Mathematics Education 2010‐11 Page 1 of 7 Mathematics Education – Initial Preparation Annual Program Report Academic Year 2010‐11 November 1, 2011 Report Prepared by Hope Marchionda 1. Continuous Assessment Results a. Admission Data Table 1 provides the average admission test scores and admission grade point average (GPA) of Mathematics 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 ACT Program Mathematics Education N Mean
7
26
GRE Composite N Mean
1
990
Admission GPA N Mean
8
3.55
b. Course Based Assessment Data Table 2 provides the percentage of Mathematics Education candidates (N = 32) 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 2 3 4 EDU‐250 50% 50% 0% EDU‐489 10% 90% 0% EXED‐330 0% 100% 0% SEC‐351 0% 86% 14% SEC‐352 0% 100% 0% SEC‐453 0% 20% 80% SMED‐102 0% 25% 75% SMED‐210 0% 0% 100% SMED‐320 0% 100% 0% SMED‐360 0% 62.5% 37.5% SMED‐470 0% 25% 75% Grand Total 3% 70% 27% Mathematics Education 2010‐11 Page 2 of 7 Table 3 indicates the level of Mathematics Education candidates (N = 32) 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, Mathematics Education candidates are typically performing above average. Table 3. Percent of Mathematics Education Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS Program Mathematics Unit‐Wide 1 97% 96% 2 97% 95% 3 95% 96% Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 100% 95% 98% 98% 96% 96% 96% 96% 8 97% 96% 9 97% 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 Mathematics Education candidates (N = 2) who have scored 2 or lower (below proficiency) on critical performances during this academic year. Table 4. Mathematics Education Candidates Scoring Below Proficient on CPs Student ID Grand Total Score 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 3 Student Count 1 2 3 c. Clinical Experiences Data Mathematics Education uses the following courses and experiences to evaluate candidate dispositions: EDU 250, SMED 102, SMED 301, SMED 210, SMED 320, and SMED 470. The program has identified the following courses and experiences where candidates report the diversity of their field experiences: EDU 250, SEC 352, SMED 101, SMED 102, SMED 301, SMED 210, SMED 320, and SMED 470. EDU 352 and SMED 320 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 Mathematics candidates performed on dispositions as they entered and progressed through their program (N =10) and during their student teaching experience (N = 10). Students are considered “proficient” who average a 3 or higher on each disposition category. Mathematics Education 2010‐11 Page 3 of 7 Table 5. Mathematics 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 79% 100% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Over this academic year, Mathematics Education candidates (N = 13) reported demographic information on 17 field placements with an average of 12% ethnically diverse students, 43% 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 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) 6%
24%
6%
18%
41%
35%
6%
6%
6%
0%
0%
0%
59%
0%
71%
35%
82%
82%
Overall, as can be seen in Table 6, in 82% of their field experiences Mathematics Education candidates reported working with at least one student with special needs and in 82% of their Mathematics Education 2010‐11 Page 4 of 7 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 Mathematics Education candidates (N = 7). Table 7. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates Program Mathematics Education Unit‐Wide % Proficient 90% 94% 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 Mathematics 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 Mathematics Education Candidates Program Mathematics Unit‐Wide CF 100% 96% LG 100% 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. Mathematics Education 2010‐11 Page 5 of 7 Table 9. Mathematics Education Candidates who “Passed” each Teacher Standard Program Mathematics Unit‐Wide 1 86% 80% 2 100% 93% Kentucky Teacher Standards (Measured by TWS) 3 5 6 7 8 100% 86% 71% 100% 100% 97% 87% 73% 85% 92% 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 Mathematics Education 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. Mathematics Education Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards Program Mathematics Unit‐Wide 1 2 3 100% 100% 100% 97% 91% 96% Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 90% 100% 100% 100% 91% 89% 91% 86% 8 9 100% 100% 94% 90% 10 100% 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). The last column allows for pass rate comparison of our candidates to our 2008‐09 results. Table 11. Pass Rates on Content Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation Program/Type of Assessment Your Program’s Praxis II Test (1) Your Program’s Praxis II Test (2) Candidate N (2009‐10) 11 11 WKU Pass Rate (2009‐10) 100% 100% WKU Pass Rate (2008‐09) 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 2010‐11 academic year, out of a possible 10 student teachers, 7 (70%) completed the survey. Below are the results for Mathematics Education student teachers, 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 Mathematics Education survey results. Mathematics Education 2010‐11 Page 6 of 7 Table 12. Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions for Mathematics Education Respondents Program Mathematics Unit‐Wide 1 2 3 3.21 3.43 3.54 3.41 3.4 3.52 Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 3.0 3.33 3.11 3.23 3.11 3.29 3.33 3.35 8 9 10 2.79 3.14 3.32 3.36 2.82 3.12 Respondents were also able to provide comments if they answered “poor” for any item. Table 13 presents Mathematics Education respondent comments. Table 13. Mathematics Education Respondent Comments Never did I have to do any collaboration until student teaching. I had no experience working with people outside the classroom to enhance a students learning. Perhaps have that required in an observation or have examples given in class. It is hard to learn how to create and maintain a learning environment, when you are not doing that. Our time that we spent observing classrooms was good, but we should have also had equal time available to teach in a classroom. In order to be able to do most of this stuff, we needed to have that experience. I feel that the education department at WKU has well prepared me for my future career. However, when it comes to real life applications of the math concepts I will be teaching I feel that I have been on my own to find out that information. No one has ever taught me that, and there are some things I cannot find on the internet. I feel that a lot of my teachers have asked this of me and I cannot answer because no one has ever taught me. 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, but the one student
admitted with GRE scores, had a score less than the mean of all students admitted
into initial teacher preparation programs. The mean admission GPA of 3.55 was
greater than the mean of 3.31 for all students.
Course Based Assessment Data:
Critical Performance (CP) proficiency level percentages indicate the Mathematics
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:
The Mathematics proficiency rates on the Unit-Wide Dispositions are 100%
across the board during student teaching. However, prior to student teaching,
students in Mathematics Education scored lower on “Values Learning” and
“Values Professionalism.”
Teacher Work Sample Proficiency rates for Mathematics Education Candidates
were 100% across the board. The scores for Kentucky Teacher Standards suggest
Mathematics Education 2010‐11 Page 7 of 7 that the areas that have room for improvement compared with the unit are KTS5
and KTS6. Mathematics Education and Education Faculty need to collaborate to
ensure that mathematics students are able to transfer what they learn to the
mathematics classroom.
Exit and Follow Up Data:
The pass rate on the 2008-2009 Praxis was maintained with 100% of candidates
passing both the Mathematics Content Knowledge test and part 1 of the Math
Proofs and Models Problems.
The results of the WKU Teacher Survey that addresses the respondent’s perception of WKU
preparation on each of the Kentucky Teacher Standards show that student teachers from
mathematics rate the program at or below that of the unit. While the results were close, there is
no way to tell if this is significant. Nonetheless, efforts will be made to improve these ratings. 3. Efforts to Report and Disseminate Results This report was forwarded to the Mathematics 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 We recognize the need to work with instructors in the School of Teacher Education
(SKyTeach) to ensure that emphasis is placed on all components of the TWS. In addition,
mathematics educators in the Department of Mathematics need to discuss other avenues
for improving our teacher education program and improving student perception of the
program.
c. Decisions about Group/Individual Student Progress Based on Assessment Results We plan to hold a joint meeting the mathematics education faculty in the College of
Education to discuss improvements in the program.