SKyTeach 201213 Page 1 of 8 SKyTeach – Initial Preparation Annual Program Report Academic Year 2012‐13 Les Pesterfield and Martha Day 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 SKyTeach 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 ACT Program SKyTeach‐
Mathematics SKyTeach‐
Biology SKyTeach‐
Chemistry SKyTeach‐
Physics N Mean 21 24 PPST Math N Mean 6 24 5 25 1 187 1 26 PPST
Reading N Mean
1
179
PPST
Writing N Mean
1
SAT N Mean
176
GRE Composite N Mean Admission GPA N Mean
23
3.28
2 1065 9
3.56
1 920 9
3.30
1
3.52
b. Course Based Assessment Data Table 2 provides the percentage of SKyTeach candidates (N = 72) 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 EXED‐330 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% LME‐318 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% PSY‐310 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% SMED‐102 0.00% 0.00% 38.10% 61.90% SMED‐210 0.00% 0.00% 2.44% 97.56% SMED‐301 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 95.00% SMED‐320 0.00% 0.00% 68.54% 31.46% SMED‐340 0.00% 0.00% 45.00% 55.00% SMED‐360 0.00% 0.00% 61.54% 38.46% SKyTeach 201213 Page 2 of 8 Course 1 2 3 4 SMED‐470 0.00% 0.00% 91.78% 8.22% SPED‐330 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.010% Grand Total 0.00% 0.00% 66.26% 33.74% Table 3 indicates the level of SKyTeach candidates (N = 72) 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, SKyTeach candidates are typically performing above average. Table 3. Percent of SKyTeach Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS Program SKyTeach Unit‐Wide 1 2 3 100% 100% 100% 97% 97% 97% Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 97% 97% 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 SKyTeach candidates (N = 0) who have scored 2 or lower (below proficiency) on critical performances during this academic year. Table 4. SKyTeach Candidates Scoring Below Proficient on CPs Student ID Grand Total Score 1 2 Student Count 0.00% c. Clinical Experiences Data SKyTeach uses the following courses and experiences to evaluate candidate dispositions: SMED 210, SMED 320, and SMED 470. The program has identified the following courses and experiences where candidates report the diversity of their field experiences: SMED 101, SMED 102, SMED 301, SMED 210, SMED 320, SMED 340, SMED 360, EXED 330, and SMED 470 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 SKyTeach candidates performed on dispositions as they entered and progressed through their program (N = 69) and during their student teaching experience (N = 27). Students are considered “proficient” who average a 3 or higher on each disposition category. Table 5. SKyTeach Proficiency Rates on Unit‐Wide Dispositions SKyTeach 201213 Page 3 of 8 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 95.88% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Over this academic year, SKyTeach candidates (N = 84) reported demographic information on 160 field placements with an average of 19.4% ethnically diverse students, 44.8% students on free/reduced lunch, and 10.2% 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 % 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) 50%
55%
3%
2%
61%
40%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
96%
11%
88%
79%
78%
99%
Overall, as can be seen in Table 6, in 78% of their field experiences SKyTeach candidates reported working with at least one student with special needs and in 99% of their field experiences candidates reported working with at least one student from a diverse ethnic group. SKyTeach 201213 Page 4 of 8 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 SKyTeach candidates (N = 18). Table 7. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates Program SKyTeach 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 SKyTeach 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 SKyTeach Candidates Program SKyTeach Unit‐Wide CF 100% 89% LG 100% 91% DFI 100% 85% ASL 83.33% 91% ROT 94.44% 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. Table 9. Percentage of SKyTeach Candidates who “Passed” each Teacher Standard Program SKyTeach Unit‐Wide 1 100% 89% 2 100% 94% 3 100% 92% 5 94.44% 90% 6 94.44% 92% 7 94.44% 91% 9 94.44% 88% SKyTeach 201213 Page 5 of 8 Additionally, all candidates are assessed during their student teaching experience using the Student Teaching Evaluation form. Table 10 reports the percentages of SKyTeach student teachers (N = 27) 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. SKyTeach Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards Program SKyTeach Unit‐Wide 1 2 100% 100% 97% 92% 3 93% 96% Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 93% 93% 96% 89% 91% 87% 90% 86% 8 89% 93% 9 100% 97% 10 93% 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 Candidate N (2011‐12) 9 5 3 16 16 31 12 Program/Type of Assessment Biology Chemistry Physics Mathematics: Content Knowledge Math Proofs Models Problems Part 1 Middle School Mathematics Middle School Science WKU Pass Rate (2011‐12) 100% 86% ** 100% 100% 100% 100% WKU Pass Rate (2010‐11) 100% ** 86% 100% 92% 100% 93% 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 27 student teachers, 18 (66%) completed the survey. Below are the results for SKyTeach student teachers, 18 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 SKyTeach survey results. Table 12. Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions for SKyTeach Respondents Program SKyTeach Unit‐Wide 1 2 3 3.54 3.49 3.57 3.45 3.71 3.66 Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 3.52 3.43 3.35 3.29 3.28 3.37 3.52 3.30 8 9 10 3.23 3.14 3.39 3.36 3.19 3.18 SKyTeach 201213 Page 6 of 8 Respondents were also able to provide comments. Table 13 presents SKyTeach respondent comments. Table 13. SKyTeach Respondent Comments No SKyTeach students/graduates provided comments SKyTeach 201213 Page 7 of 8 2. Summary of Results by Kentucky Teacher Standards and Other Key Conceptual Framework Values Admission Data: The mean ACT score of 24 was identical to the mean of all candidates. The mean admission GPA of 3.30 was also similar to the mean of 3.36 of all students. Course Based Assessment Data: Critical Performance proficiency level percentages indicate that SKyTeach candidates are performing at or better than the average candidate. No SKyTeach students earned critical performance scores below “3” proficient and SKyTeach students earned “4” advanced on 33.74% of critical performances across SKyTeach courses. 100% of SKyTeach candidates scored proficient on all ten Kentucky Teacher Standards in their critical performances. Clinical Experiences Data: The percentages of students working with diverse populations are within guidelines. 99% of SKyTeach candidates reported working with students of diverse backgrounds and 78% reported working with students with special needs. Culminating Assessment Data: TWS initial assessment rates of SKyTeach students exceed unit‐wide data of 96% proficiency. SKyTeach students were 100% proficient on TWS initial assessment. Exit and Follow Up Data: The pass rate on the 2010‐2011 Praxis content area tests was 100% (N=87 ) with the exception of the Chemistry assessment which had a pass rate of 86% (N=5) 3. Key Discussions and/or Decisions Made Based on Assessment Results (a) The program will make improvements on candidate’s TWS preparation in both Contextual Factors and Analysis of Student Learning through better staff preparation and teaching in the aforementioned areas. Additionally, SKyTeach faculty will improve candidate preparation in KTS 8, “Teacher Collaboration” with focused clinical experiences in this KTS area and classroom exercises that offer authentic experiences in this area of teacher preparation. Further, SKyTeach staff participated in co‐teaching training during this academic year in an effort to increase focus on teacher collaborative efforts in clinical field experiences. (b) SKyTeach faculty will implement measures to better prepare candidates for higher levels of proficiency on Kentucky Teacher Standard 3 “Maintains Learning Climate” and Standard 8 “Teacher Proficiency” based on proficiency rates are below unit‐wide proficiency levels. SKyTeach 201213 Page 8 of 8 (c) This report was forwarded to the SKyTeach faculty and staff for reading and discussion. The content contained in this report will inform future decisions regarding program decisions. Recommended changes include assisting chemistry students with preparation and study materials for content area praxis exams, administering diagnostic assessments for chemistry content examinations, assessing areas of deficiency and communicating with chemistry content faculty regarding deficiency areas and improving curricula based on these results. Further, increased efforts must be made to ensure that all SKyTeach students have the opportunity to work with special needs students during their clinical field experiences. Master Teachers will identify these opportunities when scheduling clinical experiences across all SKyTeach (SMED) courses. Note: The SKyTeach program does not yet have sufficient data to make valid statistical comparisons over a three year period. The program anticipates having sufficient data during the 2013‐2014 program assessment.