Physical Education 2011‐12 Page 1 of 9 Physical Education – Initial Preparation Annual Program Report Academic Year 2011‐12 Elizabeth C. Pyle November 15, 2012 1. Continuous Assessment Results a. Admission Data Table 1 provides the average admission test scores and admission grade point average (GPA) of Physical Education Teacher 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 11 23 PPST Math N Mean 2 182 PPST
Reading N Mean
2
176
PPST
Writing N Mean
2
175
SAT N Mean
‐‐
‐‐
GRE Composite N Mean ‐‐ ‐‐ Admission GPA N Mean
21
3.02
b. Course Based Assessment Data Table 2 provides the percentage of Physical Education candidates (N = 58) 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% 76.92% 23.08% EDU 489 0.00% 7.14% 92.86% 0.00% EXED 330 0.00% 13.33% 26.67% 60.00% PE 111 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 87.50% PE 121 0.00% 0.00% 85.71% 14.29% PE 314 0.00% 5.14% 94.59% 0.00% PE 319 7.14 14.28% 64.29% 14.29% PE 320 0.00% 3.57% 57.14% 39.29% PE 413 0.00% 9.52% 90.48% 0.00% PH 261 0.00% 0.00% 28.26% 71.74% PH 381 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% PSY 310 Grand Total 0.00% 0.70% 9.09% 18.18% 72.73% 5.39% 63.47% 30.44% Physical Education 2011‐12 Page 2 of 9 Course 1 2 3 4 Table 3 indicates the level of Physical Education candidates (N = 58) 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 slightly below average. Table 3. Percent of Physical Education Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS Program 1 Physical Education 98% Unit‐Wide 97% 2 3
96% 97% 93%
97%
Kentucky Teacher Standards
4
5
6
7
Data missi
ng
95%
95%
94%
98%
96%
96%
97%
8 9 89% 97% 86%
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 Physical Education candidates (N = 11) who have scored 2 or lower (below proficiency) on critical performances during this academic year. Table 4. Physical Education Candidates Scoring Below Proficient on CPs Student ID 800495042 800732770 800489547 800490098 800591965 800534692 800541155 800573899 Grand Total Score
1 Student Count 2 1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
10
1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 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 Physical Education 2011‐12 Page 3 of 9 settings at or above the average 11% diversity of the schools in the 30+ counties that represent our service area. Table 5 reports how Physical Education candidates performed on dispositions as they entered and progressed through their program (N = 31) and during their student teaching experience (N = 14). Students are considered “proficient” who average a 3 or higher on each disposition category. Table 5. Physical Education Proficiency Rates on Unit‐Wide Dispositions WKU Professional Education Dispositions Period Values Values Personal Values Values Values Learning Integrity
Diversity Collaboration Professionalism
a. Prior to Student 98.11% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Teaching b. During Student 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 94.12% 100.00% Teaching Over this academic year, Physical Education candidates (N = 11) reported demographic information on 11 field placements with an average of 14% ethnically diverse students, 48% students on free/reduced lunch, and 17% 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
27%
55%
18%
27%
9%
9%
0%
0%
9%
9%
9%
0%
100%
Physical Education 2011‐12 Page 4 of 9 % 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)
18%
100%
64%
73%
100%
Overall, as can be seen in Table 6, in 73% 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 = 14). Table 7. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates Program
Physical Education
Unit‐Wide % Proficient
95%
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 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 100%
94%
86%
91%
93%
89%
93%
92%
86% 88% Physical Education 2011‐12 Page 5 of 9 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 Physical Education Candidates who “Passed” each Teacher Standard Program 1 2 3
5
6
7 9
Physical Education Unit‐Wide 79% 83% 93%
91%
93%
92%
86%
88%
79%
83%
71% 76% 86%
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 = 14) 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
94% 71% 88% 82% 59% 53% 94% 89% 94%
89%
88%
82%
77% 87%
8 9 10
82% 77% 71% 90% 88%
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 2008‐09 results. [Use the most current Unit‐Wide Assessment Report’s Praxis Table for this information. Also, additional 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 sections 2 or 4 below.] Table 11. Pass Rates on Content Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation Program/Type of Assessment Physical Education Praxis II Test (1) Physical Education Praxis II Test (2) Candidate N (2010‐11) 7 11 WKU Pass Rate (2010‐11) 71% 100% WKU Pass Rate (2009‐10) 100% 93% Physical Education 2011‐12 Page 6 of 9 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 14 student teachers, 11 (79%) completed the survey. Below are the results for Physical Education student teachers, 11 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. 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
3.25 3.44 3.64 3.51 3.16 3.18 3.44 3.42 3.61 3.37 3.25 3.40 8 9 10
3.52 2.89 3.30 2.77 3.32 3.06 3.31 3.09 Respondents were also able to provide comments. Table 13 presents Physical Education respondent comments. Table 13. Physical Education Respondent Comments Standard 10: Was never offered or had leadership information brought to our attention Physical Education 2011‐12 Page 7 of 9 2. Summary of Results by Kentucky Teacher Standards and Other Key Conceptual Framework Values The data in Table 2 indicated that 63% of the physical education candidates scored at standard and 30% scored above standard for proficiency on Critical Performances; this is an 8% increase from last year at the ‘at standard’ level, and although the ‘above standard’ dropped 7% from last year, the overall percentage for both categories together remained relatively the same. Comparing the data in Table 4 shows that 15 of 74 (20%) Physical Education students scored below proficient on critical performances during the 2010‐11 academic year while only 11 of 58 (18%) scored below during the 2011‐12 academic year. The data in Table 3 indicated that the proficiency levels of our students enrolled in Physical Education Teacher Education initial preparation once again varied on the 10 Kentucky Teacher Standards as determined by these Critical Performances. They ranged from a low of 86% (Standards 9) to a high of 100% (Standard 10). Across the 10 standards, the percentage for each standard improved from last year with the exception of Standard 4 which had no data reported. 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 71% (Standard 7) to a high of 93% (Standards 2 and 3). Percentages for Standards 2 and 3 were above the Unit‐Wide percentages, while the percentages for Standards 1, 5, 6, 7, 9 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 a great variance. The percentages ranged from a low of 53% (Standard 6 – an increase from 36% the previous year) to a high of 94% (Standard 1). Except for Standard 1, these proficiency rates were 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 Personal Integrity; Values Diversity; and Values Professionalism. There was a 98% on the disposition ‘values learning’ prior to student teaching and a 100% during student teaching; on the disposition ‘values collaboration’ 100% was shown on prior to student teaching and 94% during student teaching. 11 of our 14 physical education student teachers completed the WKU Teacher Survey in which they ranked WKU preparation for each of the Kentucky Teacher Standards. The scores (on a 4‐
point scale) ranged from 2.77 (Standard 10) to 3.64 (Standard 3). The ranking scores on Standards 2, 3, 4, and 7 were above the Unit‐Wide scores; Standards 1, 5, 6, 8, and 10 were below Unit‐Wide scores. The ranking score on Standard 9 was equivalent to Unit‐Wide scores. There was one comment, “Standard 10 was never offered or had leadership information brought to our attention.” Physical Education 2011‐12 Page 8 of 9 According to Table 11, Physical Education Teacher Education candidates had a 71% pass rate on the Physical Education‐Content Knowledge Praxis II for 2010‐11 which is down from 100% (2009‐10). However, our candidates had a 100% pass rate on Physical Education‐Analysis & Design Praxis II; which is up from 93% (2009‐10). 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. Critical Performance
2011 - 2012
High Scores
KTS 10 - 100%
KTS 4 - no data
Low Scores
KTS 9 - 86%
KTS 8 - 89%
Note: High Scores remained the same; low scores both improved.
KTS
KTS
KTS
KTS
2010 - 2011
10 - 100%
4 - 100%
9 - 85%
8 - 85%
TWS
2011 - 2012
2010 - 2011
High Scores
KTS 8 - no data
KTS 8 - 100%
KTS 3 - 93 %
KTS 3 - 100%
KTS 2 - 93%
KTS 2 - 93%
Low Scores
KTS 7 - 71%
KTS 7 - 64%
Note: High Score on KTS 3 went down; KTS 2 stayed the same; and KTS 8 could not be
compared. Low score KTS 7 improved.
Student Teaching
2011 - 2012
High Scores
KTS 1 - 94%
KTS 8 - 82%
Low Scores
KTS 6 - 53%
KTS 5 - 59%
Note: High Scores decreased; low scores both improved.
KTS
KTS
KTS
KTS
2010 - 2011
1 - 100%
8 - 100%
6 - 36%
5 - 36%
3. Efforts to Report and Disseminate Results Implementation of the revised Physical Education Teacher Education program of study was begun during the 2011‐2012 academic year. The revised curriculum continues to be implemented during 2012‐13, teaching the new/revised classes as they are required; there are still a few students in transition. The physical education faculty is continuing to analyze the Critical Performance for each course in the Physical Education Teacher Education Program; appropriate revisions continue to be made to each critical performance in order to strengthen our students learning and proficiency on the Kentucky Teacher Standards and also to include the necessary requirement for observation hours. 4. Key Discussions and/or Decisions Made Based on Assessment Results a. Assessment or Data Collection Changes Based on Assessment Results Physical Education 2011‐12 Page 9 of 9  Continue to put revised or new critical performances into effect for courses in our recently revised curriculum to address each Kentucky Teacher Standard.  Faculty members continue to reflect on each new course and making necessary adjustments to further address the best course assignments to strengthen our students’ skills addressed in the KTS. Specifically these course 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). In addition, these new classes are aligned with Praxis II test categories.  Critical Performance‐New Program Course Matrix alignment continues to be revised  Continue to provide study sessions for students falling below Proficiency measurements. b. Program Curriculum or Experiences Changes Based on Assessment Results  Students who score below 2.5 on critical performances will not be allowed admission to teacher preparation or student teaching.  The capstone experience in student teaching, the Teacher Work Sample, will continue to emphasize collaboration and the use of technology as appropriate in physical education as well as highlighting reflection and professional development as tools for lifelong learning. Exit information also indicated that KTS 10 must be addressed.  Additional training in the area of assessment of instruction is being introduced. c. Decisions about Group/Individual Student Progress Based on Assessment Results  New courses in the use of technology in physical education, and the development and use of assessment in physical education are being implemented in the junior and senior block. In addition, technology and assessment are being targeted in other physical education courses in order to enhance our students understanding of technology and assessment throughout the entire physical education curriculum.  Students will need more practice in the development of unit plans and the use of differentiation in lesson plans. These components are a major emphasis in PE 314 and PE 320.  Continue to engage students in student research projects and the use of library sources; encourage the presentation of research at professional conventions and/or workshops to enhance our students’ leadership and professional development opportunities. In general, the Physical Education faculty feels that because the revised curriculum is in the early stages of implementation, the data provided helps us determine the knowledge and experiences necessary to make our physical education majors better teachers.