Physical Education 201213 Page 1 of 15 Physical Education – Initial Preparation Annual Program Report Academic Year 2012‐13 Elizabeth Pyle 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 Physical 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 Physical Education ACT N Mean 5 23 PPST Math N Mean 3 182 PPST
Reading N Mean
3
176
PPST
Writing N Mean
3
173
SAT N Mean
GRE Composite N Mean Admission GPA N Mean
11
3.29
b. Course Based Assessment Data Table 2 provides the percentage of Physical Education candidates (N = 47) 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 3 4 EDU 250 0.00% 0.00% 90.48% 9.52% EDU 489 0.00% 35.29% 64.71% 0.00% EXED 330 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% PE 121 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% PE 314 0.00% 16.67% 83.33% 0.00% PE 319 0.00% 25.00% 75.00% 0.00% PE 320 22.22% 11.11% 66.67% 0.00% PH 261 0.00% 0.00% 54.35% 45.65% PH 381 0.00% 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% PSY 310 0.00% 0.00% 6.67% 93.33% Grand Total 1.24% 17.03% 65.94% 15.79% Physical Education 201213 Page 2 of 15 Table 3 indicates the level of Physical Education candidates (N = 47) 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, Physical education candidates are typically performing below average. Table 3. Percent of Physical Education Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS Program Physical Education Unit‐Wide 1 87.28 97% 2 3 Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 85.19 85.94 92.30 85.72 78.38 97% 97% 98% 97% 97% 8 9 84.21 80.55 80.00 97% 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 Physical education candidates (N = 11) who have scored 2 or lower (below proficiency) on critical performances during this academic year. If there are no 800#s indicated in the table provided, then your program had zero students who scored below proficient. Table 4. Physical Education Candidates Scoring Below Proficient on CPs Score Student ID 800515977 800484803 800495391 800510197 800542630 800697634 800573925 800519055 Grand Total 1 Student Count 2 1
1 1 2
1
1
1
1
1
3
9
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 11 c. Clinical Experiences Data Physical Education uses the following courses and experiences to evaluate candidate dispositions: EDU 489 and SEC 490. The program has identified the following courses and experiences where candidates report the diversity of their field experiences: PETE 322 and PETE 415. PETE 415 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. Physical Education 201213 Page 3 of 15 Table 5 reports how Physical Education candidates performed on dispositions as they entered and progressed through their program (N = 30) and during their student teaching experience (N = 17). Students are considered “proficient” who average a 3 or higher on each disposition category. Table 5. Physical 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 97.50% 97.50% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Over this academic year, Physical Education candidates (N = 5) reported demographic information on 5 field placements with an average of 9.4% ethnically diverse students, 47.5% students on free/reduced lunch, and 12.0% 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) 40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
0%
20%
0%
20%
20%
20%
0%
100%
40%
80%
60%
40%
Physical Education 201213 Page 4 of 15 % Candidates working with Diverse Students (Aggregate) 100%
Overall, as can be seen in Table 6, in 40% of their field experiences Physical 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 Physical Education candidates (N = 8). Table 7. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates Program Physical Education Unit‐Wide % Proficient 60% 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 Physical 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 Physical Education Candidates Program Physical Education Unit‐Wide CF LG DFI ASL ROT 75% 89% 50% 91% 75% 85% 87.5% 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. Physical Education 201213 Page 5 of 15 Table 9. Percentage of Physical Education Candidates who “Passed” each Teacher Standard Program Physical Education Unit‐Wide 1 2 3 5 6 87.50% 89% 87.50% 94% 62.50% 92% 62.50% 90% 75.00% 92% 7 9 100.00% 100.00%
91% 88% Additionally, all candidates are assessed during their student teaching experience using the Student Teaching Evaluation form. Table 10 reports the percentages of Physical Education student teachers (N = 17) 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. Physical Education Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards Program Physical Education Unit‐Wide Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 97% 91% 94% 88% 76% 76% 97% 92% 96% 91% 87% 90% 82% 86% 8 9 10 91% 91% 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. Specific information about WKU student performance on each Praxis test is located in the back of the Unit‐Wide Assessment Report. This information could be included here or in section 2 below.] Table 11. Pass Rates on Content Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation Program/Type of Assessment Physical Education: Content knowledge Physical Education: Analysis and Design Candidate N (2011‐12) 4 11 WKU Pass Rate (2011‐12) ** 100% WKU Pass Rate (2010‐11) 71% 100% 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 19 student teachers, 17 (89.47%) completed the survey. Below are the results for Physical Education student teachers, 17 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 Physical education survey results. Physical Education 201213 Page 6 of 15 Table 12. Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions for Physical Education Respondents Program Physical Education Unit‐Wide Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 3.18 3.00 3.37 3.27 2.93 2.88 3.49 3.45 3.66 3.43 3.29 3.37 8 9 10 3.21 2.93 3.16 2.89 3.30 3.14 3.36 3.18 Respondents were also able to provide comments. Table 13 presents Physical Education respondent comments. Table 13. Physical Education Respondent Comments I believe WKU could’ve shown me different and more ways to use technology in the classroom and a form of assessment during my time here We spoke or covered all of the items above but I believe more assignments like maybe an actual leadership project we had to do with our classes. Or maybe given a situation in which we had to actually create a collaborative unit or lesson plan. Physical Education 201213 Page 7 of 15 2. The following are guiding questions designed to focus discussion relative to the data and to help develop the narrative for the annual program report.  Group/Individual student progress based on assessment results  Suggested program changes in curriculum and/or assessments based on data analysis  Trends in assessment results over the last three years (see previous annual program reports (APRs) posted on the Professional Education Unit website http://www.wku.edu/cebs/peu/reports/annual_program_reports.php). 3. The annual program report should include: (a) summary of findings related to the guiding questions above; (b) a summary of results related to students performance on the Kentucky Teacher Standards (KTS) and other key conceptual values; and (c) recommended changes and plan for disseminating the report. Physical Education 201213 Page 8 of 15 Summary of Results Related to Students Performance on the Kentucky Teacher Standards (KTS) and Other Key Conceptual Values in terms of Group/Individual Student Progress The data in Table 2 indicated that 66% of the physical education candidates scored at standard and 16% scored above standard for proficiency on Critical Performances; this is an 3% increase from last year at the ‘at standard’ level, but the ‘above standard’ dropped 14% from last year; the overall percentage for both categories together dropped 11% primarily due to the fact that there was a 12% increase of students scoring at Level 2. Comparing the data in Table 4 shows that 11 of 58 (18%) Physical Education students scored below proficient on critical performances during the 2011‐12 academic year while 11 of 47 (23%) scored below during the 2011‐12 academic year. These results are more dramatic due to the N being 11 students lower. The data in Table 3 indicated that the proficiency levels of our students enrolled in Physical Education Teacher Education initial preparation declined in 8 of the 10 Kentucky Teacher Standards as determined by these Critical Performances. They ranged from a low of 78% (Standard 6) to a high of 100% (Standard 10). Across the 10 standards, the percentage for each standard declined from last year with the exception of Standard 4 which in 2011‐12 had no data reported but this year reported 92% and Standard 10 which remained the same with 100%. Kentucky Teacher Standards were also assessed through the capstone Senior Project, the Teacher Work Sample (TWS). The data in Table 9 (measured by the TWS) indicated that the percentages of our students who “passed” each Kentucky Teacher Standard fluctuated from a low of 62% (Standard 3) to a high of 100% (Standards 7 and 9). Percentages for Standards 7 and 9 were above the Unit‐Wide percentages, while the percentages for Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, were below Unit‐Wide percentages; no data was provided for Standards 4, 8, 10. In addition, the data on Table 10 indicated the proficiency rates of our students for each of the 10 Kentucky Teaching Standards when measured by the Student Teaching Evaluation form again showed some variance. The percentages ranged from a low of 76% (Standard 5 – an increase of 13% from the previous year; Standard 6 – an increase 23% from the previous year) to a high of 97% (Standard 1 – a 3% increase from the previous year). An increase was shown in all categories although still slightly below unit‐wide scores. Table 5 data indicated that 100% of Physical Education Teacher Education students demonstrated proficiency on unit‐wide Dispositions both prior to and during student teaching on the following dispositions: Values Diversity; Values Collaboration, and Values Professionalism. For each disposition, Values Learning and Values Personal Integrity, 97.5% of Physical Education Teacher Education students demonstrated proficiency on unit‐wide Dispositions both prior to and during student teaching. The results from the WKU Teacher Survey completed by our student teachers and alumni ranked WKU preparation for each of the Kentucky Teacher Standards. The scores ranged from 2.88 to 3.37 (on a 4 point scale). Standard 6‐Technology was the low score and below the unit‐
wide score. Our second lowest score was 2.89 on Standard 10 (Leadership). Physical Education 201213 Page 9 of 15 Our third lowest score, 2.93, was reported on two standards: Standard 5 – (Assessment) and Standard 8 (Collaboration). Our scores on Standards 1‐Content Knowledge, 2‐Designs/Plans Instruction, 3‐Maintains Learning Climate, Standards 4‐Implements/Manages Instruction, 7‐
Reflection, and 9‐Professional Development were slightly below Unit‐Wide scores. There were 2 written comments; one comment concerned more ways to use technology and the other comment concerned the leadership project. According to Table 11, Physical Education Teacher Education candidates had a 100% pass rate on the Physical Education ‐Analysis & Design Praxis II which is an increase from last year’s scores. Pass‐rate for Physical Education: Content Knowledge was not reported since only 4 students took the exam. According to the 3 WKU measurements (Critical Performances, TWS, and Student Teacher Evaluations) of Proficiency in the 10 Kentucky Teacher Standards, our Physical Education Teacher Education students have areas of strength and areas that need to be strengthened. High Scores Low Scores Critical Performance
2012 – 2013
KTS 10 ‐ 100%
KTS 4 – 92%
KST 6 – 78%
KTS 9 ‐ 80% KTS 8 ‐ 80% 2011 ‐ 2012 KTS 10 ‐ 100%
KTS 4 ‐ no data
KTS 6 – 95% KTS 9 ‐ 86% KTS 8 ‐ 89% TWS
2012 – 2013
KTS 3 ‐ 63%
KTS 2 – 88% KTS 7 – 100% KTS 9 – 100% KST 6 – 78%
KTS 9 ‐ 80% KTS 8 ‐ 80% 2011 ‐ 2012 KTS 3 – 93% KTS 2 – 93% KTS 7 – 71% KTS 9 – 86% KTS 6 – 95% KTS 9 ‐ 86% KTS 8 ‐ 89% High Scores Low Scores High Scores Low Scores Student Teaching
2012 – 2013
KTS 1 ‐ 97%
KTS 8 – 91% KST 6 – 76%
KTS 5 – 76% 2011 ‐ 2012 KTS 1 ‐ 94% KTS 8 ‐ 82% KTS 6 ‐ 53% KTS 5 ‐ 59% Physical Education 201213 Page 10 of 15 Summary of Results by Kentucky Teacher Standards and Other Key Conceptual Framework Values in terms of Suggested Program Changes in Curriculum and/or Assessments  Continue to review critical performances in order to best emphasize and address each Kentucky Teacher Standard in order to improve student performances; some of the original Critical Performances need to be updated.  Continue to review and revise the Critical Performance PETE Program Course Matrix alignment in order to improve student performances; with the requirement of 200 observation hours prior to student teaching course syllabi and/or Critical Performance need to be updated.  Continue to reflect on each PETE course and to make necessary adjustments to create the best course assignments to strengthen our students’ skills focused on in the KTS. Based on recent data these courses are: PE 220 Skill Assessment and Progression (KTS 1, 2, 5); PE 222 Fitness/Wellness Application (KTS 1, 2, 4, 5); PE 314 Physical Education Curriculum (KTS 2, 4, 5, 6); PE 416 Special Topics in PE (KTS 7, 8, 9, 10); and PE 483 Technology Applications in PE (KTS 2, 4, 5, 6, 9). Also based on recent exit data, additional leadership opportunities need to be added to course criteria although other scores suggest this standard is one of our strongest areas. These courses are also aligned with Praxis II test categories.  Continue to provide additional tutoring for students falling below Proficiency measurements. Trends Looking over the last three years, gives a broader picture of how our majors are performing and also where we need to bolster student learning and our teaching. The following charts (Critical Performances; Teacher Work Sample; Teacher Work Sample Components, and Student Teacher Proficiencies) give the data from the following years 2010‐2011, 2011‐2012, and 2012‐2013; to provide a visual image, each individual chart is followed by a column bar graph representing the appropriate data. Physical Education 201213 Page 11 of 15 Critical Performances
KTS 1 Content Knowledge KTS 2 Designs/Plans Instruction KTS 3 Maintains Learning Climate KTS 4 Implements/Manages Instruction KTS 5 Assessment/Evaluation KTS 6 Technology KTS 7 Reflection KTS 8 Collaboration KTS 9 Professional Development KTS 10 Leadership Course(s)
2010‐2011
2011‐2012 PE 121; PE 314; SEC 478; PH 261; PH 381 PE 121; PE 314; SEC 478; PH 261; PH 381 PE 319; PE 320; EDU 250; PH261; PSY 310 PE 320; SEC 478
SEC 478; PH 381; PSY 310 PE 111, PE 320; SEC 478; PH 261 SEC 489
PE 319; PH 261
PE 319; SPED 330
PH 381
94
98 2012‐
2013 87
92
96 85
87
93 85
100
91
Data Missing 95 92
86
92
95 78
92
85
85
100
94 89 86 100 84
81
80
100
Critical Performance Percentages for Each Kentucky Teacher Standard by Academic Year The data represented in this graph suggests that in general our majors’ scores on critical performances related to each Kentucky Teacher Standard (KTS) have dropped slightly over the last three years. The only KTS that remains consistently high is KTS 10 (Leadership). Since the data on critical performances cover classes in all areas (Physical Education courses; Professional Education courses; Public Health courses) and from the freshman year to senior year, it indicates that more emphasis needs to be place in these areas in terms of students’ realization of the importance of all Critical Performances. If not already done, the faculty will add the critical performance criteria to the syllabi of any physical education requiring a critical performance; in addition the faculty will discuss in detail the importance of each and every critical regardless of department. Physical Education 201213 Page 12 of 15 Teacher Work Sample KTS 1 Content Knowledge KTS 2 Designs/Plans Instruction KTS 3 Maintains Learning Climate KTS 4 Implements/Manages Instruction KTS 5 Assessment/Evaluation KTS 6 Technology KTS 7 Reflection KTS 8 Collaboration KTS 9 Professional Development KTS 10 Leadership Course EDU 489 EDU 489 EDU 489 EDU 489 EDU 489 EDU 489 EDU 489 EDU 489 EDU 489 EDU 489 2010‐2011 79 93 100 NA 86 64 64 100 100 NA 2011‐2012 79 93 93 NA 86 79 71 NA 86 NA 2012‐2013 87.5 87.5 62.5 NA 62.5 75 100 NA 100 NA Teacher Work Sample Percentages for Each Kentucky Teacher Standard by Academic Year The data represented on the three‐year graph above suggests that our majors’ scores on the Kentucky Teacher Standards within the Teacher Work Sample (TWS) fluctuate from year to year. The TWS, completed during student teaching, is the major component of EDU 489. Although many of the critical performances in our physical education courses are directly related to the KTS and TWS, it appears that the students are not making the connection. As a faculty, we will need to make this connection more apparent and create additional assignments within the courses to assist the students’ in making these necessary links. It should also be noted that the TWS is scored by education faculty unfamiliar with the physical education content area and/or the gymnasium/outdoor teaching environment. Physical Education 201213 Page 13 of 15 Teacher Work Sample Components
Contextual Factors Learning Goals Design for Instruction Analysis of Student Learning Reflection on Teaching 2010‐2011
93
86
93
79
86
2011‐2012
100
86
93
93
86
2012‐2013 75 50 75 87.5 100 The data represented on the three‐year graphs above suggests that our majors’ scores on the five components of the Teacher Work Sample (TWS) fell during the 2012‐2013 academic year. The TWS, completed during student teaching, is the major component of EDU 489. Again, a number of the critical performances in our physical education courses are purposefully designed to give the students practice in writing to these components. However, the data suggests that our students need additional practice in writing these components as well as demonstrating an understanding of each component’s purpose to the larger educational picture. As a faculty, we will need to make this connection more apparent and create additional assignments that focus on the writing of these components. Again, it should also be noted that the TWS is scored by education faculty unfamiliar with the physical education content area and/or the gymnasium/outdoor teaching environment. Physical Education 201213 Page 14 of 15 Student Teacher Proficiencies
KTS 1 Content Knowledge KTS 2 Designs/Plans Instruction KTS 3 Maintains Learning Climate KTS 4 Implements/Manages Instruction KTS 5 Assessment/Evaluation KTS 6 Technology KTS 7 Reflection KTS 8 Collaboration KTS 9 Professional Development KTS 10 Leadership 2009‐2010 79 64 71 64 29 71 57 79 77 71 2010‐
2011 100 64 93 64 36 36 71 100 86 86 2011‐
2012 94 71 88 82 59 53 77 82 77 71 2012‐
2013 97 91 94 88 76 76 82 91 91 88 Since student teaching is the culminating experience for our majors, an extra year of data is included to give an even more detailed picture of their performance. The data suggests a steady upward growth of students’ scores in this area; we are very pleased that this is the trend in such an important area of our majors’ education. This is not to say, however, that there isn’t more work to be done. The areas of assessment and technology are areas that continue to be a focus; and it appears this emphasized focus in our overall curriculum is beginning to have positive results. The physical education curriculum continues to be scrutinized in all KTS areas, so that our physical education teacher education majors have the tools to become excellent physical educators. Physical Education 201213 Page 15 of 15 Recommended Changes and Plan for Disseminating the Report Our program is small, but growing, so keeping PETE faculty informed of this data is done on a regular basis. However, since there are Critical Performance revisions that need to be addressed, a more frequent look at data is recommended. Also, a new faculty member will begin in the Fall of 2014 so the dissemination of this data will be important to give this person pertinent information about the classes he/she will teach. A copy of this report will be given to each PETE faculty member as well as the Department Head and Dean of the College of Health and Human Services.