
ArtEd
EBI Factor & Item Analysis by Program
F1: Quality of Instruction
Q17. Teaching
Q18. Feedback on assignments (other than grades)
F2: Learning Theories, Teaching Pedagogy/Techniques
Q19. Theories of human development
Q20. Classroom management
Q21. Learning theories
Q24. Teaching methods (pedagogy)
Q31. Impact of technology on schools
F3: Research Methods, Professional Development, Societal Implication
Q23. Inquiry/research skills
Q27. Professional development
Q28. School law
Q29. Educational policy
Q30. Professional ethics
Q32. Impact of societal changes on schools
F4: Aspects of Student Development
Q34. Effectively develop a lesson plan
Q38. Develop curricula
Q40. Manage behavior of students
Q41. Foster holistic learning
Q44. Encourage positive social interaction among students
Q45. Encourage self motivation in students
Q46. Actively engage students in the learning process
Q33. Foster classroom collaboration
Q35. Foster intellectual development of students
Q36. Foster social development of students
Q37. Foster student’s personal development
F5: Classroom Equity & Diversity
Q42. Establish equity in the classroom
Q51. Teach children from diverse ethnic backgrounds
Q52. Teach children from diverse academic backgrounds
F6: Management of Education Constituencies
Q47. Deal with school politics
Q48. Work with colleagues in your school
Q49. Work with school administrators
Q50. Work effectively with parents
F7: Assessment of Student Learning
Q55. Formally assess student learning
Q56. Informally assess student learning
F8: Satisfaction with Faculty & Courses
Q58. Accessibility of instructors outside of class.
Q59. Instructor’s responsiveness to student concerns
Q60. Amount of work required of student
Q61. Average size of classes
F9: Administrative Services
Q62. Academic advising by faculty
Q63. Academic advising by non-faculty
Q64. Availability of courses
88
ECE
FCSE
SOE UNIT
04/05
N=7
05/06
N=8
06/07
N=10
07/08
N=10
03/04
N=53
04/05
N=41
05/06
N=62
06/07
N=55
07/08
N=50
03/04
N=5
04/05
N=11
05/06
N=6
06/07
N=17
07/08
N=6
04/05
N=174
05/06
N=142
06/07
N=156
07/08
N=121
3.93
4.00
3.86
4.94
5.00
4.88
4.55
4.70
4.40
4.22
4.44
4.00
4.17
4.43
3.87
4.47
4.78
4.17
4.62
4.79
4.44
4.87
5.22
4.49
5.13
5.40
4.84
5.10
5.20
5.00
4.73
4.91
4.55
5.17
5.33
5.00
5.50
5.62
5.47
5.90
6.00
6.00
4.37
4.67
4.06
4.65
4.86
4.44
4.93
5.11
4.74
4.90
5.08
4.70
4.66
4.14
4.43
4.86
4.86
5.00
4.62
4.25
4.75
4.88
4.75
4.50
4.52
4.50
4.00
4.70
4.80
4.60
4.34
4.40
3.80
4.20
4.40
4.90
4.56
5.07
4.20
5.04
4.69
3.80
4.86
5.56
4.55
5.08
4.97
4.08
4.91
5.53
4.58
5.13
4.90
4.40
5.16
5.31
5.12
5.17
5.52
4.63
5.18
5.22
5.26
5.02
5.48
4.92
4.42
4.60
3.60
4.00
5.60
4.50
4.44
5.09
3.73
4.36
4.36
4.09
4.67
5.00
4.17
4.50
5.33
4.33
5.16
5.24
5.06
5.06
5.53
4.94
4.87
5.33
3.67
4.50
5.83
5.00
4.70
4.73
4.54
4.83
4.86
4.56
4.90
5.05
4.70
5.10
4.97
4.70
5.04
4.97
4.87
5.03
5.38
4.95
5.00
5.02
4.93
4.98
5.29
4.78
4.19
3.86
4.29
3.71
4.29
4.33
4.71
4.33
5.00
5.13
3.38
4.00
4.25
4.25
4.05
3.90
4.70
2.90
3.90
4.50
4.40
4.00
3.90
4.90
3.20
3.50
4.22
4.30
3.76
3.84
4.36
2.98
3.29
4.09
3.98
4.32
4.26
5.26
3.45
3.90
4.45
4.46
4.31
4.47
5.40
3.31
3.69
4.53
4.51
4.81
4.55
5.60
4.23
4.54
5.29
4.73
4.80
4.76
5.70
3.86
4.20
5.34
4.92
4.83
4.60
5.80
4.40
4.80
4.60
4.80
3.53
3.55
4.45
2.91
2.91
3.64
3.73
3.89
4.00
4.17
3.50
3.33
4.00
4.33
4.54
4.82
5.35
3.47
4.29
4.41
4.88
4.42
4.17
4.67
4.00
4.00
4.67
5.00
4.24
4.18
4.77
3.51
3.92
4.56
4.42
4.36
4.52
5.06
3.54
3.94
4.55
4.57
4.65
4.54
5.16
4.03
4.47
4.96
4.74
4.51
4.42
5.17
3.89
4.02
4.97
4.58
4.44
5.57
5.00
3.14
3.57
4.14
4.43
5.00
4.41
5.00
4.43
-
4.56
5.25
4.63
4.38
4.25
4.50
4.50
4.63
4.50
4.63
4.63
-
4.63
4.60
5.60
4.80
4.40
4.50
4.70
4.10
4.20
4.70
4.40
4.50
4.25
5.20
4.80
3.60
3.90
4.40
4.10
4.30
4.50
3.80
3.90
4.77
5.87
4.68
4.11
3.79
4.89
4.69
5.00
4.33
4.93
5.04
-
5.31
6.05
5.11
4.51
4.87
5.55
5.45
5.68
5.00
5.45
5.37
-
5.37
6.24
5.33
4.64
4.78
5.54
5.28
5.73
5.19
5.57
5.63
-
5.53
5.27
6.33
5.55
5.57
5.49
5.63
5.04
5.12
5.73
5.31
5.49
5.58
6.31
5.29
5.14
5.04
5.73
5.57
5.33
5.88
5.78
5.67
5.47
6.20
5.00
4.50
4.50
5.60
5.80
6.00
5.00
5.60
5.60
-
4.64
5.55
5.26
3.73
3.82
4.73
4.64
5.09
4.55
4.36
4.45
-
5.12
6.33
6.17
4.17
4.17
5.33
5.33
6.00
4.50
4.67
4.83
-
5.37
5.35
6.35
5.53
5.31
5.29
6.12
4.65
4.71
5.47
4.88
5.29
5.67
6.80
6.67
4.67
5.17
5.50
5.50
5.33
5.67
5.50
5.33
4.85
5.45
5.04
4.26
4.44
4.87
4.74
5.05
4.70
4.96
4.81
-
5.05
5.82
5.20
4.43
4.58
5.17
4.96
5.25
4.88
5.17
5.13
-
5.18
5.95
5.59
4.61
4.80
5.33
4.97
5.46
5.01
5.26
5.09
5.11
5.16
5.86
5.22
4.68
4.72
5.23
5.03
5.29
5.04
5.34
5.18
5.13
3.62
4.00
3.43
3.43
4.63
4.88
4.50
4.50
4.30
4.10
4.60
4.20
4.40
4.00
4.70
4.50
4.60
4.62
4.60
4.58
4.90
5.05
4.82
4.84
4.77
5.12
4.59
4.59
5.14
5.40
4.96
5.06
5.37
5.45
5.22
5.45
5.73
5.60
5.80
5.80
4.30
4.36
4.18
4.36
4.22
4.67
4.17
3.83
4.96
5.06
4.76
5.06
5.22
5.83
5.00
4.83
4.68
4.70
4.64
4.66
4.70
4.96
4.58
4.56
4.93
5.01
4.86
4.93
4.97
5.04
4.90
4.97
3.21
3.14
3.29
3.43
3.00
3.94
3.75
4.25
3.88
3.88
3.12
3.00
3.50
3.00
3.00
3.72
3.60
4.00
3.50
3.80
3.91
3.21
3.93
3.56
4.82
4.23
3.43
4.73
3.97
4.71
4.32
3.63
4.78
4.03
4.85
4.64
4.04
4.90
4.42
5.24
4.75
4.24
5.10
4.65
5.00
5.35
4.80
5.40
5.40
5.80
3.77
3.09
4.00
3.73
4.27
4.13
3.67
4.00
4.00
4.83
4.38
3.82
4.76
4.29
4.65
4.42
3.83
4.67
4.50
4.67
3.91
3.50
4.22
3.83
4.02
4.24
3.81
4.60
4.10
4.45
4.19
3.78
4.48
4.02
4.47
4.20
3.88
4.46
4.11
4.33
4.93
5.00
4.86
4.69
4.75
4.63
4.55
4.90
4.20
5.15
5.20
5.10
4.68
4.38
4.69
5.11
5.00
5.24
5.02
4.92
5.12
5.04
5.00
5.06
5.49
5.35
5.61
5.29
5.20
5.00
4.82
4.91
4.70
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.94
5.94
5.94
5.42
5.33
5.50
4.93
4.99
4.85
5.06
5.04
5.09
5.23
5.30
5.19
5.29
5.25
5.32
4.82
5.00
4.86
4.14
5.29
5.88
5.75
5.75
6.00
6.00
5.52
5.00
5.30
5.50
6.30
5.52
5.50
5.30
5.50
5.80
5.10
4.98
4.7
5.02
5.70
5.61
5.42
5.24
5.37
6.38
5.35
5.31
5.15
5.22
5.86
5.39
5.42
5.19
5.15
5.82
5.56
5.55
5.43
5.22
6.02
6.69
6.75
7.00
6.00
7.00
5.86
6.18
5.64
5.27
6.36
5.38
5.33
5.17
5.33
5.67
6.35
6.41
6.41
6.12
6.47
6.42
6.50
6.50
5.83
6.83
5.33
5.24
5.07
5.18
5.78
5.36
5.27
5.14
5.21
5.87
5.50
5.39
5.28
5.35
6.02
5.44
5.49
5.26
5.04
5.99
3.40
3.00
3.00
3.71
3.75
3.00
4.71
4.00
4.30
3.90
4.38
4.70
4.77
4.20
5.67
5.20
4.09
4.28
4.17
3.86
4.98
4.78
5.06
5.00
4.80
4.90
4.68
4.73
5.09
5.27
5.02
4.96
4.90
5.15
4.93
4.80
6.00
7.00
4.67
5.75
5.61
6.00
5.75
5.09
5.14
5.17
4.60
5.33
6.09
6.24
5.69
6.18
6.00
6.00
5.40
6.33
4.46
4.43
4.69
4.35
4.74
4.74
4.73
4.72
5.11
5.14
5.09
5.06
4.89
4.92
4.94
4.89
ArtEd
EBI Factor & Item Analysis by Program
F10: Support Services
Q65. Quality of library resources
Q66. Availability of Education School’s computers
Q67. Training to utilize Education School’s computing resources
F11: Fellow Students in Program
Q68. Academic quality
Q69. Ability to work in teams
Q70. Level of camaraderie
Q71. Commitment to teaching profession
F12: Student Teaching Experience
Q72. Process of securing a position
Q73. Choice of assignments
Q74. Quality of learning experience
Q75. Quality of cooperating teacher
Q76. Quality of university supervision
Q77. Support from teachers in school
F13: Career Services
Q79. Assistance in preparation for permanent job search
Q80. Notice of job openings
Q81. Number of schools recruiting on campus
Q83. Number of interviews had with employers
Q82. Quality of schools recruiting
F14: Overall Satisfaction with Your Program
Q86. Extent that the Education program experience fulfilled your
expectations
Q87. Comparing the experience to the quality of education, rate the
value of the investment made in your Education program
Q88. How inclined are you to recommend your Education program
to a close friend
89
ECE
FCSE
SOE UNIT
04/05
N=7
3.33
4.86
2.83
2.14
05/06
N=8
5.54
6.14
5.38
5.38
06/07
N=10
5.23
5.80
5.11
4.56
07/08
N=10
5.38
5.67
5.25
4.89
03/04
N=53
5.15
5.44
5.26
4.74
04/05
N=41
5.50
5.97
5.43
4.89
05/06
N=62
5.25
5.48
5.45
4.84
06/07
N=55
5.42
5.65
5.64
5.11
07/08
N=50
5.27
5.67
5.39
4.61
03/04
N=5
5.30
5.60
5.25
4.80
04/05
N=11
5.30
5.55
5.55
4.90
05/06
N=6
4.95
5.50
6.00
3.60
06/07
N=17
5.83
6.29
5.69
5.14
07/08
N=6
5.44
6.17
5.50
4.67
04/05
N=174
4.99
5.47
5.10
4.37
05/06
N=142
5.27
5.51
5.40
4.89
06/07
N=156
5.54
5.75
5.67
5.16
07/08
N=121
5.29
5.64
5.43
4.66
5.21
4.43
5.29
5.57
5.57
5.41
5.38
5.25
5.63
5.38
5.00
4.50
5.10
5.20
5.20
5.18
5.20
5.10
5.40
5.00
5.08
4.95
5.12
5.05
5.19
5.78
5.78
5.84
5.83
5.68
5.59
5.58
5.53
5.64
5.69
5.54
5.60
5.59
5.49
5.49
5.35
5.22
5.08
5.69
5.41
6.00
5.75
6.00
6.25
6.00
4.70
4.45
4.36
5.00
5.00
5.33
5.50
5.00
5.17
5.67
5.51
5.59
5.47
5.69
5.35
5.50
6.17
5.00
5.00
5.50
5.34
5.26
5.35
5.48
5.24
5.41
5.32
5.39
5.51
5.47
5.43
5.31
5.48
5.54
5.42
5.35
5.20
5.21
5.53
5.44
5.21
4.67
4.57
5.43
5.29
5.29
5.86
5.69
5.00
4.75
6.25
6.38
5.75
6.00
5.65
4.80
5.20
6.20
6.30
5.60
5.80
5.58
5.00
5.50
5.50
6.00
5.60
5.90
5.75
4.91
5.18
6.09
6.23
5.82
6.25
5.50
4.97
4.97
5.97
6.16
5.41
6.34
5.76
5.25
5.34
6.10
6.18
5.68
6.15
5.81
5.33
5.33
5.96
6.20
6.06
5.94
5.76
5.30
5.00
6.00
6.10
5.96
6.18
6.29
6.00
5.25
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.00
5.66
5.27
5.90
6.00
6.11
5.56
5.38
5.75
5.50
5.83
6.17
5.17
6.50
5.33
6.05
5.82
5.76
5.94
5.88
6.59
6.24
5.86
6.00
5.00
6.33
5.80
6.60
4.80
5.49
5.06
5.02
5.68
5.82
5.61
5.89
5.78
5.34
5.34
5.99
6.11
5.94
6.03
5.69
5.24
5.29
5.92
5.92
5.78
5.99
5.58
5.00
5.01
5.77
6.00
5.80
5.89
2.10
2.60
2.20
1.80
2.00
1.67
4.75
5.00
4.88
4.57
4.57
5.14
3.56
4.67
4.20
2.80
3.11
3.50
4.44
4.00
4.86
4.17
4.33
4.33
3.42
3.98
3.75
2.97
3.00
3.11
4.29
4.67
4.52
4.04
3.65
4.25
3.99
4.20
4.27
3.51
3.12
3.55
4.21
4.27
4.69
3.90
4.24
3.97
4.03
4.27
4.46
3.63
3.70
3.66
4.20
5.20
4.80
3.40
3.80
4.50
3.86
3.70
5.27
3.00
3.63
3.67
4.38
4.40
4.20
3.50
2.33
4.00
3.85
3.71
4.67
3.15
3.70
3.42
4.32
4.67
5.33
3.83
4.00
3.50
3.83
4.23
4.18
3.34
3.57
3.51
4.23
4.31
4.67
3.62
3.91
3.81
4.25
4.35
4.75
3.69
4.07
4.02
4.06
4.32
4.54
3.58
3.82
3.62
3.24
3.67
4.00
3.80
4.67
4.08
4.73
4.91
4.92
5.66
4.76
5.06
5.49
5.50
4.07
4.51
4.80
4.48
3.33
3.50
3.90
3.60
4.52
4.22
4.83
4.92
5.11
5.40
4.36
5.00
5.53
5.17
4.00
4.54
4.81
4.44
3.43
3.75
3.80
3.90
4.43
3.81
4.39
4.50
4.57
5.60
4.27
4.83
5.00
5.33
3.91
4.23
4.45
4.24
2.86
3.75
4.30
3.90
5.05
4.16
4.97
5.31
5.17
6.00
5.64
5.33
5.94
6.00
4.27
4.76
5.11
4.77
EBI Factor & Item Analysis by Program
F1: Quality of Instruction
Q17. Teaching
Q18. Feedback on assignments (other than grades)
F2: Learning Theories, Teaching Pedagogy/Techniques
Q19. Theories of human development
Q20. Classroom management
Q21. Learning theories
Q24. Teaching methods (pedagogy)
Q31. Impact of technology on schools
F3: Research Methods, Professional Development, Societal Implication
Q23. Inquiry/research skills
Q27. Professional development
Q28. School law
Q29. Educational policy
Q30. Professional ethics
Q32. Impact of societal changes on schools
F4: Aspects of Student Development
Q34. Effectively develop a lesson plan
Q38. Develop curricula
Q40. Manage behavior of students
Q41. Foster holistic learning
Q44. Encourage positive social interaction among students
Q45. Encourage self motivation in students
Q46. Actively engage students in the learning process
Q33. Foster classroom collaboration
Q35. Foster intellectual development of students
Q36. Foster social development of students
Q37. Foster student’s personal development
F5: Classroom Equity & Diversity
Q42. Establish equity in the classroom
Q51. Teach children from diverse ethnic backgrounds
Q52. Teach children from diverse academic backgrounds
F6: Management of Education Constituencies
Q47. Deal with school politics
Q48, Work with colleagues in your school
Q49. Work with school administrators
Q50. Work effectively with parents
F7: Assessment of Student Learning
Q55. Formally assess student learning
Q56. Informally assess student learning
F8: Satisfaction with Faculty & Courses
Q58. Accessibility of instructors outside of class.
Q59. Instructor’s responsiveness to student concerns
Q60. Amount of work required of student
Q61. Average size of classes
F9: Administrative Services
Q62. Academic advising by faculty
Q63. Academic advising by non-faculty
Q64. Availability of courses
90
03/04
N=13
5.19
5.31
5.08
04/05
N=13
5.42
5.25
5.46
MBE
05/06
N=12
4.92
5.08
4.75
06/07
N=12
5.09
5.00
5.18
07/08
N=7
5.64
5.43
5.86
03/04
N=12
4.83
4.92
4.75
04/05
N=13
4.65
5.23
4.08
SPED
05/06
N=11
4.82
5.50
4.30
06/07
N=12
5.71
5.83
5.58
07/08
N=14
5.18
5.43
4.93
03/04
N=37
4.38
4.46
4.30
04/05
N=52
4.06
4.47
3.64
TECED
05/06
N=41
4.42
4.64
4.16
06/07
N=48
4.59
4.70
4.47
07/08
N=34
4.35
4.45
4.22
04/05
N=174
4.37
4.67
4.06
SOE UNIT
05/06
06/07
N=142 N=156
4.65
4.93
4.86
5.11
4.44
4.74
5.07
4.17
5.08
5.08
5.50
5.50
4.68
4.75
5.25
3.75
4.33
5.25
4.75
5.58
4.77
5.62
5.38
6.15
6.00
5.23
5.23
6.08
4.08
5.08
5.54
5.38
5.22
4.75
5.17
5.33
5.50
5.33
4.85
5.08
5.33
3.92
4.42
5.42
4.92
5.02
4.00
4.92
4.50
5.92
5.75
4.64
4.75
5.25
3.83
4.18
5.08
4.73
5.57
4.86
5.43
5.71
5.86
6.00
4.64
4.57
4.86
3.71
4.14
5.57
5.00
4.53
4.42
4.25
4.50
4.67
4.83
4.67
4.25
4.83
4.33
4.67
5.25
4.67
4.55
4.42
5.33
4.83
4.08
4.08
4.01
3.67
3.92
3.83
3.83
4.67
4.17
5.08
4.82
5.18
5.18
5.70
4.82
4.89
4.36
5.36
4.73
5.00
4.91
5.00
5.23
4.92
5.33
5.33
5.67
4.92
5.35
5.33
5.25
5.25
4.92
5.67
5.67
5.60
5.75
5.69
6.00
6.08
4.54
4.95
4.67
5.23
4.85
4.92
5.46
4.62
4.72
4.53
4.16
4.78
5.13
5.00
4.10
4.50
4.75
3.16
3.66
4.41
4.80
4.54
4.10
4.35
4.63
4.80
4.80
4.11
4.26
4.59
3.25
3.84
4.25
4.33
4.84
4.67
4.64
5.10
4.72
5.05
4.18
4.44
4.49
3.41
3.90
4.36
4.51
4.90
4.83
4.53
4.96
5.06
5.13
4.40
4.26
4.62
3.91
4.47
4.64
4.51
4.65
4.62
4.74
4.74
4.74
4.41
4.11
4.06
4.65
3.85
3.59
4.44
4.06
4.70
4.73
4.54
4.83
4.86
4.56
4.24
4.18
4.77
3.51
3.92
4.56
4.42
4.90
5.05
4.70
5.10
4.97
4.70
4.36
4.52
5.06
3.54
3.94
4.55
4.57
5.04
4.97
4.87
5.03
5.38
4.95
4.65
4.54
5.16
4.03
4.47
4.96
4.74
5.00
5.02
4.93
4.98
5.29
4.78
4.51
4.42
5.17
3.89
4.02
4.97
4.58
5.01
5.92
5.42
4.75
4.83
5.00
4.75
5.33
4.83
4.83
4.75
-
5.32
5.58
5.77
5.08
4.54
5.46
5.23
5.75
5.23
5.23
5.31
-
5.31
5.75
5.83
4.67
4.92
5.50
5.33
5.58
5.08
5.25
5.42
-
5.30
5.08
5.58
5.17
5.33
5.17
5.58
5.00
5.08
5.42
5.08
5.17
5.37
6.29
5.00
5.14
5.14
5.86
5.43
4.86
5.29
5.43
5.14
4.79
4.83
4.36
4.45
4.36
5.09
5.09
5.18
4.92
5.08
4.83
-
4.58
4.67
4.08
4.92
4.08
4.83
4.58
4.75
4.82
4.50
4.75
-
5.12
5.09
5.00
5.00
4.82
5.30
4.90
5.00
5.18
5.27
5.18
-
5.51
5.75
5.75
6.00
6.00
6.09
5.82
5.73
5.40
6.00
5.73
6.09
5.60
5.69
5.46
5.62
5.54
5.75
5.77
5.77
5.38
5.46
5.46
4.55
5.59
5.22
3.81
4.19
4.38
4.38
4.78
4.26
4.72
4.31
-
4.56
5.20
5.10
4.04
4.47
4.49
4.24
4.61
4.49
4.73
4.43
-
4.50
5.47
4.79
3.87
4.18
4.55
4.37
4.47
4.37
4.66
4.39
-
4.71
4.49
5.60
4.83
4.38
4.53
5.47
3.89
4.36
4.77
4.55
4.53
4.54
5.21
4.91
4.00
4.12
4.47
4.15
4.62
4.74
4.50
4.59
4.85
5.45
5.04
4.26
4.44
4.87
4.74
5.05
4.70
4.96
4.81
-
5.05
5.82
5.20
4.43
4.58
5.17
4.96
5.25
4.88
5.17
5.13
-
5.18
5.95
5.59
4.61
4.80
5.33
4.97
5.46
5.01
5.26
5.09
5.11
5.16
5.86
5.22
4.68
4.72
5.23
5.03
5.29
5.04
5.34
5.18
5.13
4.50
4.83
4.33
4.33
5.18
5.15
5.31
5.08
5.20
5.08
5.25
5.25
5.47
5.33
5.75
5.33
5.24
5.43
5.29
5.00
5.15
4.82
5.00
5.55
4.86
4.58
5.00
5.00
4.88
5.09
4.73
4.82
5.82
5.64
5.55
6.27
5.46
5.38
5.23
5.77
4.38
4.53
4.28
4.31
4.64
4.61
4.57
4.74
4.44
4.68
4.34
4.29
4.45
4.54
4.40
4.43
4.29
4.45
4.29
4.18
4.68
4.70
4.64
4.66
4.70
4.96
4.58
4.56
4.93
5.01
4.86
4.93
4.97
5.04
4.90
4.97
4.00
3.64
4.42
4.08
3.83
4.63
4.00
5.08
4.69
4.77
4.98
4.58
5.00
5.08
5.25
4.46
4.25
4.83
4.58
4.17
4.39
3.71
4.86
4.57
4.43
4.64
4.36
4.73
4.36
5.09
3.81
3.67
4.33
3.67
3.58
4.61
4.36
5.00
4.45
4.64
5.09
4.55
5.36
4.91
5.55
4.88
4.77
4.75
4.77
5.15
3.55
3.34
3.78
3.50
3.56
3.62
3.44
3.86
3.65
3.51
3.78
3.63
4.18
3.76
3.51
3.55
3.34
3.85
3.34
3.65
3.25
3.18
3.53
3.15
3.15
3.91
3.50
4.22
3.83
4.02
4.24
3.81
4.60
4.10
4.45
4.19
3.78
4.48
4.02
4.47
4.20
3.88
4.46
4.11
4.33
5.06
5.08
5.00
5.77
5.77
5.67
5.42
5.33
5.50
5.33
5.64
5.33
5.86
5.86
5.86
5.09
5.00
4.91
4.63
4.28
4.67
4.95
5.09
4.82
5.91
5.91
5.91
5.69
5.54
5.85
4.81
5.06
4.84
4.86
5.04
4.69
5.04
5.08
5.00
5.12
5.21
5.02
4.84
4.97
4.71
4.93
4.99
4.85
5.06
5.04
5.09
5.23
5.30
5.19
5.29
5.25
5.32
6.11
6.27
6.27
5.73
6.18
5.81
6.08
5.23
5.46
6.15
5.65
5.58
5.83
5.08
6.08
5.85
6.00
5.67
5.33
6.42
5.71
6.14
5.43
5.14
6.14
5.47
5.30
5.10
5.40
6.10
5.65
5.50
5.08
5.75
6.25
5.68
5.36
5.45
5.73
6.18
6.27
6.00
6.25
6.42
6.82
5.77
5.77
5.92
5.31
6.08
5.11
5,06
4.97
5.00
5.44
4.91
4.72
4.87
4.89
5.15
5.00
4.89
4.58
4.84
5.68
4.97
4.68
4.55
4.95
5.70
4.85
4.94
4.44
4.36
5.75
5.33
5.24
5.07
5.18
5.78
5.36
5.27
5.14
5.21
5.87
5.50
5.39
5.28
5.35
6.02
5.44
5.49
5.26
5.04
5.99
5.71
6.00
5.70
5.36
4.97
5.42
5.44
4.38
4.97
5.25
5.18
4.50
5.33
5.67
5.27
4.92
5.19
5.43
5.00
5.14
5.30
5.20
4.78
5.70
4.75
4.67
4.30
5.00
5.30
5.36
5.10
5.27
5.68
5.67
5.70
5.82
5.26
5.33
5.30
4.82
4.10
4.25
4.29
3.72
3.66
3.52
4.13
3.58
4.51
4.41
4.52
4.59
4.66
4.51
4.86
4.60
4.44
4.30
4.53
4.58
4.46
4.43
4.69
4.35
4.74
4.74
4.73
4.72
5.11
5.14
5.09
5.06
4.89
4.92
4.94
4.89
07/08
N=121
4.90
5.08
4.70
MBE
EBI Factor & Item Analysis by Program
F10: Support Services
Q65. Quality of library resources
Q66. Availability of Education School’s computers
Q67. Training to utilize Education School’s computing resources
F11: Fellow Students in Program
Q68. Academic quality
Q69. Ability to work in teams
Q70. Level of camaraderie
Q71. Commitment to teaching profession
F12: Student Teaching Experience
Q72. Process of securing a position
Q73. Choice of assignments
Q74. Quality of learning experience
Q75. Quality of cooperating teacher
Q76. Quality of university supervision
Q77. Support from teachers in school
F13: Career Services
Q79. Assistance in preparation for permanent job search
Q80. Notice of job openings
Q81. Number of schools recruiting on campus
Q83. Number of interviews had with employers
Q82. Quality of schools recruiting
F14: Overall Satisfaction with Your Program
Q86. Extent that the Education program experience fulfilled your
expectations
Q87. Comparing the experience to the quality of education, rate the
value of the investment made in your Education program
Q88. How inclined are you to recommend your Education program
to a close friend
91
SPED
TECED
SOE UNIT
03/04
N=13
5.73
5.82
6.09
5.27
6.16
6.00
6.27
6.45
5.91
04/05
N=13
4.73
5.00
5.44
4.64
6.12
6.15
6.08
6.54
5.69
05/06
N=12
5.33
5.17
5.42
5.42
5.58
5.67
5.83
5.50
5.33
06/07
N=12
5.72
5.55
6.00
5.62
5.88
5.67
6.08
6.25
5.50
07/08
N=7
5.90
6.00
6.00
5.71
5.61
5.14
5.71
5.43
6.14
03/04
N=12
5.57
5.90
5.38
5.30
6.13
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.11
04/05
N=13
5.31
5.36
5.27
4.70
5.34
5.50
5.33
5.50
5.27
05/06
N=11
5.46
5.73
5.50
4.80
5.66
5.64
5.64
5.82
5.55
06/07
N=12
6.18
6.36
6.30
6.00
6.40
6.08
6.42
6.50
6.58
07/08
N=14
5.36
5.62
5.00
4.80
5.62
5.46
5.31
5.69
6.00
03/04
N=37
5.12
5.28
5.39
4.72
4.76
4.44
4.94
4.94
4.72
04/05
N=52
4.73
5.10
4.79
4.05
4.85
4.82
4.87
4.98
4.73
05/06
N=41
5.23
5.51
5.22
4.86
4.95
4.63
4.95
5.16
5.08
06/07
N=48
5.39
5.49
5.58
5.03
4.95
4.70
4.98
5.12
5.02
07/08
N=34
5.14
5.45
5.55
4.37
5.24
4.91
5.34
5.36
5.28
04/05
N=174
4.99
5.47
5.10
4.37
5.34
5.26
5.35
5.48
5.24
05/06
N=142
5.27
5.51
5.40
4.89
5.41
5.32
5.39
5.51
5.47
06/07
N=156
5.54
5.75
5.67
5.16
5.43
5.31
5.48
5.54
5.42
07/08
N=121
5.29
5.64
5.43
4.66
5.35
5.20
5.21
5.53
5.44
5.23
4.91
5.18
5.18
5.27
5.27
5.55
5.42
5.17
5.17
5.17
5.42
5.42
5.85
5.69
5.58
5.50
5.42
5.92
5.67
6.18
5.28
4.00
4.92
5.92
5.92
4.92
5.83
5.21
3.86
4.57
5.86
6.14
6.14
4.71
5.72
5.20
5.30
5.80
6.10
5.70
6.20
6.03
5.92
5.83
6.45
5.82
6.36
6.18
5.78
5.27
5.80
6.00
5.91
5.64
6.00
6.11
6.08
6.08
5.83
6.08
5.92
6.67
5.84
5.25
5.36
5.85
6.46
6.15
5.92
5.75
5.13
5.13
6.10
6.42
5.71
6.00
5.26
4.81
4.59
5.40
5.48
5.68
5.51
5.81
5.38
5.16
5.86
6.16
6.41
5.89
5.40
5.07
4.98
5.79
5.41
5.32
5.83
5.24
4.53
4.81
5.41
5.78
5.23
5.81
5.49
5.06
5.02
5.68
5.82
5.61
5.89
5.78
5.34
5.34
5.99
6.11
5.94
6.03
5.69
5.24
5.29
5.92
5.92
5.78
5.99
5.58
5.00
5.01
5.77
6.00
5.80
5.89
4.52
4.45
4.82
4.40
3.78
4.07
4.44
5.00
3.38
3.83
3.59
3.67
4.33
2.67
1.75
3.60
3.55
4.00
2.67
2.67
3.01
3.29
3.14
3.14
2.33
4.43
4.56
4.33
4.22
4.67
4.04
4.83
4.00
3.60
3.75
4.60
4.78
5.00
4.13
5.40
4.80
5.25
4.55
4.70
4.80
4.53
4.89
4.78
4.11
4.33
3.46
3.55
3.42
3.00
3.86
3.46
3.82
3.79
2.97
3.31
4.34
4.17
5.08
3.45
4.61
4.61
4.50
5.22
3.78
4.18
4.09
4.39
4.75
3.28
3.33
3.83
4.23
4.18
3.34
3.57
4.23
4.31
4.67
3.62
3.91
4.25
4.35
4.75
3.69
4.07
4.06
4.32
4.54
3.58
3.82
4.25
5.43
3.00
4.71
2.83
4.64
3.00
4.79
3.29
4.86
4.25
4.87
3.30
4.42
4.50
4.62
5.00
5.25
4.71
4.79
3.07
4.34
3.34
3.71
3.69
4.13
4.53
4.42
4.00
3.66
3.51
4.07
3.81
4.51
4.02
4.80
3.62
4.48
5.55
4.50
4.55
4.55
4.43
4.60
4.58
4.78
5.27
4.77
4.22
3.85
4.11
4.53
3.55
4.00
4.54
4.81
4.44
4.64
4.69
4.42
4.92
4.86
4.50
4.00
4.45
5.08
4.62
4.31
3.62
3.78
3.98
3.36
3.91
4.23
4.45
4.24
6.09
4.92
4.92
4.75
5.29
5.50
4.67
4.82
5.42
5.00
4.50
3.89
4.45
4.73
4.06
4.27
4.76
5.11
4.77
ArtEd
Questions That Do Not Comprise a Factor
Q22. Assessment of learning
Q25. Collaboration with colleagues
Q26. State standards
Q39. Write effective
Q43. Use of multimedia technology in the classroom
Q54. Teach areas in content field*
Q57. Identify child abuse
Q84. How academically challenging were Education
courses in comparison to Non-Education courses on this
campus
Q85. Quality of teaching in your Education courses
compared to quality of teaching in your Non-Education
courses on this campus
Questions That Do Not Comprise a Factor
Q22. Assessment of learning
Q25. Collaboration with colleagues
Q26. State standards
Q39. Write effective
Q43. Use of multimedia technology in the classroom
Q54. Teach areas in content field*
Q57. Identify child abuse
Q84. How academically challenging were Education
courses in comparison to Non-Education courses on this
campus
Q85. Quality of teaching in your Education courses
compared to quality of teaching in your Non-Education
courses on this campus
FCSE
SOE UNIT
05/06
N=8
4.38
4.25
5.88
4.63
4.63
4.75
4.63
06/07
N=10
4.80
3.80
6.60
4.90
4.90
5.30
3.50
07/08
N=10
4.70
4.30
5.70
4.50
4.90
5.30
4.90
03/04
N=53
4.42
4.02
4.76
4.62
4.07
4.98
4.89
04/05
N=41
4.87
4.92
5.76
5.32
4.92
5.46
5.34
05/06
N=62
4.95
5.30
6.31
5.20
4.75
5.34
4.56
06/07
N=55
5.10
5.66
6.20
5.52
4.92
5.65
4.92
07/08
N=50
5.24
5.48
5.98
5.12
4.92
5.71
5.54
03/04
N=5
4.40
4.40
6.40
4.20
5.60
5.40
4.20
04/05
N=11
4.82
4.36
5.27
4.45
5.00
5.45
4.18
05/06
N=6
5.17
3.67
5.67
5.00
5.33
5.83
3.83
06/07
N=17
5.41
5.44
6.29
5.53
5.59
6.00
4.18
07/08
N=6
6.00
4.50
6.67
5.17
6.33
6.17
4.50
04/05
N=174
4.80
4.47
5.13
4.84
4.76
5.09
4.42
05/06
N=142
5.14
4.85
5.76
5.01
5.07
5.24
4.31
06/07
N=156
5.25
5.12
5.91
5.20
5.27
5.51
4.40
07/08
N=121
5.13
4.83
5.65
4.97
5.07
5.41
4.82
4.00
4.75
3.90
3.80
4.09
4.77
5.07
5.62
4.76
6.00
4.82
4.50
4.71
5.00
4.24
4.75
4.97
4.68
3.86
4.63
4.20
4.56
4.95
4.77
5.37
5.38
5.84
6.00
4.82
5.00
5.56
5.33
4.75
5.03
5.09
5.18
SOE UNIT
05/06
06/07
N=142 N=156
5.14
5.25
4.85
5.12
5.76
5.91
5.01
5.20
5.07
5.27
5.24
5.51
4.31
4.40
07/08
N=121
5.13
4.83
5.65
4.97
5.07
5.41
4.82
03/04
N=13
5.089
5.50
5.83
4.92
5.25
5.08
3.67
04/05
N=13
5.77
5.46
6.98
5.23
6.00
5.75
4.50
MBE
05/06
N=12
5.75
4.83
5.75
5.33
5.58
5.58
4.58
06/07
N=12
5.08
5.08
6.25
4.92
5.92
5.67
4.50
07/08
N=7
5.57
4.29
5.71
5.43
6.43
6.14
4.29
03/04
N=12
5.08
5.00
4.17
4.64
4.64
5.36
4.18
04/05
N=13
4.50
4.58
4.58
4.58
3.75
5.08
4.42
SPED
05/06 06/07
N=11 N=12
5.09
5.50
4.64
6.00
5.70
5.50
4.91
5.91
5.00
5.18
5.27
6.55
4.73
5.64
07/08
N=14
5.62
5.38
5.85
5.23
4.46
6.00
5.42
03/04
N=37
5.06
4.66
4.19
4.47
5.39
4.53
3.66
04/05
N=52
4.80
4.06
4.41
4.62
4.64
4.82
3.86
TECED
05/06
N=41
5.41
4.49
4.97
4.68
5.47
4.97
3.64
06/07
N=48
5.38
4.47
5.32
4.72
5.44
4.94
3.79
07/08
N=34
4.74
4.03
4.94
4.64
5.09
4.44
3.85
04/05
N=174
4.80
4.47
5.13
4.84
4.76
5.09
4.42
5.64
4.69
3.75
4.50
5.14
4.90
5.17
5.18
4.42
4.64
5.03
4.77
4.49
4.86
4.73
4.24
4.75
4.97
4.68
5.64
4.69
4.58
4.50
5.00
4.90
5.17
5.55
5.33
5.36
5.03
4.77
4.50
4.90
4.39
4.75
5.03
5.09
5.18
Scale= 1-7 with 1= not at all, 4= moderately and 7= extremely
*This item was included in Factor 7: Assessment of Student Learning in 2004
Note: EBI question numbers changed in 2007--08.
92
ECE
04/05
N=7
5.29
3.14
5.29
4.57
3.71
5.33
5.00
Appendix A
Student Teacher
Competency
Final Ratings
Domain 1:
Planning and
Preparation
1a: Demonstrating
knowledge of
content and
pedagogy
1b:
Demonstrating
knowledge of
students
1c: Selecting
instructional goals
1d:
Demonstrating
knowledge of
resources
1e: Designing
coherent
instruction
1f: Assessing
student learning
Domain 2: The
Classroom
Environment
2a: Creating an
environment of
respect and
rapport
2b: Establishing a
culture of learning
2c: Managing
classroom
procedures
2d: Managing
student behavior
2e: Organizing
physical space
ArtEd
ECE
FCSE
MBE
SPED
TECED
CTET
OTHER
SOE UNIT
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2007
2007
2006
2007
N=
N=28
N=213
N=162
N=5
N=29
N=12
N=12
N=9
N=9
N=51
N=81
N=16
N=11
N=294
N=348
3.21
3.22
3.27
2.87
3.28
2.93
3.24
2.89
3.41
3.39
3.42
3.02
3.58
3.22
3.30
3.25
3.23
3.23
2.8
3.28
2.75
3.17
3
3.33
3.37
3.41
3.38
3.64
3.22
3.30
3.04
3.31
3.40
3
3.34
2.83
3.00
3
3.44
3.35
3.36
3.25
3.45
3.29
3.34
3.32
3.24
3.27
2.8
3.31
3
3.33
2.89
3.33
3.33
3.37
2.94
3.55
3.23
3.30
3.14
3.09
3.09
3
3.14
3.25
3.42
2.89
3.44
3.45
3.53
3.19
3.55
3.15
3.24
3.39
3.29
3.39
2.8
3.41
2.92
3.25
2.78
3.44
3.41
3.44
2.88
3.55
3.28
3.38
3.14
3.17
3.22
2.8
3.17
2.83
3.25
2.78
3.44
3.41
3.41
2.50
3.73
3.18
3.24
3.14
3.28
3.39
3.08
3.41
2.78
3.23
3.04
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.23
3.64
3.28
3.37
3.32
3.29
3.45
3.2
3.48
3
3.50
3.22
3.44
3.59
3.52
3.56
3.82
3.33
3.48
3.29
3.34
3.36
2.8
3.45
2.83
3.25
3.11
3.67
3.41
3.44
3.31
3.55
3.32
3.39
3.00
3.22
3.33
2.8
3.28
2.67
3.00
3
3.33
3.31
3.38
2.81
3.73
3.21
3.29
2.96
3.12
3.30
3.2
3.24
2.5
3.00
2.78
3.22
3.2
3.20
2.94
3.36
3.11
3.22
3.14
3.43
3.49
3.4
3.62
3
3.42
3.11
3.33
3.47
3.47
3.56
3.73
3.41
3.47
93
Student Teacher
Competency
Final Ratings
Domain 3:
Instruction
3a:
Communicating
clearly and
accurately
3b: Using
questioning and
discussion
techniques
3c: Engaging
students in
learning
3d: Providing
Feedback to
Students
3e: Demonstrating
Flexibility and
Responsiveness
Domain 4:
Professional
Responsibilities
ArtEd
ECE
FCSE
MBE
SPED
TECED
CTET
OTHER
SOE UNIT
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2007
2007
2006
2007
N=
N=28
N=213
N=162
N=5
N=29
N=12
N=12
N=9
N=9
N=51
N=81
N=16
N=11
N=294
N=348
3.21
3.24
3.34
2.84
3.39
2.92
3.15
2.91
3.47
3.45
3.45
3.25
3.58
3.25
3.37
3.21
3.34
3.40
2.4
3.41
2.75
3.25
3
3.44
3.35
3.37
3.44
3.64
3.29
3.38
3.07
3.11
3.22
2.6
3.34
2.83
3.08
2.67
3.33
3.29
3.37
3.13
3.64
3.12
3.26
3.25
3.18
3.28
3.4
3.45
2.75
3.17
2.67
3.44
3.47
3.41
3.38
3.55
3.21
3.33
3.18
3.28
3.41
2.8
3.41
3.25
3.25
3.11
3.33
3.59
3.51
3.00
3.45
3.32
3.39
3.36
3.3
3.40
3
3.34
3
3.00
3.11
3.78
3.53
3.62
3.31
3.64
3.32
3.44
3.14
3.48
3.51
2.77
3.37
2.82
3.10
3.06
3.46
3.47
3.16
3.56
3.42
3.44
3.29
3.50
3.53
3.00
3.55
2.92
3.25
3.11
3.56
3.58
2.81
3.82
3.45
3.49
3.14
3.45
3.40
3.20
3.55
3.17
2.83
3.11
3.22
3.67
2.50
3.91
3.44
3.41
2.46
3.28
3.36
2.00
3.00
2.22
2.75
3.11
3.33
3.04
3.63
3.09
3.22
3.17
3.25
3.61
3.67
2.60
3.21
2.75
3.08
3.00
3.56
3.48
-
3.45
3.52
3.52
3.32
3.45
3.52
2.80
3.31
2.82
3.17
3.00
3.33
3.52
3.69
3.45
3.38
3.47
3.36
3.63
3.60
3.00
3.59
2.86
3.50
3.00
3.78
3.54
-
3.64
3.57
3.57
4a: Reflecting on
Teaching
4b: Maintaining
Accurate Records
4c:
Communicating
with Families
4d: Contributing
to the School and
District
4e: Growing and
Developing
Professionally
4f: Showing
Professionalism
94
Student Teacher
Competency
Final Ratings
ArtEd
ECE
FCSE
MBE
SPED
TECED
CTET
OTHER
SOE UNIT
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2007
2007
2006
2007
N=
N=28
N=213
N=162
N=5
N=29
N=12
N=12
N=9
N=9
N=51
N=81
N=16
N=11
N=294
N=348
3.20
3.24
3.32
2.94
3.37
2.84
3.18
2.86
3.52
3.48
-
3.53
3.24
3.44
3.25
3.24
3.38
3.00
3.41
2.92
3.25
2.78
3.44
3.51
-
3.55
3.25
3.40
3.11
3.24
3.35
3.00
3.34
2.75
3.08
2.89
3.44
3.38
-
3.55
3.23
3.33
3.14
3.16
3.23
3.00
3.24
2.73
3.00
2.78
3.78
3.37
-
3.36
3.16
3.27
3.21
3.14
3.21
2.80
3.38
2.83
3.17
2.67
3.56
3.51
-
3.64
3.15
3.32
3.25
3.32
3.40
2.80
3.38
2.75
3.25
3.00
3.67
3.48
-
3.45
3.29
3.41
3.18
3.25
3.33
2.60
3.55
2.92
3.25
2.67
3.33
3.43
-
3.64
3.24
3.37
3.29
3.29
3.35
3.40
3.38
2.83
3.33
2.67
3.67
3.51
-
3.73
3.27
3.41
3.11
3.10
3.15
2.80
3.31
3.00
3.08
2.78
3.11
3.40
-
3.55
3.13
3.23
3.29
3.33
3.41
3.40
3.38
2.83
3.25
3.00
3.67
3.57
-
3.45
3.34
3.44
3.14
3.35
3.44
2.60
3.34
2.83
3.08
3.33
3.56
3.60
-
3.36
3.37
3.43
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
95
96