Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education Undergraduate 2010‐11 Page 1 of 9 Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education – Initial Preparation Annual Program Report Academic Year 2010‐11 Sylvia L. Dietrich, Ph.D. November 21, 2011 1. Continuous Assessment Results a. Admission Data Table 1 provides the average admission test scores and admission grade point average (GPA) of Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education (IECE) 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 IECE ACT N Mean 3 23 PPST Math N Mean 1 174 PPST
Reading N Mean
1
175
PPST
Writing N Mean
1
175
SAT N Mean
GRE Composite N Mean 7 1073 Admission GPA N Mean
11
3.17
b. Course Based Assessment Data Table 2 provides the percentage of IECE candidates (N = 27) 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 489 0% 0% 91% 9% EXED 330 33% 0% 67% 0% EXED 422 0% 0% 40% 60% IECE 321 0% 6% 56% 44% IECE 322 0% 0% 43% 57% IECE 324 0% 0% 29% 71% IECE 325 0% 0% 25% 75% IECE 421 0% 0% 22% 78% IECE 422 0% 0% 56% 44% LME 318 0% 0% 100% 0% LTCY 310 0% 0% 0% 100% Grand Total 0% 0% 0% 0% Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education Undergraduate 2010‐11 Page 2 of 9 Table 3 indicates the level of IECE candidates (N = 9) 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, IECE candidates are typically performing above average. Table 3. Percent of IECE Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS Program IECE Unit‐Wide 1 100% 96% 2 96% 95% 3 100% 96% Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 100% 97% 100% 100% 96% 96% 96% 96% 8 98% 96% 9 95% 94% 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 IECE candidates (N = 1) who have scored 2 or lower (below proficiency) on critical performances during this academic year. Table 4. IECE Candidates Scoring Below Proficient on CPs Student ID Score 1 Student Count 2 1
Grand Total 1 1 c. Clinical Experiences Data The IECE uses the following courses and experiences to evaluate candidate dispositions: admission to teacher education, prior to student teaching, and upon program exit. The program has identified the following courses and experiences where candidates report the diversity of their field experiences: IECE 421. IECE 421 has been designated as the experience Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education Undergraduate 2010‐11 Page 3 of 9 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 IECE candidates performed on dispositions as they entered and progressed through their program (N = 19) and during their student teaching experience (N = 10) Students are considered “proficient” who average a 3 or higher on each disposition category. Table 5. IECE 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 84% 100% 100% 100% 89% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Over this academic year, IECE program candidates (N = 1) reported demographic information on 1 field placements with an average of 10% ethnically diverse students, 36% students on free/reduced lunch, and 6% student with disabilities (based on National Center for Education Statistics and Kentucky Department of Education). This ethnic diversity percentage is just below 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 100%
100%
100%
100%
Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education Undergraduate 2010‐11 Page 4 of 9 % Candidates working with Students with Special Needs (Aggregate) % Candidates working with Diverse Students (Aggregate) Overall, as can be seen in Table 6, in 100% of their field experiences IECE program 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 IECE candidates (N = 8). Table 7. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates Program % Proficient 100% 94% IECE Unit‐Wide 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 IECE 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 IECE Candidates Program IECE Unit‐Wide CF 100% 96% LG 75% 94% DFI 100% 90% ASL 100% 91% ROT 100% 96% 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. Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education Undergraduate 2010‐11 Page 5 of 9 Table 9. Percentage of IECE Candidates who “Passed” each Teacher Standard Program IECE Unit‐Wide 1 75% 80% Kentucky Teacher Standards (Measured by TWS) 3 5 6 7 8 100% 88% 75% 100% 97% 87% 73% 85% 92% 2 88% 93% 9 100% 95% Additionally, all candidates are assessed during their student teaching experience using the Student Teaching Evaluation form. Table 10 reports the percentages of IECE student teachers (N = 10) 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. IECE Program Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards Program IECE Unit‐Wide 1 100% 97% 2 80% 91% 3 90% 96% Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 90% 80% 50% 90% 91% 89% 91% 86% 8 80% 94% 9 80% 90% 10 90% 93% 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 2009‐10 academic year (the most recent year with complete data). During the fall of 2006, EPSB suspended the use of the IECE Specialty Exam, which had until that point been administered to all IECE students prior to certification. The EPSB formed a field panel of experts who designed and a standard setting study was completed during the summer of 2008. Beginning spring of 2009, the new test was administered and new cut off scores determined. The test was administered through December of 2010 with no minimum cut off score and beginning January 2011 a minimum of 166 is required. Table 11. Pass Rates on Content Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation Program/Type of Assessment IECE PRAXI S Candidate N (2009‐10) 8 WKU Pass Rate (2009‐10) 100 WKU Pass Rate (2008‐09) Annually, the WKU Teacher Survey is sent to student teachers and alumni who potentially have been teaching one or more years. For the 2010‐11 academic year, out of a possible 10 student teachers, 100% completed the survey. Below are the results for IECE student teachers, 10 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 IECE program survey results. Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education Undergraduate 2010‐11 Page 6 of 9 Table 12. Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions for IECE Respondents Program IECE Unit‐Wide 1 2 3 3.55 3.43 3.54 3.41 3.48 3.52 Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 3.44 3.33 3.30 3.23 3.30 3.29 3.57 3.35 8 9 10 3.43 3.14 3.55 3.36 3.35 3.12 Respondents were also able to provide comments if they answered “poor” for any item. Table 13 presents IECE respondent comments. Table 13. IECE Program Respondent Comments I have learned more in my student teaching than I ever did online, or just by reading a book. I would certainly encourage you to consider adding more hands on experience all across the board and introduce more disabilities and you may work with babies who have developmental delays. We were not assessed with a variety of assessments. Each assessment was the same, therefore if you did not perform well on that type of assessment you would not excel. WKU could improve in this area by introducing other types of assessments such as written assessments, oral assessments, hands‐on assessments, ect. I did not feel that technology was adequately covered. Hands on experience with various types of technology commonly used in today's classrooms would have been very helpful 2. Summary of Results by Kentucky Teacher Standards and Other Key Conceptual Framework Values Overall, from the data collected pertaining to student performance on the KY Teacher Standards and the IECE Teacher Standards, the students in the IECE Undergraduate initial preparation program are performing very well. Graduates from our IECE program are qualified and eligible for certification working with young children, both with and without disabilities and their families from birth through five years of age. Our students are sought after in the region’s school districts as well as by First Steps, Kentucky’s Early Intervention System for the state. WKU IECE graduates have a reputation of being well prepared. Our graduates are performing well on the critical performance indicators and program staff will continue to monitor and update those critical performance expectations to meet current research and best practices in the field of early childhood special education. Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education Undergraduate 2010‐11 Page 7 of 9 Table 14 below illustrates the relationship between the KY Teacher Standards and IECE Teacher Standards. IECE graduates are expected to demonstrate mastery of both the KY as well as the IECE Teacher Standards. Table 14 Comparison of IECE and Kentucky Teacher Standards IECE Teacher Standards KY Teacher Standards 1. Designs and Plans Instruction 2 2. Creates Maintains Environments 3 3. Implements Instruction 4 4. Communicates Learning Results 5 5. Reflects Evaluates Professional 7 Practices 6. Collaborates with Colleagues, Families, 8 others 7. Engages in Professional Development 9 8. Supports Families 9. Demonstrates Implementation of 6 Technology 10. Provides Leadership with School, 10 Community, Profession Referring back to Table 3, graduates from WKU’s Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education (IECE( initial preparation programs score proficient or higher on 6 out of 10 standards, 98% on one standard, 97% on one standard, 96% on one standard and 95% on one standard. When results from IECE students are compared unit wide, IECE graduates are performing above on all 10 teacher standards. IECE program faculty will continue to monitor assessment data and determine if changes are needed. During the 2010‐ 2011 academic year, disposition data were collect on students prior to student teaching. Prior to student teaching IECE candidates demonstrated proficiency on 3/5 of the dispositions. 84% were rated proficient on values learning and 89% on values professionalism. During student teaching, students were evaluated again and all dispositions were demonstrated at proficiency. By referring back to Table 7, 1005 of IECE teacher candidates demonstrated proficiency on the TWS. Looking at individual components of the TWS provides information for IECE faculty. IECE candidates demonstrate proficiency levels above the unit on 4 out of the 5 components. Data indicate that IECE candidates perform below unit standards on 1 out of the 5 components, Learning Goals, with 75% of IECE students demonstrating proficiency compared to 94% of students Unit‐Wide. Reviewing data collected during student teaching on proficiency rates relates to KTS, IECE student teachers received ratings between 50% ‐ 100%. IECE candidates were rated as Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education Undergraduate 2010‐11 Page 8 of 9 proficient on 1/10 standards. Candidates received a 50% proficiency rating on implementing technology; 80% on four standards; and 90% on 4 standards. Program faculty will review curriculum to ascertain if modifications need to be made to address the integration of technology. By referring back to Table 12 results from the teacher survey on standards, IECE graduates reported “good” preparation on 10/10 standards, with scores ranging between 3.30 and 3.57. Both the Student teaching evaluation and student teacher evaluation are written based on the Kentucky Teacher Standards. The IECE program is developed based on the Y IECE teacher standards. Faculty have developed and are utilizing a crosswalk between the two sets of standards in hopes of reducing confusion for candidates and cooperating teachers as they complete evaluations. 3. Efforts to Report and Disseminate Results IECE program faculty meets on a regular basis during fall and spring semesters of each academic year to review and analyze program area assessment results. One faculty member has been responsible for program area assessment and coordination of data within the program since 2008. This “Data Collection Coordinator” reports to the IECE faculty on issues pertaining to program assessment; needed changes; data required f4om each course; and on overall program assessment matters. In addition, the Data Collection Coordinator prepares the Unit Action Plan data and related NCATE documents. All reports are reviewed by IECE program faculty before submitting to the department head and other responsible parties within the college and university. Each year, program assessment data is reviewed and evaluation for information which warrants program changes and course modification. Besides sharing of program assessment results within the IECE program, results are disseminated to the IECE advisory board. The IECE advisory board is comprised of faculty members who teach cp0oursses with the IECE program from related disciplines (e.g., Psychology, Communication Disorders, and Social Work) as well as field experts and parents of children with disabilities. Feedback is solicited from this advisory board in regard to additional modifications or changes to the IECE program. 4. Key Discussions and/or Decisions Made Based on Assessment Results a. Assessment or Data Collection Changes Based on Assessment Results Data related to diversity were reported for only 1 candidate. Program coordinator will follow up with program faculty regarding field work evaluation form and ensure that all candidates complete the evaluation form in the appropriate course. b. Program Curriculum or Experiences Changes Based on Assessment Results Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education Undergraduate 2010‐11 Page 9 of 9 The TWS was revised and modified to address concerns related to instructional design and content. The new format was utilized for the first time during the 2010‐2011 academic year. Initial data look very promising for IECE candidates with 100% proficiency on 4/5 components of the TWS. One area, Learning Goals, candidates received a proficiency rating of 75%. Instructors will continue to utilize discussion board activities and think pair share activities, along with other instructional strategies to address components of the TWS, targeting Learning Goals as an area that may need some additional attention. c. Decisions about Group/Individual Student Progress Based on Assessment Results Data indicate that student’s progress at a steady rate throughout the IECE undergraduate program.