P ‐ 12   Music   Education   2011 ‐ 12
Page   1   of   11
P ‐ 12   Music   Education–   Initial   Preparation
Annual   Program   Report
Academic   Year   2011 ‐ 12
Robyn   Swanson
November   10,   2012
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   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.
Program
Music
Education
Table   1.
Approved   Candidate   Test   Score   Averages
ACT
PPST
Math
PPST
Reading
PPST
Writing
SAT
GRE
Composite
Admission
GPA
N       Mean   N       Mean   N      Mean N      Mean N      Mean N       Mean   N      Mean
14   25   1   188   1 182 1 173 1 1510     16 3.41
a.
Course   Based   Assessment   Data
Table   2   provides   the   percentage   of   P ‐ 12   music   education   candidates   (N   =78)   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
EDU ‐ 489
EXED ‐ 330
MUS   312
MUS ‐ 412
PSY ‐ 310
MUS   415
MUS   416
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0   49.18%   50.82%
5.56%   94.44%   0
9.09%   45.45%   45.45%
0   0   100%
0   68.18%   31.82%
4.35%   19.57%   76.09%
0   0   0
0   29%   71%
Grand   Total   0%   3%   61%   36%
Table   3   indicates   the   level   of   P ‐ 12   music   education   candidates   (N   =78)   proficiency   across   critical   performances   related   to   the   Kentucky   Teacher   Standards   (KTS).
Candidates   receiving   an   overall

P ‐ 12   Music   Education   2011 ‐ 12
Page   2   of   11   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   above   average.
No   P ‐ 12   music   education   data   were   provided   for
Standard   10.
Table   3.
Percent   of   P ‐ 12   Music   Education   Candidates   Scoring   Proficient   on   CPs   by   KTS
Program
1   2   3
Kentucky   Teacher   Standards
4   5   6   7   8   9   10
Music   Education     98%   98%   98%   100%   98%   98%   99%   98%   95%   NR
Unit ‐ Wide   97%   97%   97%   98%   96%   96%   97%   97%   95%   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   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   Student   Count
1    2
800511991
800530056
1
1
1
1
800233507
800579703
1
1
1
1
Grand   Total   4   4
b.
Clinical   Experiences   Data
P ‐ 12   music   education   uses   the   following   courses   and   experiences   to   evaluate   candidate   dispositions:   MUS   312,   412,   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   =   48)   and   during   their   student   teaching   experience   (N   =   18).
Students   are   considered   “proficient”   who   average   a   3   or   higher   on   each
disposition   category.
Table   5.
P ‐ 12   Music   Education   Proficiency   Rates   on   Unit ‐ Wide   Dispositions
Period   Values
Learning
WKU   Professional   Education   Dispositions
Values   Personal
Integrity
Values
Diversity
Values
Collaboration
Values
Professionalism

P ‐ 12   Music   Education   2011 ‐ 12
Page   3   of   11   a.
Prior   to   Student
Teaching   b.
During   Student
Teaching
98.48%
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
95%
Over   this   academic   year,   P ‐ 12   music   education   candidates   (N   =   12)   reported   demographic   information   on   12   field   placements   with   an   average   of   17%   ethnically   diverse   students,   39 %   students   on   free/reduced   lunch,   and   10 %   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   15%
%   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)
85%
31%
69%
69%
85%
%   Candidates   working   with   Diverse   Students   (Aggregate)   85%
Overall,   as   can   be   seen   in   Table   6,   in   90%   of   their   field   experiences   P ‐ 12   music   education   candidates   reported   working   with   at   least   one   student   with   special   needs   and   in   94%   of   their   field   experiences   candidates   reported   working   with   at   least   one   student   from   a   diverse   ethnic
group.
8%
0%
8%
0%
0%
38%
0%
23%
54%
31%
8%

P ‐ 12   Music   Education   2011 ‐ 12
Page   4   of   11
c.
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   music   education   candidates   (N   =   17).
Table   7.
Initial   Preparation   TWS   Proficiency   Rates
Program
P ‐ 12   Music   Education
Unit ‐ Wide
%   Proficient
96%
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   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
CF   LG   DFI   ASL   ROT
P ‐ 12   Music
Education
Unit ‐ Wide
94.12%   88.24%   94.12%   94.12%   82.35%
94%   91%   89%   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.
Table   9.
Percentage   of   P ‐ 12   Music   Education   Candidates   who   “Passed”   each   Teacher   Standard
Program
1   2   3   5   6   7   9
P ‐ 12   Music
Education
Unit ‐ Wide
94.12%   94.12%   94.12%   88.24%   88.24%   76.47%   82.35%
83%   91%   92%   88%   83%   76%   88%

P ‐ 12   Music   Education   2011 ‐ 12
Page   5   of   11
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   =   18)   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.
P ‐ 12   Music   Education   Proficiency   Rates   by   Kentucky   Teacher   Standards
Program
1   2   3
Kentucky   Teacher   Standards
4   5   6   7   8   9   10
P ‐ 12   Music
Education
Unit ‐ Wide
85%   75%   95%   75%   80%   70%   80%   90%   85%   85%
94%   89%   94%   89%   88%   82%   87%   90%   88%   90%
d.
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 ‐ 2010   results.
Table   11.
Pass   Rates   on   Content   Tests   for   Initial   Teacher   Preparation
Program/Type   of    Assessment
PRAXIS   II   Concepts   and   Processes
PRAXIS   II   Music   Content   Knowledge
Candidate   N
(2010 ‐ 11)
20
19
WKU    Pass   Rate
(2010 ‐ 11)
100%
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   18   student   teachers,   13   (72%)   completed   the   survey.
Below   are   the   results   for   P ‐ 12   music   education   student   teachers,   13   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   P ‐ 12   music
education   survey   results.
Table   12.
Average   Scores   on   Teacher   Standards   Questions   for   P ‐ 12   Music   Education
Respondents
Program
1   2   3
Kentucky   Teacher   Standards
4   5   6   7   8   9   10
P ‐ 12   Music
Education
Unit ‐ Wide
3.23
3.44
2.86
3.42
3.42
3.61
2.98
3.37
2.74
3.25
3.12
3.40
2.95
3.32
2.67
3.06
3.10
3.31
3.12
3.09

P ‐ 12   Music   Education   2011 ‐ 12
Page   6   of   11
Respondents   were   also   able   to   provide   comments.
Table   13   presents   P ‐ 12   music   education   respondent   comments.
Table   13.
P ‐ 12   Music   Education   Respondent   Comments
For   the   items   I   marked   as   poor,   we   did   not   cover   very   much   material   dealing   with   the   criteria.
A   comment   I   would   like   to   make,   that   I   believe   will   help   in   the   future,   is   that   more   time   spent   creating   lesson   plans   and   finding   materials   would   be   more   beneficial   to   student   teachers   than   just   a   few   lessons   throughout   the   collegiate   experience.
I   answered   "Poor"   to   some   items,   because   the   material   simply   was   not   covered.
Loads   of   paperwork   were   shoved   into   my   hands   with   instructions   of,   "complete   this   to   graduate."   All   of   my   actual   knowledge   gained   from   this   experience   was   hands ‐ on,   and   in   the   moment.
I   could   not   have   prepared   myself   for   much   of   it.
If   I   am   successful   in   a   career   of   education,   it   will   not   be   because   of   WKU.
I   would   have   been   better   prepared   in   these   areas   if   I   had   a   Music   Education   professor   as   my   professor.

P ‐ 12   Music   Education   2011 ‐ 12
Page   7   of   11
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   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,   2012   the   MEC   reviewed   the   N=20   music   education   candidates   and   each   candidate   met   “at   standard.”
Based   on   2011 ‐ 2012   “during   student   teaching”   data   reported   in   Table   5,   there   was   a   95%   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   Continuous   Assessment
Results.
a.
Admission   Requirements
The   average   of   the   ACT   scores   for   the   music   education   students   is   25.
One   music   education   students   during   this   cohort   had   to   take   the   Praxis   I   PPST   exams.
One   had   a   SAT   score   of
1510.
Such   data   suggests   when   recruiting   students   for   the   music   education   program   the

P ‐ 12   Music   Education   2011 ‐ 12
Page   8   of   11   music   department   needs   to   maintain   the   effort   to   review   the   ACT.
The   required   ACT   score   for   teacher   admission   is   21.
The   required   SAT   score   is   1500.
a.
Course   Based   Assessment   Data
According   to   the   2011 ‐ 2012   critical   performance   data   (Tables   2),   music   education   candidates   N=78   performed   1 ‐ 2%   above   the   unit   average   on   the   critical   performances   from   specific   courses   in   which   the   Kentucky   Teacher   Standards   are   addressed.
During   the   2011 ‐
2012   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,   412,   416   Kentucky   Teacher   Standards
(KTS)   based   critical   performances   in   relationship   to   unit ‐ wide   KTS   based   critical   performance   scores.
MUS   415   data   were   not   available   for   2011 ‐ 2012.
In   the   music   education   critical   performances   (MUS   312,   412,   416),   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   (EDU   250,   EXED   330,   PSY
310)   to   date   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=78)   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,   415,   416,   EDU   489   during   the   2011 ‐ 2012   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   97%   of   the   music   education   students   scored   at   standard   or   above   on   the   professional   education   courses   during   the   2011 ‐ 2012   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.
Table   4   illustrates   4   music   education   students   earned   a   2   on   a   critical   performance   in   either   EDU   250,
EXED   330   or   Psych   310.
b.
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,   MUS
412,   MUS   415   and   MUS   416.
Clinical   field   experience   data   from   MUS   312,   412,   415,   416   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   2011 ‐ 12
Page   9   of   11
Tables   5   (N=48)   and   6   (N=18)   reveal   the   2011 ‐ 2012   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   21 st
century   music   classrooms.
It   is   apparent   that   the   students   are   receiving   adequate   preparation   in   working   with   special   needs   as   well   as   culturally   diverse   populations.
c.
Culminating   Assessment   Data
The   culminating   assessment   critical   performance   for   all   teacher   education   candidates   is   the
Teacher   Work   Sample   (TWS).
In   Table   7,   the   2011 ‐ 2012   (N=17)   music   education   candidates   performed   at   96%   proficiency   equal   to   the   unit ‐ wide   proficiency   rate.
These   scores   are   higher   than   the   2010 ‐ 2011   music   education   proficiency   rate.
The   reason   was   because   the   2010 ‐ 2011   music   education   students   were   at   a   disadvantage   in   understanding   the   newly   revised   TWS   components   because   the   model   was   not   ready   to   be   introduced   in   MUS   412.
Therefore,   it   can   be   surmised   that   there   is   a   positive   correlation   between   requiring   a   mini   TWS   in   the   respective
P ‐ 12   music   education   pedagogy   course   and   the   music   education   students   performance   in   the
culminating   assessment   critical   performance   which   is   required   in   EDU   489.
According   to   Table   8,   only   two   of   the   five   TWS   components   that   music   education   fell   below   the   norm   were   learning   goals   (88%   music   education   to   91%   unit ‐ wide)   and   Reflection   on   Teaching
(82%   music   education   to   88%   unit ‐ wide).
Learning   Goals   and   Reflection   on   Teaching   will   be   addressed   more   thoroughly   in   MUS   412   in   which   the   students   prepare   a   mini ‐ TWS.
During   the
2012 ‐ 2013   emphasis   will   be   placed   on   self ‐ reflection.
Tables   9   represent   how   the   components   of   the   TWS   compare   to   the   KTS.
In   Table   9,   the   percentage   of   music   educations   candidates   who   passed   each   teacher   standard,   illustrates   that   music   education   student   teachers   scored   higher   than   the   unit ‐ wide   scores   in   all   KTS   standards   except   9:   Professional   Development.
With   Student   Teaching   Proficiency   (N=18)   rates   in   Table   10,   music   education   students   were   below   the   unit ‐ wide   score   in   all   of   the   standards   except   8.
The   reason   being   one   music   education   major   was   unsuccessful   in   student   teaching   and   earned   a   D   for   one ‐ half   of   the
experience.
The   student   did   not   complete   the   TWS   so   those   scores   are   above   the   unit   average.
d.
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   11   data   reports   the   2009 ‐ 2010,   2010 ‐ 2011   100%   pass   rates   in   both   music   education   Praxis   II   exams   (Music   Content   Knowledge   and   Concepts   and   Processes).
The   music   department   has   offered   Praxis   II   Blitz   sessions   to   review   for   these   two   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   data,   those   two   initiatives   have   assisted   students   to
pass   the   Praxis   II   music   education   content   exams.

P ‐ 12   Music   Education   2011 ‐ 12
Page   10   of   11
Music   Education   Candidates   Survey:
For   the   2011 ‐ 12   academic   year,   out   of   a   possible   18   student   teachers   13   (72%)   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   during
2011 ‐ 2012   (Tables   12   and   13),   music   education   candidates   believe   their   preparation   for   the   profession   in   relationship   to   the   10   KTS   ranges   from   good   to   excellent   on   all   10   KTS.
When   one   compares   the   music   education   student   teacher   to   unit ‐ wide   teacher   scores,   the   music   student’s   preferences   ranked   lower   in   all   10   KTS   scores.
Based   on   the   comments   (Table   13)   music   education   candidates   express   concern   about   TWS   preparation   and   that   the   TWS   requirements/expectations   do   not   align   to   the   type   of   instruction   applicable   to   performance ‐ based   music   classes.
There   is   some   concern   that   EDU   489   is   not   taught   by   a   music   education   professor.
It   seems   if   any   of   the   music   education   student   teachers   have   problems   in
professional   education   it   is   within   the   EDU   489   course.
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.
University   Level   1:    Strategic   Plan   2011 ‐ 2012
2.
SACS   Continuous   Program   Assessments   (University ‐ wide)
3.
Reports   and   Presentations   to   the   Department   of   Music   Faculty
4.
Review   of   student   performances   to   the   Department   of   Music   Curriculum,   Graduate
Committee,   and   Strategic   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
2.
Continue   the   implementation   of   the   P ‐ 12   Music   Education   Pedagogy   Critical
Performances   aligned   to   the   10   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.
Revised   the   theory   sequence   to   address   the   retention   component   of   Senate   Bill   1.

P ‐ 12   Music   Education   2011 ‐ 12
Page   11   of   11   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   Pre ‐ College   Choir,   Keyboard   and   Strings   Programs.
6.
Addition   of   the   Co ‐ Teaching   Models   to   P ‐ 12   pedagogy   courses.
a.
Decisions   about   Group/Individual   Student   Progress   Based   on   Assessment   Results
1.
Continue   the   MEC   program   continuance   policy   to   include   review   of   all   courses   critical   performances   to   date   of   the   review.
2.
Continue   the   Praxis   II   Music   Blitz   sessions   prior   to   the   test   dates.
3.
Align   all   P ‐ 12   Music   Education   pedagogy,   techniques,   music   technology   course   content   to   the   P ‐ 12   Music   Learning   section   of   the   PRAXIS   II   Music   Content   knowledge   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.
5.
Review   the   GPA’s,   musical   performance   progress   of   each   student   before   entering   the   Music   Education   sequence   of   courses.
5.
Discuss   trends   in   assessment   results   over   the   last   few   years
In   comparing   the   data   of   the   Department   of   Music   Education   Teacher   Candidates   from
2009 ‐ 2011,   it   appears   the   initiatives   the   music   faculty   developed   have   assisted   the   students   to   experience   success   in   all   assessment   areas.
Spring   of   2012,   was   the   first   time   a   music   education   student   has   not   passed   student   teaching.
This   was   an   unfortunate   situation   for   the   student   as   well   as   the   cohort   of   student   teachers.
Because   the   low   scores   of   one   negatively   effected   the   overall   score.