Art Education 2011-­‐12 Page 1 of 10 Bachelor of Arts in Visual Studies, Art Education Concentration– Initial Preparation Annual Program Report Academic Year 2011-­‐12 2/1/2013 1. Continuous Assessment Results a. Admission Data Table 1 provides the average admission test scores and admission grade point average (GPA) of BA, Art 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 Art Ed. PPST Math N Mean 1 183 ACT N Mean 9 24 PPST Reading N Mean 1 173 PPST Writing N Mean 1 174 SAT N Mean b. Course Based Assessment Data GRE Composite N Mean Admission GPA N Mean 11 3.41 Table 2 provides the percentage of BA, Art Education candidates (N = 25) 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 ART 411 0 0 50 50 ART 413 0 4 22 73 ART 490 0 0 50 50 EDU 250 0 0 83 17 EDU 489 0 0 100 0 EXED 330 0 0 33 67 PSY 310 0 12 23 65 Grand Total 0 2% 52% 46% Art Education 2011-­‐12 Page 2 of 10 Table 3 indicates the level of BA, Art Education candidate (N = 20) 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, BA, Art Education candidates are typically performing above average. Table 3. Percent of BA, Art Education Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS Program BA, Art Ed. Unit-­‐Wide 1 100 97% 2 100 97% 3 94 97% Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 100 100 100 97 98% 96% 96% 97% 8 98 97% 9 97 95% 10 96 98% *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 BA, Art Education candidates (N = 18) who have scored 2 or lower (below proficiency) on critical performances during this academic year. Table 4. BA, Art Education Candidates Scoring Below Proficient on CPs Student ID 800534066 800527501 800609287 Grand Total Score 1 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 Student Count 1 1 1 3 c. Clinical Experiences Data The BA, Art Education program uses the following courses and experiences to evaluate candidate dispositions: EDU 250, ART 411, ART 413, and EDU 490. The program has identified the following courses and experiences where candidates report the diversity of their field experiences: EDU 250, ART 311, ART 411, ART 413, and EDU 490. ART 411 and ART 413 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 BA, Art Education candidates performed on dispositions as they entered and progressed through their program (N = 11) and during their student teaching experience (N = 20). Students are considered “proficient” who average at 3 or higher on each disposition category. Table 5. BA, Art Education Proficiency Rates on Unit-­‐Wide Dispositions Period Values Learning WKU Professional Education Dispositions Values Personal Values Values Values Integrity Diversity Collaboration Professionalism Art Education 2011-­‐12 Page 3 of 10 Prior to Student Teaching During Student Teaching 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Over this academic year, BA, Art Educations candidates (N = 9) reported demographic information on 3 field placements with an average of 8% ethnically diverse students, 47% students on free/reduced lunch, and 16% student with disabilities (based on National Center for Education Statistics and Kentucky Department of Education). This ethnic diversity percentage continues to be well above the average 11% diversity of the schools in the 30+ counties that represent our service area. 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) 40 70 20 70 40 20 10 10 30 50 20 10 90 20 90 60 100 100 Overall, as can be seen in Table 6, in 100% of their field experiences BA, Art 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 Art Education 2011-­‐12 Page 4 of 10 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. The goal is that at least 80% of program candidates will achieve “3 – Proficient” or higher. Table 7 presents the proficiency rate of 100% for BA, Art Education candidates (N = 12). Table 7. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates Program BA, Art Education Unit-­‐Wide % Proficient 100 96 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 that 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 BA, Art 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 (N = 12) Table 8. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates of BA, Art Education Candidates Program BA, Art Ed. Unit-­‐Wide Teacher Work Sample Components CF LG 100 100 94% 91% DFI 100 89% ASL 92 92% ROT 92 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 (N = 11) Table 9. Percentage of Art Education Candidates who “Passed” each Teacher Standard Program Art Education Unit-­‐Wide 1 92 83% 2 100 91% 3 100 92% 5 100 88% 6 83 83% 7 92 76% 9 92 88% Art Education 2011-­‐12 Page 5 of 10 Additionally, all candidates are assessed during their student teaching experience using the Student Teaching Evaluation form. Table 10 reports the percentages of BA, Art Education student teachers (N = 8) successful on each standard. For program evaluation purposes, candidates are considered successful that average at least 2.5 on a 3-­‐point scale (1 – Not Met, 2 – Partially Met, and 3 – Met) on indicators aligned to the KTS standard (N = 11). Table 10. BA, Art Education Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards Program BA, Art Ed. Unit-­‐Wide 1 100 94% 2 100 89% Kentucky Teacher Standards 3 4 5 6 7 100 100 100 91 100 94% 89% 88% 82% 87% 8 100 90% 9 100 88% 10 100 90% 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 2010-­‐11 academic year (the most recent year with complete data). The last column allows for pass rate comparison of our candidates to our 2009-­‐10 results. Table 11. Pass Rates on Content Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation Candidate N (20010-­‐11) 7 8 Program/Type of Assessment Praxis II Art Content #0133 Praxis II Art Making #0131 WKU Pass Rate (2010-­‐11) 86 100 WKU Pass Rate (2009-­‐10) 100 100 Annually, the WKU Teacher Survey is sent to student teachers and alumni who potentially have been teaching one or more years. For the 2011-­‐12 academic year, out of a possible 349 student teachers, 98% completed the survey; out of possible 1521 alumni, 14% completed the survey. Below are the results for BA, Art Education student teachers and alumni, 7 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 BA, Art Education student teacher results (N = 7). Table 12. Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions for BA, Art Education Respondents Program BA, Art Ed. Unit-­‐Wide 1 2 3 3.32 3.44 3.00 3.42 3.49 3.61 Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 3.14 3.37 2.83 3.25 3.21 3.40 3.00 3.32 8 9 10 2.79 3.06 2.79 3.31 2.93 3.09 Respondents were also able to provide comments if they answered “poor” for any item. Table 13 presents Art Education respondent comments by years of experience. Art Education 2011-­‐12 Page 6 of 10 Table 13. BA, Art Education Respondent Comments Teaching experience Comments Spring 2012 The Art Education department is wonderful and run almost single-­‐handedly by one very talented and passionate professor. But I sincerely feel she needs assistance when helping all the various levels through their progression through the program and as they prepare to student teach. I felt underprepared for parts of the student teaching experience and the Praxis. I think there should be a separate course that deals with professional and practical development, preparation for the Praxis, interviews, writing grants, preparing supplies lists within a budget, and orchestrating classroom procedures/rules/and etc. Otherwise, I love the program. I feel prepared from a heart-­‐felt and intuitive basis -­‐ and I believe that is just as important as the practical components of becoming a teacher. WKU could have assigned multiple teachers instead of one cooperating teacher for both secondary and primary. I felt that my performance was based upon one teacher's opinion of me in the classroom rather than two teachers who could have rounded out the program. My experience was exhausting and I was pulled out after the three months rather than allowed my last two days in the classroom with this particular teacher. I would have liked to think that WKU would have higher standards for their cooperating teachers. Spring 2012 2. Summary of Results by Kentucky Teacher Standards and Other Key Conceptual Framework Values b. Course based assessments Based on Table 2, course-­‐based proficiencies, the Art education candidates are performing well or above average. 24 out of a total 25 students (98%) scored 3 or higher in the four courses outside their professional development and art education content area (EDU 250, EDU 489, EXED 330, PSY 310, ART 411, ART 413, ART 490). For the 2010 – 2011 art education content course based assessment data, the art education candidates uploaded their critical performance documents for ART 411, ART 413, and ART 490. The two external evaluators gathered ART 413 course based CP data using the KTIP Instructional Procedure CP rubrics in the Fall 2012. Table 3 provides the Ten KY core proficiency standards where CP data was provided. Other than two standards, KTS 3 and KTS 10 by a margin of 5%, all art education candidates (N=25) scored proficient above 98% of the time. This percentage reflects an average of 5% below the unit standards proficiency across critical performances related to the Kentucky Teacher Standards (KTS). c. Clinical based assessments Prior to the student teaching, art education candidates have ample opportunities for field experience in diverse learning environments. These courses include ART 311, ART 411, and 413, Art Education 2011-­‐12 Page 7 of 10 and ART 490. The data presented in Table 5, Clinical Experiences, report that the art education candidates (N=14) meet all the Professional Education Dispositions; Values learning, personal Integrity, diversity, collaboration, and professionalism. Table 6, Field Experiences by Category Types, reports 100% of the art teacher candidates (N=9) worked with students with Special Needs as well as with Diverse Students. Based on the data provided, it can be reported that the art education students do value diversity (100%) in the 21st century art classrooms of diverse cultures and abilities levels. d. Culminating assessment data The culminating CP assessment for all teacher education candidates is the Teacher Work Sample (TWS). Table 7, Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates, 100% of art teacher candidates (N=11) scored 3 (at standard) and 4 (exceeding standard). This is 4% higher than the unit-­‐wide results. Table 8, Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates of BA, Art Education Candidates, reports 100% proficiency in Contextual Factors, Learning Goals, Design for Instruction exceeding the unit wide proficiency rate. Analysis of Student Learning reports 92% and Reflection on Teaching 92%. These scores are still at and higher than unit wise assessment. BA, Art Education candidates outperform the unit wide proficiency rate on all five TWS components. Table 9 provides percentage of art teacher candidates (N=11) scoring 2.5 (at standards) or higher on TWS indicators related to KTS. 100% of the art teacher candidates passed all ten KTS standards outperforming the unit wide scores. With proficiency rate by Kentucky Teacher Standards in Table 10, art teacher candidates (N = 11) report above the unit wide scores on all KTS by 6-­‐13% outperforming the unit wide achievement. f. Exit and follow-­‐up data Table 11, pass rates for Praxis II tests, provides evidence of continuous successful passing rate (100%) for Praxis II Art Making (# 0131). For the past two years, a team of studio and art history faculty collaborated to help art teacher candidates prepare for the Praxis II exams. Students receive multiple art content reviews of the possible test items and individual feedbacks from three to four faculty who read their Art Making (writing portion) exam. This collaborative preparation process proved to be most beneficial for student success. 86% initial passing rate for the Praxis II Art Content (# 0133) will be improved by such consistent structural support and preparation. According to the survey administered to student teachers and alumni during 2011-­‐2012 (Table 12 and 13), art education candidates (N=7) believe their preparation for the profession in relationship to the 10 KTS ranges from good to excellent ranking fair to good, perceiving Art Education 2011-­‐12 Page 8 of 10 themselves less proficient in comparison to their counterparts. However, based on the outperforming scores reported on Table 9 (Percentage of passing each KTS on their TWS) and Table 10 (Proficiency Rates by KTS on their student teaching evaluation), the data may reflect a self-­‐perception in nature, and not necessarily represent the accurate performance levels on the KTS standards. 3. Efforts to Report and Disseminate Results BA in Visual Studies, Art Education Concentration program outcomes have been properly disseminated through 1. University level unit productivity report 2. SACS continuous program assessment through digital measure 3. Reports and discussions through the Art Department Curriculum Steering Committee 4. Art Department faculty committee for the recommendation of art teacher candidate 5. Art Department faculty and alumni newsletter 6. Continuous formal/informal discussions with the art department faculty 4. Key Discussions and/or Decisions Made Based on Assessment Results a. Assessment or Data Collection Changes Based on Assessment Results Art Education program will continue: 1. Evaluation of art education candidate’s dispositions by the Art Education Committee 2. Praxis II workshop and practice test readings by the art department faculty. 3. Programming of Professional Development opportunities, i.e. student mini-­‐
conference, National Art Education Association (NAEA) annual conference participation. 4. Recruitment of art teacher candidates with strong ACT or SAT score. 5. Support an active participation of the international student teaching and study abroad experiences for art teacher candidates. b. Program Curriculum or Experiences Changes Based on Assessment Results 1. Design models of collaboration and leadership plan. The art education program is planning a collaborative curriculum planning with VSA (Very Special Art) of Kentucky to help art teacher candidates learn special needs accommodation in the visual arts. 2. Continue collaboration with the WKU Center for Gifted Studies to provide art programs for K-­‐8 students with high artistic abilities. 3. Continue collaboration with the P-­‐12 field based mentor art teacher for real life learning 4. Implementation of the effective P-­‐12 Art Education Pedagogy Critical Performance aligned to the 10 KTS. Art Education 2011-­‐12 Page 9 of 10 5. 5. Plan a workshop for instructional technology to address KTS 6. 6. Implement Critical Performance application for program assessment. 7. Continue advocacy for the P-­‐12 visual arts in the school curriculum. c. Decisions about Group/Individual Student Progress Based on Assessment Results 1. Meaningful analysis of instructional data and learning results 2. Planning and managing an art budget for P-­‐12 school 3. Working model of classroom management strategies 4. Alternative instructional model for students with diverse needs 5. Creative classroom application of instructional technology for learners 6. Encourage participation in National Art Education Association annual conference. 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) Based on the comparison of the APR 2010-­‐2011 and APR 2011-­‐201, there has been an improvement of Admission GPA (Table 1) from 3.13 (N = 6) to 3.41 (N = 11). Critical Performance task uploaded from professional education and art education methods/practicum courses report improvement of 92% to 98% for 3 (at standards) and 4 (above standards) scores. Table 3 indicates the level of BA, Art Education candidate (N = 20) proficiency across critical performances related to the Kentucky Teacher Standards (KTS). Art Education candidates scored above the unit wide proficiency scoring other than standard 3 (3%) and 10 (2%). This is a significant improvement from previous years scores. There are two students who scored 2 or lower (below proficiency). We will compare this record with the next year’s score. Art Education candidates (N = 11) scored 100% both prior to and during student teaching sustaining the same scores from the precious year (Table 5). 100% of the Art Education candidates worked with student population with special needs and diverse ethnic/cultural background (Table 6) consistent with the previous year, 2010-­‐2011. Table 7, Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates report 100% of the Art Education candidates scoring 3 (proficient) or higher exceeding 80% target goal. TWS proficiency rate (Table 8) reports higher percentage for LG – Learning Goals, DFI – Design for Instruction compare to the 2010-­‐2011. 2011-­‐2012 scores report that Art Education candidates scored above the unit wide scores on all five TWS components. Table 9 reports these TWS scores as they relate to Kentucky Teacher Standards (N = 11). For 2010-­‐2011 scores reported KTS 2 (Instructional Planning), 6 (Technology), 7 (Reflection) below the unit wide measure. For 2011-­‐2012, Art Education candidates not only scored higher than the previous year for these three standards; KTS 2 from 88% to 100%, KTS 6 from 38% to 83%, KTS 7 from 8=75% to 92%, but also higher than unit Art Education 2011-­‐12 Page 10 of 10 scores for all 9 KTS measured. All BA, Art Education student teachers (N = 11) scored Proficiency Rates of 3 or higher on all KTS standards (Table 10). Praxis II Art Making (0131) reports 100% passing rate (N = 8). Art Content (#0133) reports 84% (N= 7) where a couple of students did not pass the first time. This is lower than the previous year (100%). However there was twice the number of students who took the exam for 2011-­‐2012. On a scare of 1 “Poor,” 2 “Fair,” 3 “Good,” and 4 “Excellent.”, average scores on Teacher Standards questions for BA scored 2.79 to 3.49 compared to 2.47 to 3.25 from previous year. We do not believe the difference in these numbers is significant. Based on the scores reported on Table 9 (Percentage of passing each KTS on their TWS) and Table 10 (Proficiency Rates by KTS on their student teaching evaluation), BA in Art Education candidates outperform unit wide measure, so the data (Table 12) may reflect a self-­‐
perception in nature, and not necessarily represent the accurate performance levels on the KTS standards. The comparison of the 2010-­‐2011, 2011-­‐2012 scores indicate a steady improvement on the proficiency rate of Kentucky Teacher Standards reflected on the TWS document and Student Teaching Evaluation. Art Department does not detect any major issues as far as student performance is concerned. Continuous recruitment effort for the quality art teacher candidates (with an MAT in place in the near future), follow through with rigorous content knowledge, age appropriate pedagogy, analysis of teaching, and real life learning in collaboration with the P-­‐12 field based teachers will remain as important ingredients for maintaining proficiency scores and for successful Art Education candidates.