Mathematics Education 201213 Page 1 of 8 Mathematics Education – Initial Preparation Annual Program Report Academic Year 2012‐13 Dr. Vivian R. Moody November 25, 2013 1. Continuous Assessment Results a. Admission Data Table 1 provides the average admission test scores and admission grade point average (GPA) of Mathematics Education candidates approved by the Professional Education Council (PEC) for admission into initial teacher preparation programs during this academic year. Before the Office of Teacher Services submits their names for review and approval by the PEC, candidates must meet minimum requirements established by the state and/or the WKU Professional Education Unit. Table 1. Approved Candidate Test Score Averages Program Mathematics Education ACT N Mean 21 24 PPST
Math N Mean
PPST
Reading N Mean
PPST
Writing N Mean
GRE Admission Composite GPA N Mean N Mean N Mean
23 3.28
SAT b. Course Based Assessment Data Table 2 provides the percentage of Mathematics Education candidates (N = 41) scoring at each level of proficiency on critical performances within education courses for this academic year. Proficiency levels are based on a scale of 1 – Standard Not Met, 2 – Standard Partially Met, 3 – At Standard, and 4 – Above Standard. Table 2. CP Proficiency Level Percentages 3 4 Grand Total EXED – 330 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% PSY – 210 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% SMED – 102 28.13% 71.88% 100.00% SMED – 210 3.85% 96.15% 100.00% SMED – 301 12.50% 87.50% 100.00% SMED – 320 64.71% 35.29% 100.00% SMED – 340 43.33% 56.67% 100.00% SMED – 360 46.67% 53.33% 100.00% SMED – 470 95.83% 4.17% 100.00% Course SPED – 330 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% Grand Total 65.41% 34.59% 100.00% Mathematics Education 201213 Page 2 of 8 Table 3 indicates the level of Mathematics Education candidates (N = 41) proficiency across critical performances related to the Kentucky Teacher Standards (KTS). Candidates receiving an overall rating of 3 or 4 on a CP are considered to have demonstrated proficiency on the standards associated with the CP. Compared to the unit‐wide results, Mathematics Education candidates are typically performing at or above average. Table 3. Percent of Mathematics Education Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS Program Mathematics Education Unit‐Wide 1 2 100% 100% 97% 97% 3 99% 97% Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 100% 98% 98% 97% 100% 97% 99% 97% 8 9 100% 100% 98% 97% 10 100% 99% *KTS Key: 1 – Content Knowledge, 2 – Designs/Plans Instruction, 3 – Maintains Learning Climate, 4 – Implements/ Manages Instruction, 5 – Assessment/Evaluation, 6 – Technology, 7 – Reflection, 8 – Collaboration, 9 – Professional Development, 10 – Leadership Table 4 indicates the number of Mathematics Education candidates (N=0) who have scored 2 or lower (below proficiency) on critical performances during this academic year. Zero students in the Mathematics Education program scored below proficient. Table 4. Mathematics Education Candidates Scoring Below Proficient on CPs Score Student ID Student Count 1 2 Zero students in Mathematics Education scored below proficient. Grand Total c. Clinical Experiences Data Mathematics Education uses the following courses and experiences to evaluate candidate dispositions: EDU 250, SMED 102, SMED 210, SMED 301, SMED 320, and SMED 470. The program has identified the following courses and experiences where candidates report the diversity of their field experiences: EDU 250, SMED 101, SMED 102, SMED 210, SMED 301, SMED 320, and SMED 470. SMED 320 has been designated as the experience where candidates must work in settings at or above the average 11% diversity of the schools in the 30+ counties that represent our service area. Table 5 reports how Mathematics Education candidates performed on dispositions as they entered and progressed through their program (N = 42) and during their student teaching experience (N = 16). Students are considered “proficient” who average a 3 or higher on each disposition category. Mathematics Education 201213 Page 3 of 8 Table 5. Mathematics Education Proficiency Rates on Unit‐Wide Dispositions Period a. Prior to Student Teaching b. During Student Teaching Values Learning WKU Professional Education Dispositions Values Personal Values Values Values Integrity Diversity Collaboration Professionalism 96.88% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Over this academic year, Mathematics Education candidates (N = 48) reported demographic information on 97 field placements with an average of 21.1% ethnically diverse students, 44.8% students on free/reduced lunch, and 10.5% student with disabilities (based on National Center for Education Statistics and Kentucky Department of Education). Table 6 reveals the percentages of field experiences with various characteristics. Note that candidates could choose all the characteristics that applied for any given experience. Table 6. Percentages of Field Experience by Category Types Working with Student With Special Needs % Candidates working with Students with Physical Impairments % Candidates working with Students with Learning Disabilities % Candidates working with Students with Moderate/Severe Disabilities % Candidates working with Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders % Candidates working with Gifted Students % Candidates working with English Language Learners % Candidates working with Students with Visual Impairments % Candidates working with Students with Hearing Impairments % Candidates working with Students with Speech/Language Delays % Candidates working with Students with Development Delays % Candidates working with Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder % Candidates working with Students with Other Impairments Working with Diverse Students % Candidates working with African American Students % Candidates working with Native American/American Indian Students % Candidates working with Latino/Hispanic Students % Candidates working with Asian Students % Candidates working with Students with Special Needs (Aggregate) % Candidates working with Diverse Students (Aggregate) 54%
59%
3%
2%
62%
40%
1%
0%
2%
0%
0%
1%
96%
12%
87%
77%
79%
100%
Mathematics Education 201213 Page 4 of 8 Overall, as can be seen in Table 6, in 79% of their field experiences Mathematics Education candidates reported working with at least one student with special needs and in 100% of their field experiences candidates reported working with at least one student from a diverse ethnic group. d. Culminating Assessment Data As Component 4 of the WKU Professional Education Unit Continuous Assessment Plan (CAP) strategy, all initial preparation candidates complete a culminating assessment of professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills, the Teacher Work Sample (TWS). This assessment is also used to demonstrate candidates’ ability to impact P‐12 student learning. In particular, candidate performances on Assessment Planning and Analysis of Student Learning have been identified as key indicators of candidates’ ability related to student learning. Although in spring 2008 the Professional Education Council agreed that candidates who score a holistic score of at least “2 – Developing” are able to exit the program, for program evaluation purposes our goal is that at least 80% of program candidates will achieve “3 – Proficient” or higher. Table 7 presents the proficiency rate for Mathematics Education candidates (N = 12). Table 7. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates Program Mathematics Education Unit‐Wide % Proficient 100% 93% Because the faculty also scores TWS at the indicator level, we are able to use these scores to ascertain candidate success in meeting each component of the TWS. For program evaluation purposes, candidates are considered successful who average at least 2.5 on a three point scale (1 – Not Met, 2 – Partially Met, and 3 – Met) on indicators aligned to a standard. Table 8 depicts the percentage of Mathematics Education candidates who averaged at least 2.5 on the indicators for each TWS Factor: CF – Contextual Factors, LG – Learning Goals, DFI – Design for Instruction, ASL – Analysis of Student Learning, and ROT – Reflection on Teaching. Table 8. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates of Mathematics Education Candidates Program Mathematics Education Unit‐Wide CF 100% 89% LG 100% 91% DFI 100% 85% ASL 83.33% 91% ROT 91.67% 88% Because the TWS indicators have been aligned to Kentucky Teacher Standards, we can use these scores to ascertain candidate success in meeting each standard related to the TWS. Table 9 reports these scores as they relate to Kentucky Teacher Standards. Mathematics Education 201213 Page 5 of 8 Table 9. Percentage Mathematics Education Candidates who “Passed” each Teacher Standard 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 100% 89% 100% 94% 100% 92% 91.67% 90% 91.67% 92% 91.67% 91% 91.67% 88% Program Mathematics Education Unit‐Wide Additionally, all candidates are assessed during their student teaching experience using the Student Teaching Evaluation form. Table 10 reports the percentages of Mathematics Education student teachers (N = 16) successful on each standard. For program evaluation purposes, candidates are considered successful who average at least 2.5 on a three point scale (1 – Not Met, 2 – Partially Met, and 3 – Met) on indicators aligned to a standard. Table 10. Mathematics Education Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards Program Mathematics Education Unit‐Wide 1 2 3 Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 100% 100% 88% 88% 88% 100% 88% 88% 100% 88% 97% 96% 91% 87% 90% 86% 93% 97% 89% 92% e. Exit and Follow Up Data Table 11 delineates the Educational Testing Services reports of the pass rates on the Praxis II content exams of candidates who completed the program in the 2011‐12 academic year (the most recent year with complete data). The last column allows for pass rate comparison of our candidates to our 2010‐11 results. Table 11. Pass Rates on Content Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation Program/Type of Assessment Mathematics Education’s Praxis II Test (1) Mathematics Education’s Praxis II Test (2) Candidate N (2011‐12) 16 16 WKU Pass Rate (2011‐12) 100% 100% WKU Pass Rate (2010‐11) 100% 92% Annually, the WKU Teacher Survey is sent to student teachers and alumni who potentially have been teaching one or more years. For the 2012‐13 academic year, out of a possible 16 student teachers, 12 (75%) completed the survey. Below are the results for Mathematics Education student teachers, 12 of whom responded. Survey items requested the respondent’s perception of WKU preparation on each of the Kentucky Teacher Standards using a scale of 1 “Poor,” 2 “Fair,” 3 “Good,” and 4 “Excellent.” Standards with average scores of 3 or better across items were considered to demonstrate acceptable program quality. Table 12 reports Mathematics Education survey results. Mathematics Education 201213 Page 6 of 8 Table 12. Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions for Mathematics Education Respondents Kentucky Teacher Standards Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mathematics 3.56 3.62 3.74 3.49 3.46 3.44 3.59 3.23 3.50 3.29 Education Unit‐Wide 3.49 3.45 3.66 3.43 3.29 3.37 3.30 3.14 3.36 3.18 Respondents were also able to provide comments. Table 13 presents Mathematics Education respondent comments. Table 13. Mathematics Education Respondent Comments Professional Growth Being given an example of a teacher’s growth plan or being told what it was at all would have been great. Leadership Activities Perhaps requiring a leadership activity in earlier education classes would be good. Student Collaboration Make this a requirement during our pre‐Student Teaching placement. Technology Teach us how to use these ActivBoards that almost every school uses. Uses Time Effectively Almost any other way than saying, “You’ll learn with experience.” 2. Summary of Results by Kentucky Teacher Standards and Other Key Conceptual Framework Values Admission Data: The mean ACT admission score for Mathematics Education candidates was comparable to the mean ACT admission score for all candidates in the professional unit. The mean admission GPA of 3.28 for Mathematics Education candidates was slightly below the mean admission GPA of 3.36 for all students. Course Based Assessment Data: Critical Performance (CP) proficiency level percentages indicate that Mathematics Education candidates are performing as well as or better than average. The Mathematics Education proficiency rates on Unit‐Wide Dispositions are 100% across the board during student teaching. These Unit‐Wide Dispositions are also 100% across the board prior to student teaching, except in the category of “Values Learning” where the percentage is 96.88%. Clinical Experiences Data: The percentages of students working with diverse populations are within guidelines. Mathematics Education 201213 Page 7 of 8 Culminating Assessment Data: The Mathematics Education proficiency rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards are 100% for Standards 1, 2, 6, and 9 and are 88% for Standards 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10. Exit and Follow Up Data: The pass rate on the 2010‐2011 Praxis was maintained with 100% of candidates passing the Mathematics Content Knowledge Test. Additionally, 100% of candidates passed part 1 of the Math Proofs and Models Problems on the 2011‐12 Praxis, whereas 92% of candidates passed this test on the 2010‐2011 Praxis. The results of the WKU Teacher Survey that addresses the respondent’s perception of WKU preparation on each of the Kentucky Teacher Standards show that student teachers from mathematics rate the program above that of the unit in all categories. Efforts will be made to maintain these ratings. 3. Efforts to Report and Disseminate Results This report was forwarded to the Department of Mathematics’ Teacher Education Committee for reading and discussion. Issues raised by this report will inform future decisions regarding the direction of the program. 4. Key Discussions and/or Decisions Made Based on Assessment Results a. Assessment or Data Collection Changes Based on Assessment Results At this time, we believe data collection is comprehensive and requires no changes. b. Program Curriculum or Experiences Changes Based on Assessment Results We recognize the need to work with instructors in the School of Teacher Education (SKyTeach) to ensure that emphasis is placed on all components of the TWS. In addition, mathematics educators in the Department of Mathematics need to discuss other avenues for improving our teacher education program and maintaining students’ positive perceptions of the program. c. Decisions about Group/Individual Student Progress Based on Assessment Results The mathematics education faculty of the Department of Mathematics plans to hold a joint meeting with education faculty of the School of Teacher Education and discuss student progress based on the assessment results presented in this report. The objective of this meeting will be to discuss improvements of the teacher education program. Mathematics Education 201213 Page 8 of 8 5. Trends in Assessment Results over the Last Few Years According to the assessment results over the last few years, there are trends that are noteworthy. These are as follows: (1) Mathematics Education candidates tend to have mean admission scores comparable to or greater than the mean admission scores for all candidates; (2) compared to the unit‐wide results, Mathematics Education candidates typically perform at or above average on Critical Performances; (3) Based on guidelines from the National Center for Education Statistics and the Kentucky Department of Education, the ethnic diversity percentage for Mathematics Education candidates continues to be above the average 11% diversity of the schools in the 30+ counties that represent our service area; and (4) compared to the unit‐wide results, Mathematics Education candidates are typically successful on all Kentucky Teacher Standards.