P‐12 Music Education 201213 Page 1 of 14 P‐12 Music Education– Initial Preparation Annual Program Report Academic Year 2012‐13 Robyn Swanson November 20, 2013 1. Continuous Assessment Results a. Admission Data Table 1 provides the average admission test scores and admission grade point average (GPA) of P‐12 music education candidates (N=19) 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 Music Education PPST Math N Mean N Mean 12 24 7 180 ACT PPST
Reading N Mean
7
179
PPST
Writing N Mean
7
177
SAT N Mean
GRE Composite N Mean Admission GPA N Mean
19
3.32
b. Course Based Assessment Data Table 2 provides the percentage of P‐12 music education candidates (N = 86) 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 Course 1 2 EDU 250 EDU 489 13.64% 3 4 85.51% 14.49% 86.36% EXED 330 100% MUS 312 87.50% 12.50% MUS 412 89.66% 10.34% MUS 415 NR NR MUS 416 NR NR 3.51% 7.02% 89.47% PSY 310 SPED 330 Grand Total 100% 3.63% 74.58% 21.79% *NR= No Report Table 3 indicates the level of P‐12 music education candidates (N = 86) proficiency across critical performances related to the Kentucky Teacher Standards (KTS). Candidates receiving an P‐12 Music Education 201213 Page 2 of 14 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, P‐12 music education candidates are typically performing at average. Table 3. Percent of P‐12 music education Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS Program P‐12 music education Unit‐Wide 1 2 3 97% 97% 97% 97% 96.6%
97% Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 100% 98% 98% 97% 96% 97% 97% 97% 8 9 97% 98% 96% 97% 10 97% 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 P‐12 music education candidates (N =4) who have scored 2 or lower (below proficiency) on critical performances during this academic year. Table 4. P‐12 Music Education Candidates Scoring Below Proficient on CPs Score Student ID 1 800531334 800566949 800452448 800689567 Grand Total 2 1 1 1 1 Student Count 1
1
1
1
4
c. Clinical Experiences Data P‐12 music education program uses the following courses and experiences to evaluate candidate dispositions: MUS 312, 412, 415, 416; ELED, MGE, SEC 490. The program has identified the following courses and experiences where candidates report the diversity of their field experiences: EDU 250, MUS 312, 412, 415, 416, EXED 330, ELED, MGE, SEC 490. All of the listed courses have 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 P‐12 music education candidates performed on dispositions as they entered and progressed through their program (N = 72) and during their student teaching experience (N = 22). Students are considered “proficient” who average a 3 or higher on each disposition category. P‐12 Music Education 201213 Page 3 of 14 Table 5. P‐12 Music 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 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Over this academic year, P‐12 music education candidates (N = 28) reported demographic information on 30 field placements with an average of 11.9% ethnically diverse students, 42.5% students on free/reduced lunch, and 11.2% student with disabilities. (These percentages are 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) 33%
40%
20%
30%
57%
23%
13%
7%
20%
37%
23%
3%
87%
23%
83%
60%
77%
100%
Overall, as can be seen in Table 6, in 77% of their field experiences P‐12 music 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. P‐12 Music Education 201213 Page 4 of 14 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 P‐12 candidates (N = 15). Table 7. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates Program P‐12 Music Education Unit‐Wide % Proficient 86% 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 whom 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 P‐12 music 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 P‐12 Music Education Candidates Program P‐12 Music Education Unit‐Wide CF LG DFI ASL ROT 73.33% 89% 80% 91% 66.67% 85% 80% 91% 100% 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. P‐12 Music Education 201213 Page 5 of 14 Table 9. Percentage of P‐12 Music Education Candidates who “Passed” each Teacher Standard Program P‐12 Music Education Unit‐Wide 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 73.33% 89% 80% 94% 80% 92% 80% 90% 80% 92% 93.33% 91% 100% 88% Additionally, all candidates are assessed during their student teaching experience using the Student Teaching Evaluation form. Table 10 reports the percentages of P‐12 music education student teachers (N = 22) successful on each standard. For program evaluation purposes, candidates are considered successful whom 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. P‐12 Music Education Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards Program P‐12 Music Education Unit‐Wide Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 85% 83% 95% 80% 73% 73% 97% 92% 96% 91% 87% 90% 85% 86% 8 9 10 88% 90% 88% 93% 97% 89% 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 Music Concepts and Processes Music Content Knowledge Candidate N (2011‐12) 14 14 WKU Pass Rate (2011‐12) 100% 100% WKU Pass Rate (2010‐11) 100% 83% 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 22 student teachers, 21 (95 %) completed the survey. Below are the results for P‐12 music education student teachers, 21 of who 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 P‐12 music education survey results. P‐12 Music Education 201213 Page 6 of 14 Table 12. Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions for P‐12 Music Education Respondents Program P‐12 Music Education Unit‐Wide Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 3.57 3.46 3.68 3.35 3.24 3.20 3.49 3.45 3.66 3.43 3.29 3.37 8 9 10 3.24 3.0 3.42 3.30 3.30 3.14 3.36 3.18 Respondents were also able to provide comments. Table 13 presents P‐12 music education respondent comments. Table 13. P‐12 Music Education Respondent Comments A course on classroom management and dealing with various classroom behaviors. Or
having more time teaching, observing, and assisting in the schools prior to student
teaching would be very helpful.
I answered “poor” in Standard 6 and 8. As a music student, there is a certain of
technology one can use presented in elementary or middle grades general music courses,
but there was never a time when we were given examples of how to use technology in
choral rehearsals that is considered “demonstrated” to our supervising teachers. I also
answered “Poor” to most of Standard 8 because there was never a time someone talked to
us about the collaboration process. I had no idea about the papers we needed to write for
collaborative efforts with a student in our student teaching assignment, and only a small
idea about what collaboration was in the teaching world.
I don’t remember being taught about collaboration. As it is an important part of
education I think it should be focused on more thoroughly.
I feel that not having access to the latest technology such as an active board in the music
education building limited our use of technology. I also feel that without teaching a week
prior that it would be difficult to analyze the data and make it seem relevant while doing
so.
I felt not very prepared at all. I felt fine for choir, in the upper grades, but there is very
little learning about how to teach arts and humanities especially to elementary students.
I think I would be better equipped to work with exceptional children had the SPED
course been offered in-class rather than online. I also wish there would have been more
prep work toward analyzing data and planning a unit based on the pre-test.
2. Summary of Results by Kentucky Teacher Standards and Other Key Conceptual Framework Values Mission of the Bachelor of Music Education Program In Relationship to the Mission of the WKU Professional Education. The music department is committed to recruiting and preparing pre‐service teachers through a comprehensive based curriculum inclusive of knowledge, skills and pedagogy to P‐12 Music Education 201213 Page 7 of 14 become successful and reflective professionals who can facilitate the learning of all children and empower them to achieve at high levels as they become life‐long learners and productive citizens in a global society. Through data analysis of the continuous assessment plan for the Bachelor of Music Education Degree Program, it can be summarized that overall the department is preparing quality music educators in alignment with it’s mission and program experiences. To ensure WKU is preparing quality music educators, in the fall of 2008, the department implemented a Music Education Professional Disposition Review and Code of Conduct Policy for Candidates prior to admission to the Teacher Education Program. The evaluation process determines a candidate’s performance in the WKU education professional dispositions of values learning, personal integrity, diversity, collaboration and professionalism as defined within the WKU Dispositions Rubric. The candidate must earn an at‐standard rating in each category for the MEC’s recommendation to the WKU Teacher Education Program. If the candidate does not meet the at‐standard rating at the end of the allotted time period, the MEC will not recommend the candidate. The Department of Music Faculty decided in October, 2011 to alter the original candidate review policy and extend the review date to March 15 of the spring semester when students have completed MUS 312, the first course in pedagogy sequence and while enrolled in middle grades (MUS 412) and secondary music education courses (MUS 415, 416). In spring, 2013 the MEC reviewed the N=25 music education candidates and each candidate met “at standard “in professional dispositions. Based on 2012‐2013 “during student teaching” data reported in Table 5, there was a 100% teacher disposition pass rate. Therefore it can be surmised that the purpose of the MEC to review students pursuing the music education program may be an effective barrier to ensure the program is preparing quality music educators. The following is a summarization of the data presented by assessment components. A. Admission Requirements The average of the ACT scores for the music education students (N=12) is 24. Praxis I PPST exam mean scores for music education students (N=7) during this cohort were Math: 178; Reading: 179; Writing 175. The GPA mean (N=19) is 3.32. Since the Kentucky EPSB requires PRAXIS I scores in Math (174), Reading (176) and Writing (174) as requirements for admission to teacher education programs, the music department needs to maintain the effort to review these scores as well as overall GPA’s when recruiting students to the music education program. B. Course Based Assessment Data According to the 2012‐13 critical performance data (Tables 2), music education candidates N=86 performed about the same as the unit average on the critical performances from specific P‐12 Music Education 201213 Page 8 of 14 courses in which the Kentucky Teacher Standards are addressed. Music education students scored higher on Standards 4‐Implements and Manages Instruction and Standard 5‐Assessment Evaluation and 1% lower on Standard 7‐Reflection; Standards 9‐Professional Development and 2% lower on Standard 10‐Leadership than the unit average. During the 2012‐13 academic year, critical performances in the four P‐12 music education pedagogy courses (MUS 312, 412, 415, 416) were required. Students uploaded and professors scored the critical performances via the WKU College of Education and Behavioral Science Professional Education Unit Electronic Portfolio System. These critical performances were aligned with the performance indicators of the Kentucky Teacher Standards. Table 2 illustrates how music education students scored collectively in the MUS 312 and 412 Kentucky Teacher Standards (KTS) based critical performances in relationship to unit‐wide KTS based critical performance scores. MUS 415 and MUS 416 scores were not reported for 2012‐13. In the music education critical performances (MUS 312 and 412), 100% of music education students earned a 3 or 4. Based on this information, the MEC will review not only the teacher dispositions demonstrated in music education course work but also the critical performances in EDU 250, EXED 330, and PSY 310 before the letter of intent to recommend for Admission to the WKU Teacher Education Program is prepared for the music education candidates. Tables 3 provides the percentage of music education candidates (N=86) scoring at each level of proficiency on critical performances aligned to each KTS within professional education courses, EDU 250, EXED 330, Psych 310, MUS 312, 412, EDU 489 during the 2012‐13 academic year. Proficiency levels are based on the following scale: 1‐Standard Not Met, 2‐Standard Partially Met, 3‐At Standards, and 4‐Above Standard. Approximately 96% of the music education students scored at standard or above on the professional education courses during the 2012‐13 academic year. Music education students are typically performing above the unit average on Standards 1: Content Knowledge, 2: Designs/Plans Instruction, Standards 3: Maintains Learning Climate, 4: Implements/Manages Instruction, 5: Assessment/Evaluation, 6: Technology, 7: Reflection, and 8: Collaboration. The unit and department percentage was the same for 9: Professional Development. No data was reported for Standard 10: Leadership. Table 4 illustrates 4 music education students earned a 2 on a critical performance in either Psych 310 or EDU 489. C. Clinical Experience Data Prior to student teaching, music education candidates have several opportunities for field experiences in diverse learning environments. These courses include EDU 250, MUS 312 and MUS 412. In MUS 312 and 412, the class observes as a whole and each student is required to teach a KTIP lesson plan during final exam week in one of the selected schools. The public school music educator evaluates each teacher candidate’s performance and reports back to the course professor. Also, in MUS 312 and 412, it is a course requirement to observe/teach at the Kelly Autism Program on the WKU campus a minimum of 6 hours. Clinical field experience data from MUS 312 and 412 is not factored into the university‐wide field experience report. However, field experiences required in these courses are conducted in diverse learning environments, which encompass the learning context, working with students with special needs and culturally diverse students. P‐12 Music Education 201213 Page 9 of 14 Tables 5 and 6 reveal the 2012‐13 EDU 250 (Prior to student teaching) and EDU 490 (During student teaching) field experience data. It can be reported that the music education students do value diversity (100%) in the 21st century music classrooms. It is apparent that the students are receiving adequate preparation in working with special needs as well as culturally diverse populations. The implementation (fall, 2013) of the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board’s (EPSB) regulation regarding 200 hours of field experience prior to student teaching, perpetuated music faculty who teach pedagogy courses to examine observation and teaching experiences. The music department outlined field experiences for each pedagogy course, assigned respective requirements and allocated hours to ensure all P‐12 music education candidates have met the EPSB regulation prior to student teaching. D. Culminating Assessment Data The culminating assessment critical performance for all teacher education candidates is the Teacher Work Sample (TWS). In Table 7, the overall proficiency rate, the 2012‐13 (N=15) music education candidates performed at 86% proficiency compared to the 93% unit‐wide proficiency rate. However, the program goal set forth by CEBS is 80% so the P‐12 music education program is in good standing. Specific TWS component scores (Table 8) and TWS components related to selected Kentucky Teacher Standards (KTS) (Table 9) are considerably lower than the 2011‐12 scores. Table 8 TWS proficiency rate comparisons are substantially lower between 2011‐12 and 2012‐13. These are CF – Contextual Factors (2011‐12: 94.12% to 2012‐13 73.33%); LG – Learning Goals (2011‐12: 88.24% to 2012‐13 80%); DFI – Design for Instruction (2011‐12: 94.12% to 2012‐13 66.67%); and ASL – Analysis of Student Learning (2011‐12: 94.12% to 2012‐
13 80%). A 17% increase was reported in ROT – Reflection on Teaching (2011‐12: 82.35 % to 2012‐13 100%). In Table 9 TWS to KTS 2012‐13, P‐12 music education candidate proficiency rates compared to 2011‐12 scores indicate a decline ranging from 20‐8 % on Standards 1 – Content Knowledge (2011‐12: 94.12% to 2012‐13: 73.33%); 2 – Designs/Plans Instruction (2011‐12: 94.12% to 2012‐13: 80%); 3 – Maintains Learning Climate (2011‐12: 94.12% to 2012‐
13: 80.00%); 5 – Assessment/Evaluation (2011‐12: 88,24% to 2012‐13: 80.00%); 6 – Technology (2011‐12: 88.24% to 2012‐13: 80%); and 2 to 12% higher on 7 – Reflection (2011‐12: 76.47% to 2012‐13: 93.33%), and 9 – Professional Development(2011‐12: 82.35% to 2012‐13: 100%). Multiple factors can be attributed to lower TWS proficiency rates.  The teacher work sample (TWS) is a component of the EDU 489 course. In the spring of 2013, there were many miscommunications between a course professor and the P‐12 music education candidates about course expectations and deadlines as well as disputes over appropriate content knowledge. It is interesting that non‐music education faculty instructs music education students in EDU 489 regarding music content in the TWS and a majority of the music education candidates are limited to the use of technology in the instruction of performing ensembles. The data reported in Tables 7, 8, and 9 is not a true representation of P‐12 Music Education 201213 Page 10 of 14 the 2012‐13 P‐12 music education candidate cohort because there were 22 student teachers and data from only 15 was included in this report. Six of the music education candidates completed the course and earned proficiency in the TWS during the summer of 2013. One candidate, a transfer student from another university seeking initial certification, failed the TWS, so enrolled in the fall 2013, EDU 491: Practicum for Teacher Candidates, a 1‐hour‐1‐
month remediation course to demonstrate proficiency in the TWS. The candidate did pass the TWS proficiency in fall of 2013.  A mini TWS is introduced and taught in MUS 412, a P‐12 middle grades (5‐8) music education pedagogy course and serves as the critical performance. P‐12 music education candidates must earn a 3 or higher on the culminating assessment to pass the MUS 412 course. This critical performance is a version of the TWS, which is required in EDU 489. MUS 412 students do teach a portion of the mini TWS in area middle schools but the analysis of student learning (ASL) is not a requirement. It would benefit the music education candidates if there were opportunities to teach the entire TWS, especially the analysis of student learning (ASL), and be provided the opportunity to collect and analyze data for determining the impact of instruction on student achievement. However, music education program course offerings and time restraints do not allow the candidates to experience an extended pre‐student teaching experience.  In both fall and spring semesters of 2012‐13, 6 of the student teachers had taken MUS 412, 2‐
3 years before the revised TWS was taught in the spring of 2011. And, 1 student teacher returned to finish the degree 10 years after completion of MUS 312 and 412. Therefore, 7 of the 22 (32%) had little or no previous training with the 2011 TWS requirements and expectations. The 7 candidates struggled with the TWS as well as the student teaching expectations. It can be concluded that the P‐12 music education candidates (2012‐13: 68%), who comply with completion of the professional education requirements as prescribed in the Bachelor of Music Education (BME) Degree Program Curriculum and meet the Admission to Teacher Education requirements in a timely manner, experience success with the TWS and in the student teaching practicum. The P‐12 Music Education Student Teaching Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards (KTS) were reported in Table 10. The music education candidate’s scores were below the unit‐
wide score in all standards but when compared to the 2011‐12 scores some standards were remarkably higher. The following is a data comparison of music education scores for 2011‐12 and 2012‐13: 1 – Content Knowledge (2011‐12: 85%, to 2012‐13: 85%), 2 – Designs/Plans Instruction (2011‐12: 75% to 2012‐13: 83%), 3 – Maintains Learning Climate (2011‐12: 95% to 2012‐13: 95%), 4 – Implements/ Manages Instruction (2011‐12: 75% to 2012‐13: 80%), 5 – Assessment/Evaluation (2011‐12: 80% to 2012‐13: 75%), 6 – Technology (2011‐12: 70% to 2012‐13: 73%), 7 – Reflection (2011‐12: 80% to 2012‐13: 85%), 8 – Collaboration (2011‐12: 90% to 2012‐13: 88%), 9 – Professional Development (2011‐12: 85% to 2012‐13: 90%), 10 – Leadership (2011‐12: 85% to 2012‐2013: 88%). Assessment/Evaluation and Collaboration were the only 2 teacher standards that the 2012‐13 cohort scored a few percentage points (5%‐2%) lower than in 2011‐12. In the spring of 2011, the music education student teacher supervisors designed templates for KTS 8: Professional Growth, KTS 9: Collaboration and KTS 10: Leadership. It is interesting to note that the overall music education scores for these 3 P‐12 Music Education 201213 Page 11 of 14 standards have been consistently higher since the implementation of the templates. Every effort will be made to address each standard in all music education pedagogy coursework. E. Exit and Follow‐Up Data To earn state licensing, the music education candidate must pass the Praxis II Exams: Music Content Knowledge, Music Concepts and Processes and Principles of Learning and Teaching (PLT). Table 12 data reports the 2011‐12 and the 2010‐11 pass rates in both music education Praxis II exams (Music Content Knowledge and Concepts and Processes). The Music Content Knowledge Exam, measures knowledge and skills from all course work within the Department of Music. The music concepts and processes exam is an on‐demand written response in which the students are asked to describe how to correct specific problems in rehearsals and prepare general music lesson plans. Prior to 2007‐08 music education students were having problems passing these two music education exams. The music department offered Praxis II Blitz sessions, which reviewed what content, would be on the exams as well as aligned all music education pedagogy courses to the content that would be assessed through the Praxis II music education exams. Based on the 2011‐12 data for both music exams, which yielded a 100% pass rate, those two initiatives have assisted students to experience success with the state required licensure exams. The P‐12 music education teacher licensure regulation has been changed for 2013‐14 candidates. Candidates are required to take only one newly developed Praxis II music exam and one level of the PLT. Currently, little information has been provided about the contents of the new Praxis II, Content and Instruction exam, 5114 (computer based) or 0114 (paper). Music Education Candidates Survey: For the 2012‐13 academic year, out of a possible 22 student teachers 21 (95%) completed the survey; out of a possible 100 alumni, 0% (5 years) completed the survey. 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. According to the survey administered to student teachers and alumni during 2012‐
2013 (Tables 12 and 13), music education candidates believe their preparation for the profession in relationship to the 10 KTS ranges from good to excellent. The 2012‐13 cohort of music education candidate rated preparation in all standards at 3.0 or above. In relationship to WKU CEBS unit expectations, standards with average scores of 3 or better across items were considered to demonstrate acceptable program quality. Therefore, the P‐12 music education program is deemed acceptable. Compared to the overall WKU unit’s scores, music education student’s scores were either a little higher or lower, with no wide‐range of discrepancies. In comparison to 2011‐12 music candidate’s scores, all 10 standards were reported with an increased level of preparedness. Data comparisons are: 1 – Content Knowledge (2011‐12: 3.23 to 2012‐13: 3.57), 2 – Designs/Plans Instruction (2011‐12: 2.86 to 2012‐13: 3.46), 3 – Maintains Learning Climate (2011‐12: 3.42 to 2012‐13: 3.68), 4 – Implements/ Manages Instruction (2011‐
12: 2.98 to 2012‐13: 3.35), 5 – Assessment/Evaluation (2011‐12: 2.74 to 2012‐13: 3.24), 6 – Technology (2011‐12: 3.12 to 2012‐13: 3.20), 7 – Reflection (2011‐12: 2.95 to 2012‐13: 3.24), 8 – Collaboration (2011‐12: 2.67 to 2012‐13: 3.0), 9 – Professional Development (2011‐12: 3.10 to P‐12 Music Education 201213 Page 12 of 14 2012‐13: 3.42, 10 – Leadership (2011‐12: 3.12 to 2012‐2013: 3.30). With an increase in 2012‐13 P‐12 music education candidate’s satisfaction of preparation, it can be speculated that music education professors are providing a high quality of instruction aligned to teacher licensure requirements. Based on the comments (Table 13) music education candidates express concern about their limited knowledge about collaboration as outlined in teacher standard 8 and the non‐existence in some courses about how to use technology in teaching high‐school age students. Additional comments were made about the lack of a SMART board in the WKU music education classroom. To that end, the department of music has addressed that issue by installing a Promethean board connected to SMART software in the WKU music education classroom on October 31, 2013. Since this has been a reoccurring negative comment about the music education preparation program, in January of 2013, a SMART Music Consultant from the national office presented a 1‐day workshop to music education majors about how to use technology in P‐12 classrooms/ensembles for instruction and assessment. A post‐workshop music education student survey was administered and responses indicated student satisfaction with the training and indications were made that their understanding about teaching with and student use of technology was enhanced. In the exit report, another student’s comment indicated a lack of instruction about integration of the arts in the elementary school. Such a remark will prompt the MUS 312 (grades P‐4) professor to re‐examine course content to strengthen the inclusion of arts (dance, drama, visual art) integration. Within the last year, there has been arts integrated activities taught in the course. In MUS 412 (grades 5‐8), course content includes an entire unit of instruction about integrating the other arts through music instruction. All concerns will be discussed with the Music Education Committee (MEC) to determine how best to address the issues. Overall, it can summarized that the WKU Department of Music faculty are making every effort to provide quality preparation and mentorship resultant in music education candidates experiencing success in their chosen fields. 3. Efforts to Report and Disseminate Results Bachelor of Music Education Program Results have been disseminated as follows: 1.
SACS Continuous Program Assessments (University‐wide) 2.
Report submitted to the Head of the Department of Music and Respective Faculty 3.
Presentation to the Music Education Committee (MEC) 4.
Review of student performances to the Department of Music Curriculum and Long Range Planning Committees. 4. Key Discussions and/or Decisions Made Based on Assessment Results a. Assessment or Data Collection Changes Based on Assessment Results 1. Department‐wide effort on student recruitment with ACT 21 or higher P‐12 Music Education 201213 Page 13 of 14 2. Continue the implementation of the P‐12 Music Education Pedagogy Critical Performances aligned to the 10 Kentucky Teacher Standards (KTS). 3. Continue the evaluations of music education candidate’s dispositions by the Music Education Committee (MEC) as described in the Dispositions component of the report. 4. Include the review of EDU 250 critical performance and if applicable the EXED 330 and Psych 310 critical performances in the MEC review and report. 5. Continue to review the Bachelor of Music Education Degree Program requirements and course contents for consistency in rigor and alignment to the performance indicators prescribed in the KTS. b. Program Curriculum or Experiences Changes Based on Assessment Results 1. Continue to use the 2011 models for design of the collaboration plan, professional growth plan and leadership in supervision of the music student teachers. 2. Revision of the MEC policy for music education student review 3. Continue to implement the P‐12 Music Education Pedagogy Critical Performances. 4. Continue to revise all P‐12 music education course work to reflect the revised Kentucky Teacher Standards. 5. Additional observation experiences in diverse settings with students enrolled in WKU KAP, Pre‐College Choir, Keyboard and Strings Programs c. Decisions about Group/Individual Student Progress Based on Assessment Results 1. Continue the MEC’s continuance policy in the Bachelor of Music Education Degree Program by reviewing each candidate’s teacher dispositions, class Performances and critical performance scores in music pedagogy and applicable education courses. 2. Continue the Praxis II Music Blitz sessions prior to the test dates. 3. Align all P‐12 Music Education pedagogy, techniques, and music technology course content to the PRAXIS II Music Content and Instruction exam. 4. Require music education candidates to meet with Department Head of Music or the Coordinator of Music Education to discuss content areas of the PRAXIS II Music Exams that was troublesome. P‐12 Music Education 201213 Page 14 of 14 5. Review the GPA’s, musical performance progress of each student before entering the Music Education sequence of courses. 6. Discussion with the WKU CEBS administration regarding the possibility that a music education professor teach a P‐12 section of EDU 489. 5. Discuss trends in assessment results over the last few years (Please refer back to your 2009‐10 and 2010‐11 APRs which are posted to the College of Education Professional Education Unit website) Overall, 2012‐13 assessment results indicate a high quality of candidate preparedness for instruction in P‐12 music education. It is evidenced that since 2009‐10 ongoing alignment in music education pedagogy courses to EPSB regulations; implementation of the MEC review of music education candidates; PRAXIS II Blitz session; and a continuous assessment process by evaluating an individual’s level of musical performance as well as teaching preparedness implies the Department of Music faculty are committed to the preparation, mentorship and expectations for candidate achievement to a high‐level of excellence. Often, faculty refers to the music education candidates as artistic educators because WKU Department of Music holds high‐standards for developing musical skills as well as pedagogical skills. P‐12 music education graduates are successfully employed in Kentucky as well as numerous states as music educators. A majority of the music education graduates have been successful in graduate study throughout the United States.