Chemistry Education 2011‐12 Page 1 of 6 Chemistry Education – Initial Preparation Annual Program Report Academic Year 2011‐12 Cathleen Webb and Rui Zhang November 12, 2012 1. Continuous Assessment Results a. Admission Data Table 1 provides the average admission test scores and admission grade point average (GPA) of Chemistry 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 Chemistry ACT N Mean 5 28 PPST Math N Mean PPST
Reading N Mean
PPST
Writing N Mean
SAT N Mean
GRE Composite N Mean 3 1087 Admission GPA N Mean
8
3.40
b. Course Based Assessment Data Table 2 provides the percentage of Chemistry Education candidates (N = 13) 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 EXED‐330 SMED‐102 SMED‐210 SMED‐320 SMED‐340 SMED‐360 SMED‐470 Grand Total 1 2 3 4 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 66.77% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 87.50% 0.00% 26.67% 60.00% 13.33% 0.00% 0.00% 70.51% 29.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 76.47% 23.53% 0% 1.43% 63.57% 35.00% Table 3 indicates the level of Chemistry Education candidates (N = 13) 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 Chemistry Education 2011‐12 Page 2 of 6 associated with the CP. Compared to the unit‐wide results, Chemistry Education candidates are typically performing above average. Table 3. Percent of Chemistry Education Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS Program Chemistry Unit‐Wide 1 2 3 100% 100% 100% 97% 97% 97% Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 96% 96% 97% 8 9 100% 100% 97% 95% 10 100% 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 Chemistry Education candidates (N = 1) who have scored 2 or lower (below proficiency) on critical performances during this academic year. Table 4. Chemistry Education Candidates Scoring Below Proficient on CPs Student ID 800704159 Grand Total Score 1 0 0 2 1 1 Student Count 1 1 c. Clinical Experiences Data The Chemistry Education program uses the following courses and experiences to evaluate candidate dispositions: EDU 250, PSY 310, SEC 351, SEC 352, SEC 453, SEC 479, SEC 490 and EDU 489 as well as CHEM 222, CHEM 330 and CHEM 342. The program has identified the following courses and experiences where candidates report the diversity of their field experiences: EDU 250, SEC 352, and SEC 472‐484. SEC 352 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 Chemistry Education candidates performed on dispositions as they entered and progressed through their program (N = 14) and during their student teaching experience (N = 2). Students are considered “proficient” who average a 3 or higher on each disposition category. Table 5. Chemistry Education Proficiency Rates on Unit‐Wide Dispositions Period a. Prior to Student Teaching b. During Student Teaching Values Learning WKU Professional Education Dispositions Values Personal Values Values Values Integrity Diversity Collaboration Professionalism 96.88% 100% 100% 100% #DIV/0! 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Chemistry Education 2011‐12 Page 3 of 6 Over this academic year, Chemistry Education candidates (N = 17) reported demographic information on 3 field placements with an average of 23% ethnically diverse students, 47% students on free/reduced lunch, and 8% student with disabilities (based on National Center for Education Statistics and Kentucky Department of Education). This ethnic diversity percentage continues to be 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) 0%
38%
0%
5%
48%
14%
0%
0%
5%
0%
0%
0%
81%
5%
48%
52%
76%
95%
Overall, as can be seen in Table 6, in 48% of their field experiences Chemistry 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 Chemistry Education 2011‐12 Page 4 of 6 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 Chemistry Education candidates (N = 0). Table 7. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates Program Chemistry Unit‐Wide % Proficient ‐‐‐ 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 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 Chemistry 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 Chemistry Education Candidates Program Chemistry Unit‐Wide CF ‐‐‐ 94% LG ‐‐‐ 91% DFI ‐‐‐ 89% ASL ‐‐‐ 92% ROT ‐‐‐ 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 Chemistry Education Candidates who “Passed” each Teacher Standard Program Chemistry Unit‐Wide 1 ‐‐‐ 83% 2 ‐‐‐ 91% 3 ‐‐‐ 92% 5 ‐‐‐ 88% 6 ‐‐‐ 83% 7 ‐‐‐ 76% 9 ‐‐‐ 88% Additionally, all candidates are assessed during their student teaching experience using the Student Teaching Evaluation form. Table 10 reports the percentages of Chemistry Education student teachers (N = 2) 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. Chemistry Education 2011‐12 Page 5 of 6 Table 10. Chemistry Education Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards Program Chemistry Unit‐Wide 1 2 3 100% 100% 100% 94% 89% 94% Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 100% 100% 100% 100% 89% 88% 82% 87% 8 9 100% 100% 90% 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 (No Chemistry Education candidates took the Praxis II during the 2010‐11 year) Table 11. Pass Rates on Content Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation Candidate N (2010‐11) 5 Program/Type of Assessment Secondary Ed/Chemistry WKU Pass Rate (2010‐11) 100% WKU Pass Rate (2009‐10) ‐‐‐ 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 5 student teachers, 1 (20 %) completed the survey. Below are the results for Chemistry Education student teachers, 1 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 Chemistry Education survey results. Table 12. Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions for Chemistry Education Respondents Program Chemistry Unit‐Wide 1 2 3 4.00 3.44 3.20 3.42 4.00 3.61 Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 3.80 3.37 3.40 3.25 2.75 3.40 4.00 3.32 8 9 10 4.00 3.06 4.00 3.31 4.00 3.09 Respondents were also able to provide comments. Table 13 presents Chemistry Education respondent comments. Table 13. Chemistry Education Respondent Comments No CHEM students/graduates made comments. Chemistry Education 2011‐12 Page 6 of 6 2. Summary of Results by Kentucky Teacher Standards and Other Key Conceptual Framework Values Admission Data: The mean ACT score was above the mean of all candidates, and three
students admitted with GRE scores. The mean admission GPA of 3.40 was greater than the
mean of 3.29 for all students.
Course Based Assessment Data: Critical Performance (CP) proficiency level percentages
indicate the Chemistry candidates are performing as well as or better than average.
Clinical Experiences Data: The percentages of students working with diverse populations are
within guidelines.
Culminating Assessment Data: No data for Chemistry students.
Exit and Follow Up Data: The pass rate on the 2010-2011 Praxis was maintained with 100%
of candidates. 3. Efforts to Report and Disseminate Results This report was forwarded to the Chemistry Department’s Teacher Education Committee for
reading and discussion. Issues raised by this report will inform future decisions regarding the
direction of the program.
4. Key Discussions and/or Decisions Made Based on Assessment Results a. Assessment or Data Collection Changes Based on Assessment Results At this time, we believe that data collection is comprehensive and requires no changes.
b. Program Curriculum or Experiences Changes Based on Assessment Results More effort is need to ensure student success through SAE, differentiated instruction and planning and management themes. c. Decisions about Group/Individual Student Progress Based on Assessment Results We don't yet have enough candidates coming through our program at this time to make valid statistical judgment. However, in the past year we have seen the increase of our candidate numbers. 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) We don't yet have sufficient data at this time to make valid statistical comparison.