Undergraduate Program Data Analysis Report
Program Name: SEDU Science
Date: 4/15/2014
Contact Person: Gwen Price
Directions:
1. Review the program assessment data located in D2L.
2. List the 6 to 8 assessments for each program in the box provided for Program
Assessments. Examine the data collection for each program. Be sure to review both the
fall and spring data collection. Answer the following questions for each program
assessment placing the information in the appropriate column:
o What does the data indicate for your program?
o What areas of concern if any do you have regarding this assessment?
o What recommendations do you have regarding any revisions for this assessment?
o What program changes if any does this data suggest?
3. Save the template as a Word document and submit it to the NCATE Assessment
Committee via a D2L dropbox provided in the Accreditation-NCATE link by April 9th.
Undergraduate Unit Data
Program
Assessment
Praxis II
Data Analysis
Recommendations
The State of Pennsylvania
requires candidates pass these
licensure exams to obtain
certification.
Passing Scores:
Biology: Content
Knowledge
147
Chemistry: Content
Knowledge
154
Earth and Space
Sciences: Content
Knowledge
157
General Science:
Content Knowledge
146
Physics: Content
140
Numbers of students in
science education areas
continue to be very low. It
is essential that these
numbers increase. Further,
there are several areas of
weakness for candidates
indicated by exam subscores in the data analysis.
In addressing both of these
issues, it is recommended
that science education
faculty work closely with
university science faculty,
forming a committee to
discuss data to shift focus
in science teacher
preparation to address
Implementation
Date
Fall 2014
Knowledge
While it is evident from the
data that not all test takers
obtained passing scores, all
program completers did reach a
passing score prior to program
completion.
Looking at the most recent data
available, testers taking the
biology exam averaged scores
at or above both state and
national averages. In prior
years, scores in Molecular and
Cellular and Diversity of life,
Plants & Animals sub
categories had been below state
and national averages leading
to analysis on program courses
and discussions with biology
faculty teaching courses
covering these topics.
While chemistry testers have
received average scores slightly
below state and national
averages on sub score
categories, the only area of
specific concern has been
Solutions & Solubility,
Acid/Base Chemistry, resulting
in discussion and re-evaluation
of program course work.
Matter, Energy, &
Thermodynamics and Atomic
& Nuclear Structure were also
topics of discussion for focus in
students’ chemistry
coursework.
General science testers scored
at or above state and national
averages across sub-categories
with the exception of the life
points of weakness as
indicated by the data. This
committee would also be
tasked with the
development of outreach
programs aimed at high
school science students to
foster interest in the field
of science education.
sciences, which was slightly
below state and national
averages. Testers scored
particularly well in scientific
methodology, techniques, and
history and Science, Tech., &
Society sub-categories.
The most recent tester data
available for Earth and Space
Sciences testers indicate testers
scored above both state and
national averages across
content subcategories. Prior
testing cycles show that scores
were comparable to state and
national averages, but slightly
weaker in Earth’s Atmosphere
and Hydrosphere.
Strengths and weaknesses in
Physics subcategories varied
greatly between years. Given
the small number of testers in
this area, this is likely more
reflective of personal strengths
and weaknesses among testers
than strengths and weaknesses
of the program. The majority
of physics subcategory scores
were comparable to state and
national averages in each year
for which data was available
with no subcategory being
consistently weak or
consistently strong.
All candidates earn a C or
above in all required
courses.
Grades /
Content
Analysis
Courses align with all state
and national standards.
N/A
N/A
Instructional
Techniques
Unit Plan
Report of
Supervision
Students completing the
secondary science Unit Plan
Assignment for the last two
cycles scored either “Target” or
“Acceptable” across all
components of the rubric for
this assignment. The rubric for
this assignment was adjusted to
reflect the 2012 NSTA
standards with each NSTA
standard elements assessed
through a separate rubric item.
Element 1c received a “target”
score for all candidates
assessed. Elements of NSTA
standard 2 were all scored
“target” with the exception of
one “acceptable” score for
element 2b in Fall 2012.
Similarly, all candidates
received “target” for all
elements of NSTA standards 3
and 4 when the elements were
scored individually and for
element 5c.
Although limited by the
number of completers in
secondary science, the data
available shows that student
teachers observed received
target scores for all elements of
NSTA standard 4. Post
Baccalaureate students in
Biology, Chemistry, and Earth
and Space Sciences and
Undergraduate students in
Biology and Chemistry were
assessed using the new
assessment instrument
reflective of the 2012 NSTA
standards. 100% of the
candidates assessed received
“target” for each element of
standard 4.
The rubric for the
instructional techniques
unit plan was adjusted to
reflect the new NSTA
standards and to assess
individual standard
elements separately. It is
recommended that with
each cycle of data this
rubric be reviewed for
validity and reliability to
ensure that the appropriate
elements are being
assessed.
Fall 2014
This assessment tool was
adapted to reflect 2012
NSTA standards and thus
needs to be assessed to
ensure that it is in fact
assessing the desired
elements. Also, the
limited amount of data
serves to further indicate
the need to increase the
numbers of students in
science education majors.
Fall 2014
Instructional
Assessment
Plan
PDE 430 A
The IAP assessment
involved scoring candidate
submissions on 26 different
items within the assessment
rubric, 15 of which address
NSTA standard elements.
Submissions were scored as
either target, acceptable,
developing, or unacceptable
for each item within the
rubric. No items assessing
NSTA standard elements
received an unacceptable
rating. Three items received
developing scores. These
included:
1. Significance,
Challenge and
Variety (no NSTA
element)
2. Alignment with
Learning Objectives
and Instruction
(NSTA 3c)
3. Clarity of Criteria
and Standards for
Performance (NSTA
3c)
All submissions received
scores of target or acceptable
on all of the remaining
rubric items.
Fall 2014
Areas of weakness,
indicated by ‘developing’
scores, will be focused on
in education block courses,
particularly the
instructional techniques
course.
Supervisors and
cooperating teachers
should also be informed of
these areas and appropriate
guidance should be given.
All completers assessed
through assessment 6 received
“target” or “acceptable” for
both measures of each
element of standard 6. Since
initiating this assessment to
measure the elements of NSTA
Once again, adaptations of Fall 2014
assessments to reflect new
standards require
continued analysis to
ensure effectiveness of the
assessment. It is
recommended that science
student supervisors meet at
standard 6, eight candidates
have been assessed on their
professional development.
Two undergraduate
candidates, one in biology and
one in chemistry, during the
fall semester of 2012 each
received “target” scores for
both attendance to and
reflection on content and
educational professional
development.
Data for post baccalaureate
students was gathered over
two semesters. Four
completers were assessed in
fall of 2012 (3 bio & 1 chem)
and two more in spring of 2013
(1 bio & 1 Earth/space). Each
element of standard 6 is
measured with two rubric
items from the 430A
assessment, one to assess
attendance and a second to
assess thoughtful reflection on
the professional development
experience. Regarding
content area professional
development, all completers in
fall 2012 received target scores
for professional development
attendance. One completer
(bio) received “acceptable” for
their reflection with the rest
receiving “target.” Similarly,
regarding educational
professional development, all
completers in fall 2012
received target scores for
professional development
attendance. One completer
the conclusion of each
semester to discuss the
results of the adapted
assessments and the
effectiveness of each for
assessing the desired
elements.
(bio) received “acceptable” for
their reflection with the rest
receiving “target.”
During the spring 2013
semester the Earth and Space
Sciences completer received
“acceptable” scores on all four
rubric items and the Biology
completer received “Target”
on all scores.
Portfolio
Showcase/
Interview
During the past two data
cycles, all secondary science
candidates have scored
“target” or “acceptable” on all
elements of both the portfolio
showcase presentation and
portfolio interview with the
exceptions of questions 8 and
9, for which 1 candidate (post
baccalaureate) received a
“developing” score during the
spring 2013 semester. No
candidates received an
“unacceptable” score for any
element in either the interview
or showcase. No one element
was particularly strong across
both cycles of data, with each
element receiving both
“target” and “acceptable”
ratings for different candidates
assessed. Again, only one
candidate received less than an
“acceptable” rating, receiving a
“developing” score on
questions 8 and 9.
4 out of 5 candidates assessed
over two semesters received
“target” scores on each
While the scores for this
assessment are promising,
it is important that results
are clearly communicated
to student teaching
supervisors. Student
teaching generally follows
students’ field experience
and the results from these
assessments can provide
valuable insight into the
needs of student teachers.
It is recommended that
individual assessment
results be provided to
student teaching
supervisors with the
student teacher’s resume
and placement information
at the beginning of the
student teaching semester.
Fall 2014
element of the showcase with
the final candidate receiving an
“acceptable” score for each
element. No students assessed
during this time were rated as
“developing” or
“unacceptable” for any
element of their showcase.