Page 1 of 11
Middle Grades Education (131203) Initial Preparation Annual Program Report Academic Year 2010‐2011 December 1, 2011 1. Continuous Assessment Results a. Admission Data Table 1 provides the average admission test scores and admission grade point average (GPA) of Middle Grades 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 131203‐‐ Middle Grades Ed. ACT N Mean 40 23 PPST Math N Mean 2 179 PPST
Reading N Mean
PPST
Writing N Mean
GRE Composite N Mean
2 2 2 177 175 890 Admission GPA N 50 Mean
3.18 b. Course Based Assessment Data Table 2 provides the percentage of Middle Grades Education candidates (N = 224) 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 MGE 275 0% 0% 23% 77% MGE 385 4% 2% 29% 65% MGE 475 0% 0% 73% 27% MGE 477 0% 27% 73% 0% MGE 481 0% 0% 100% 0% Table 3 indicates the level of Middle Grades Education candidate (N =203) 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, Middle Grades Education candidates are typically performing below average. Page 2 of 11
Table 3. Percent of Middle Grades Education Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS Program Middle Grades Education Unit‐Wide 1 2 3 Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 8 9 93 98 95 98 95 97 92 96 92 98 90 97 94 98 96 98 96 98 10 96 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 Middle Grades Education candidates (N =30 who have scored 2 or lower (below proficiency) on critical performances during this academic year. Table 4. Middle Grades Education Candidates Scoring Below Proficient on CPs Student ID Score 1 Student Count 2 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2 2
2
2 2
2
2
2 3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 Page 3 of 11
Grand Total 2 4 1
3 4 4 4 4
4 16 38 54 c. Clinical Experiences Data 800418816 The Middle Grades Education program uses the following courses and experiences to evaluate candidate dispositions: The program has identified the following courses and experiences where candidates report the diversity of their field experiences: MGE 275, MGE 385, MGE 475,, MGE 477, MGE 479, MGE 481. Fieldwork in the listed courses 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 Middle Grades Education candidates performed on dispositions as they entered and progressed through their program (N =113 and during their student teaching experience N = 63). Students are considered “proficient” who average at 3 or higher on each disposition category. Table 5. Middle Grades Education Proficiency Rates on Unit‐Wide Dispositions Period Prior to Student Teaching During Student Teaching Values Learning WKU Professional Education Dispositions Values Personal Values Values Values Integrity Diversity Collaboration Professionalism 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% Over this academic year, Middle Grades Education candidates (N =113) reported demographic information on 157 field placements with an average of 97% ethnically diverse students and 95% 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 18%
79%
20%
43%
68%
Page 4 of 11
% 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) 26%
12%
8%
15%
17%
21%
14%
92%
15%
80%
57%
97%
99%
Overall, as can be seen in Table 6, in 95% of their field experiences Middle Grades Education candidates reported working with at least one student with special needs and in 97% of their field experiences candidates reported working with at least one student from a diverse ethnic group. 14% OF ETHNICALLY DIVERSE STUDENTS, 49% STUDENTS ON FREE/REDUCED LUNCH, %DISABILITITES 12% 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 Middle Grades Education candidates (N = 45). Table 7. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates Program Middle Grades Education Unit‐Wide % Proficient 91% 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 Page 5 of 11
(1 – Not Met, 2 – Partially Met, and 3 – Met) on indicators aligned to a standard. Table 8 depicts the percentage of Middle Grades Education candidates who averaged at least 2.5 on the indicators for each TWS Factor: CF – Contextual Factors, LG – Learning Goals, AP – Assessment Plan, DFI – Design for Instruction, IDM – Instructional Decision Making, ASL – Analysis of Student Learning, and RSE – Reflection and Self‐Evaluation. Table 8. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates of Middle Grades Education Candidates Program Middle Grades Education Unit‐Wide CF LG DFI ASL ROT 100% 96% 91% 94% 89% 90% 87% 91% 89% 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. Table 9. Percentage of Middle Grades Education Candidates who “Passed” each Teacher Standard Program Middle Grades Education Unit‐Wide 1 2 84% 80% 96% 93% Kentucky Teacher Standards (Measured by TWS) 4 5 6 7 8 100% 89% 78% 82% 100% 97% 87% 73% 85% 92% 9 89% 95% (KEY for KTS: 1=Content Knowledge; 2=Designs/Plans Instruction; 3=Learning Climate; 4=Implements/Manages Instruction; 5=Assessment; 6=Technology; 7=Reflection; 8=Collaboration; 9=Professional Collaboration) Additionally, all candidates are assessed during their student teaching experience using the Student Teaching Evaluation form. Table 10 reports the percentages of Middle Grades Education student teachers (N = 63) 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. Middle Grades Education Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards Program Middle Grades Education Unit‐Wide Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 95% 90% 92% 90% 94% 100% 97% 91% 96% 91% 89% 91% 8 9 10 87% 100% 94% 95% 86% 94% 90% 93% (KEY for KTS: 1=Content Knowledge; 2=Designs/Plans Instruction; 3=Learning Climate; 4=Implements/Manages Instruction; 5=Assessment; 6=Technology; 7=Reflection; 8=Collaboration; 9=Professional Collaboration; 10=Leadership) Page 6 of 11
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 2008‐9 academic year (the most recent year with complete data). The last column allows for pass rate comparison of our candidates to our 2007‐08 results. Table 11. Pass Rates on Content Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation Candidate N (2009‐10) 368 Program/Type of Assessment MGE English Language Arts Praxis (1) MGE Mathematics Praxis MGE Social Studies MGE Science WKU Pass Rate (2009‐10) 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. Below are the results of the electronic WKU Teacher Survey sent to student teachers and alumni who have potentially been teaching one or more years. Out of a possible 419 student teachers, 410 (98%) completed the survey; out of a possible 1521 alumni, 217 (14%) 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. Table 12 reports Middle Grades Education student teacher results. Table 12. Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions for Middle Grades Education Respondents Program Middle Grades Education Unit‐Wide 1 2 3 3.13 3.03 3.28 3.43 3.41 Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 3.01 3.03 3.15 2.85 8 9 10 2.77 3.22 2.77 3.52 3.33 3.23 3.29 3.35 3.14 3.36 3.12 N=63 respondents Respondents were also able to provide comments if they answered “poor” for any item. Table 13 presents Middle Grades Education respondent comments by years of experience (0 = Student Teaching). Table 13. Middle Grades Education Respondent Comments The first column indicates number of years of experience. The zeros are most often from students during their initial student teaching experience. Page 7 of 11
E
X
P OVER‐ ALL RATING 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 Technology and classroom management are two area that I have had the most trouble with. I didn't have any classes to prepared me for use of technology in the classroom, nor how to manage a classroom, and these are two big areas that I had the most trouble with throughout this semester. Many of these standards were addressed in hypothetical situations. Leadership was only addressed in the fact that we need to get involved. No one told us how to get involved or what to do once we are involved. In all of the work that we did in class, we never had data to analyze. using data was difficult for me during my student teaching because I was not sure how to use the data once I had it. Classroom management is definitely a class that needs to be added to the education curriculum. It takes years to hone this skill, and any practice we can get before going into the classrooms would be beneficial. It would have been nice to have the class on different teaching strategies during a time when i could use them on students that were not in the class with me. I think it would have been a good class but when you trying something out on someone who already knows how it works you can't tell if you are doing it right or not. Also maybe a class on how to deal with parents that would have been helpful I never dealt with a parent prior to student teaching I feel that you should require all your education majors to either attend a parent teacher conference before student teaching or something very similar to it. I have never developed a Professional Growth Plan and I still don't know exactly how to do it. I have not had 3 0 3 0 3 1 0 2 0 The most difficult part of student teaching was that the content that is learned at WKU is unrelated to actual instruction. I do not feel that I was adequately prepared in regards to content for teaching. There should be more content courses that are directly associated with what will be taught in Middle School. 3 any classes where that was included in the instruction. 0 0 Comments 3 0 3 I feel that I could have been better prepared in how to include student usage of technology in the math classes that I taught. All of the instruction that I received in Math teaching methods was with manipulatives and not how to include student use of technology. I feel that we could have easily focused on that without taking away from the overall objective of the course. Before I started my student teaching, I had only writtern between 6‐8 lesson plans in my classes. This was not near enough. Also MGE 489 (Teacher Work Sample class) needs to be taken before the methods classes are taken due to students write half of the teacher work sample in the methods classes and students have not leanred how to write it. Use of data (Standard 7) was the main area where I felt unprepared. In addition, I do not think that one class dealing with special needs students is enough to prepare a new teacher for the difficulties in the regular classroom. There were many areas of the TWS that I felt unprepared for this semester for student teaching. Middle Grades Education majors seem to miss out on receiving this instruction. There needs to be a class dedicated to classroom management. In all my classes I took at WKU the only class which I feel was beneficial to me in the long run was my MGE 275 class. The professor was able to give us tips on how to run a successful classroom rather than simply how to assess students sucessfully. Too much of WKU’s EDU department is dedicated to teaching how to assess and fill out paper work rather than educating teachers how to be good class managers. Its proven teachers get burnt out very quickly yet WKU does nothing to teach future educators how to avoid common problems found in the classroom like misbehavior and time management. Also, some of the professors are idealists rather than realists. This is frustrating. I want to know what really goes on in the class, not what is suppose to happen. Student teaching has been very beneficial, but looking back I feel my education at WKU has not been as good as advertised. I feel I will be a good teacher; however, I know WKU could have done even more to prepare us for what goes on in the classroom. I would say most students in the middle grade edu department would agree with me. The one area that I wish I could have received more information on is classroom management. I believe this is something that is very important and also very important. My MGE 275 class with Ms. Jennifer Gonzalez set my expectations for the teacher preparation program. The instructor presented detailed, relevant information that prepared me for the classes to follow and for my teaching career in general. She was very organized, set high expectations for students, challenged us for constant professional growth, and gave specific, immediate feedback on all assignments. Not until I had this instructor again for MGE 489 did I feel I received the same quality of instruction with specific feedback. Unfortunately, this meant I did not feel adequately prepared to complete the teacher work sample to meet my personal expectations. Page 8 of 11
0 0 2 0 I had little to no education in classroom management and differentiation. I feel the end result achieved an "EXCELLENT" in the categories above but the preparation did not come until my final semester through the WONDERFUL assistance of my Seminar Instructor and my Cooperating Teacher and University Supervisor, with the exception of my MGE 385 instructor. Many things that should have been covered in my methods courses last semester were negated as important. I see why they were expected to be covered by the CEBS; I am not sure why they were omitted by my Overall, I would not have chosen ANY OTHER institution other than WKU for the completion of my teaching certificate. I will look at WKU for my Master's Degree program as well. instructors. I feel that we weren't given enough instruction on data analysis. I also felt that more time needed to be 4 spend in the lower level classes preparing us for completing the TWS. At times, I felt lost. 0 Clearly the area I felt weakest in was classroom management / learning climate. I fel that his was never even addressed in my classes before this semester. If it hadn't been for Gonzalez in my seminar I would have been completely lost. Differentiation is something that is mentioned at WKU, but no one ever explained HOW to differentiate. All I was ever told to put on my lesson plans was "Collaborate with exceptional education teachers." that's not good enough in the real world. I feel the same about formative assessments. All I knew to use before this semester were bell ringers and exit slips. Most notably, I didn't know what to do with the information that I had gathered from the formative assessments. I would think this would be a huge part of 3 the education program... But it was missing. Overall, I have to admit that I learned 99% of what I use every day in the classroom from my student teaching experience and seminar. I went into this experience not knowing how to differentiate, assess students, or manage a positive learning climate... But I knew how to format an awesome KTIP lesson plan (which I will never use again after next year). I'm not trying to be hyper‐critical. Just being honest... I had Dr. Moore twice and it was extremely detrimental to my preparation as a teacher. Again, if it weren't for Jennifer Gonzalez, I would have been a wreck this semester during student teaching. Page 9 of 11
2. Summary of Results by Kentucky Teacher Standards and Other Key Conceptual Framework Values The first part of the analysis is based on student scores on Critical Performance assessments throughout their coursework. The second comparison is based on the Teacher Work Sample produced during their student teaching semester. There are some inconsistencies between the findings so merit further review on the validity of the assessments. Nonetheless they do give us a general picture of the success of our students going through the teacher preparation process. Standard 1 (Content Knowledge) 93 % of Middle Grade Education (MGE) program students are scoring proficient or higher on critical performances. This is below the unit‐wide level of 98%. (Table 3) However, 84% of MGE program students passed this standard which is better than the 80% pass rate for the Unit (Table 9) Standard 2 (Designs/Plans Instruction 95 % of Middle Grade Education (MGE) program students are scoring proficient or higher on critical performances. This is below the unit‐wide level of 98%. (Table 3) However, 96% of MGE program students scored higher in this standard than the 93% rate for the Unit (Table 9) Standard 3 (Maintains Learning Climate) 95% of Middle Grade Education (MGE) program students are scoring proficient or higher on critical performances. This is below the unit‐wide level of 97%. (Table 3). Standard 4 (Implements/Manages Instruction 92 % of Middle Grade Education (MGE) program students are scoring proficient or higher on critical performances. This is below the unit‐wide level of 96%. (Table 3) 100% of MGE program students passed this standard which is above the 97% pass rate for the Unit (Table 9). Standard 5 (Assessment/Evaluation) 94 % of Middle Grade Education (MGE) program students are scoring proficient or higher on critical performances. This is slightly below the unit‐wide level of 98%. (Table 3) 89% of MGE program students passed this standard which is much better than the 87% pass rate for the Unit (Table 9). Standard 6 (Technology) 96 % of Middle Grade Education (MGE) program students are scoring proficient or higher on critical performances. This is slightly below the unit‐wide level of 98%. (Table 3) 78% of MGE program students passed this standard which is a higher pass rate than the Unit at 73% (Table 9). Page 10 of 11
Standard 7 (Reflection) 96 % of Middle Grade Education (MGE) program students are scoring proficient or higher on critical performances. This is below the unit‐wide level of 98%. (Table 3) 82% of MGE program students passed this standard which is slightly lower than the 85% pass rate for the Unit (Table 9). Standard 8 (Collaboration) 92 % of Middle Grade Education (MGE) program students are scoring proficient or higher on critical performances. This is slightly below the unit‐wide level of 98%. (Table 3). Table 9 notes that 100% of the MGE students passed the collaboration aspect on the TWS, higher than the 92% recorded for the unit. Standard 9 (Professional Development) 90 % of Middle Grade Education (MGE) program students are scoring proficient or higher on critical performances. This is slightly below the unit‐wide level of 97%. (Table 3) 89% of MGE program students passed this standard which is lower than the 95% pass rate for the Unit (Table 9). This is a substantial difference and worth noting these numbers dropped from previous years. Standard 10 (Leadership) 96 % of Middle Grade Education (MGE) program students are scoring proficient or higher on critical performances. This is below the unit‐wide level of 99%. (Table 3). 95% MGE students scored proficient or higher on Professional Growth during student teaching, higher than 93% recorded for the unit. 3. Efforts to Report and Disseminate Results This report was circulated among all MGE faculty for review and comment. In addition the report is posted electronically for faculty to have available for review as needed when making decisions regarding program analysis and recommendations for approval. This report will be reviewed by all MGE faculty at the January, 2012 faculty workday session. 4. Key Discussions and/or Decisions Made Based on Assessment Results a. Assessment or Data Collection Changes Based on Assessment Results It is suggested that faculty be more involved in the development of survey instruments provided for alumni and students so we know the specific questions that are asked. In addition, we request clarity on the process of survey dissemination and if follow up reminders are done to increase the number of alumni responses. With low returns, it is difficult to make a well informed judgment for program revisions. While it is critical to know how our student teachers perceive their preparation, that group may be struggling with their first semester of teaching and less objective in their views. There Page 11 of 11
are certain human elements that cannot be prepared for and if students struggle, it is easy to blame the preparation instead of some personality issues that may also come into play. The tone of some comments is more venting than offered as a professional constructive criticism. We strongly encourage the survey prompt to invite all comments (positive and negative) rather just appealing for expanding on the lower scores. Overall, the scores below 3.0 focus on Classroom Management issues (Standard 4 ‐
Implements/Manages Instruction) so despite some very negative comments the majority felt their preparation was “good”. However, we strive to increase numbers answering “excellent.” b. Program Curriculum or Experiences Changes Based on Assessment Results Faculty who teach the MGE courses need to work with our Field Placement Coordinator and examine ways to improve the field experiences so students will be allowed to have more teaching experiences to improve competencies and confidence before their student teaching semester. Since we have lost some MGE faculty through departures from WKU or in support of the SKYTeach Program, we have used adjuncts or one year appointments to teach courses while we appeal for more consistency through hiring long term tenure track positions for our program. We also had a faculty member with health issues that may have impacted on effectiveness of that instruction. In addition, we need more full time support for the extended campus sites to better meet the needs of our students. It is unclear from these results if students from off campus sites perform differently than main campus students. It is recommended that future date reflect this. c. Decisions about Group/Individual Student Progress Based on Assessment Results There is little significant change in our scores from the previous year and it is apparent that our students feel we need to strengthen our classroom management, technology, and assessment areas. We need to have instructors who teach the MGE 275, MGE 385 and MGE Methods to review Critical Performances and course content to strengthen content and performances related to classroom management, technology, assessment, and leadership standards. Since the 2008‐2009 review, new policies are being implemented to address any Critical Performance scores of 2 or less. If students score at that level, they are offered remediation before student teaching.