Physical Education Teacher Education‐2010‐2011 Page 1 of 10 Physical Education Teacher Education– Initial Preparation Annual Program Report Academic Year 2010‐11 Elizabeth C. Pyle November 2011 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 PPST PPST PPST GRE Admission ACT SAT Math Reading Writing Composite GPA Program N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean
Physical 5 24 2 178 2 174 2 176 7 3.00 Education b. Course Based Assessment Data Table 2 provides the percentage of Physical Education Teacher Education candidates (N = 74) 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% 8% 72% 20% EDU 489 0% 31% 46% 23% EXED 330 0% 0% 69% 31% PE 111 0% 6% 7% 87% PE 121 0% 7% 33% 60% PE 212 0% 0% 57% 43% PE 320 0% 0% 69% 31% PE 413 0% 4% 81% 15% PE 414 0% 7% 93% 0% PH 261 0% 0% 56% 44% PH 381 0% 0% 67% 33% Physical Education Teacher Education‐2010‐2011 Page 2 of 10 Course PSY 310 SEC 453 SEC 478 SEC 481 Grand Total 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 0% 29% 0% 0% 3 19% 43% 100% 100% 4 74% 29% 0% 0% 0% 8% 55% 37% Table 3 indicates the level of Physical Education Teacher Education candidates (N=73) 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 Teacher Education Program candidates are typically performing below average. Table 3. Percent of Physical Education Teacher education Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS Kentucky Teacher Standards Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Physical 100%
94% Education 92% 87% 100% 91% 92% 92% 85% 85% Unit‐Wide 96% 95% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 94% 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 Physical Education Teacher Education candidates (N = 15) who have scored 2 or lower (below proficiency) on critical performances during this academic year. Table 4. Physical Education Teacher Education Candidates Scoring Below Proficient on CPs Score Student Student ID Count 1 2 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
Physical Education Teacher Education‐2010‐2011 Page 3 of 10 Grand Total 2 2
2 3 3 4 3
27 2
3
3
4
30
c. Clinical Experiences Data Physical Education Teacher 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: PE 321 (Junior Block) and PE 415 (Senior Block). PE 415 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 Physical Education Teacher Education candidates performed on dispositions as they entered and progressed through their program (N = 6) 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 Teacher Education Proficiency Rates on Unit‐Wide Dispositions WKU Professional Education Dispositions Values Values Period Values Values Personal Diversit Collaboratio
Values Learning Integrity y n Professionalism
a. Prior to Student 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Teaching b. During Student 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Teaching Over this academic year, Physical Education Teacher Education candidates (N = 19) reported demographic information on 21 field placements with an average of 16% ethnically diverse students, 49% students on free/reduced lunch, and 12% 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. Physical Education Teacher Education‐2010‐2011 Page 4 of 10 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) 48%
57%
24%
19%
19%
10%
5%
19%
24%
14%
19%
0%
90%
0%
81%
52%
76%
90%
Overall, as can be seen in Table 6, in 76% of their field experiences Physical Education Teacher Education candidates reported working with at least one student with special needs and in 90% 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 Physical Education Teacher Education‐2010‐2011 Page 5 of 10 higher. Table 7 presents the proficiency rate for Physical Education Teacher Education candidates (N = 14). Table 7. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates Program % Proficient Physical Education 91% Unit‐Wide 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 Physical Education Teacher 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 Teacher Education Candidates Program Physical Education Unit‐Wide CF LG DFI ASL ROT 93% 96% 86% 94% 93% 90% 79% 91% 86% 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 Physical Education Teacher Education Candidates who “Passed” each Teacher Standard Kentucky Teacher Standards (Measured by TWS) Program 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 Physical Education 79% 93% 100% 86% 64% 64% 100% 86% Unit‐Wide 80% 93% 97% 87% 73% 85% 92% 95% Additionally, all candidates are assessed during their student teaching experience using the Student Teaching Evaluation form. Table 10 reports the percentages of Physical Education Teacher 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. Physical Education Teacher Education‐2010‐2011 Page 6 of 10 Table 10. Physical Education Teacher Education Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards Kentucky Teacher Standards Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Physical 100
64% 93% 64% 36% 36% 71% 100% 86% 86% Education % Unit‐Wide 97% 91% 96% 91% 89% 91% 86% 94% 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). 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 Candidate N WKU Pass Rate WKU Pass Rate Program/Type of Assessment (2009‐10) (2009‐10) (2008‐09) Physical Education‐Content knowledge 15 100% 100% Praxis II Test (1) Physical Education‐Analysis & Design 15 93% 100% Praxis II Test (2) 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 392 student teachers, 355 (91%) completed the survey. Below are the results for Physical Education Teacher 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 Teacher Education survey results. Table 12. Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions for Physical Education Teacher Education Respondents Kentucky Teacher Standards Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Physical 3.34 3.31 3.49 3.53 3.29 3.00 3.42 3.27 3.41 3.50 Education Unit‐Wide 3.43 3.41 3.52 3.33 3.23 3.29 3.35 3.14 3.36 3.12 Physical Education Teacher Education‐2010‐2011 Page 7 of 10 Respondents were also able to provide comments if they answered “poor” for any item. Table 13 presents Physical Education Teacher Education respondent comments. Table 13. Physical Education Teacher Education Respondent Comments There were no comments reported for Physical Education Teacher Education. 2. Summary of Results by Kentucky Teacher Standards and Other Key Conceptual Framework Values The data in Table 2 indicated that 55% of the physical education candidates scored at standard and 37% scored above standard for proficiency on Critical Performances. The data in Table 4 shows that 15 of 74 Physical Education students scored below proficient on critical performances during the academic year. The data in Table 3 indicated that the proficiency levels of our students enrolled in Physical Education Teacher Education initial preparation varied greatly on the 10 Kentucky Teacher Standards as determined by these Critical Performances. They ranged from a low of 85% (Standards 8 and 9) to a high of 100% (Standards 4 and 10). Except for Standards 4 and 10, these proficiency scores fell below the unit‐wide percentages. 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 64% (Standards 6 and 7) to a high of 100% (Standards 3 and 8). Except for Standards 3 and 8, these proficiency scores were equal to (Standards 2) or slightly below (Standards 1 and 5) unit‐wide scores. 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 once again showed a great variance. The percentages ranged from a low of 36% (Standards 5 and 6) to a high of 100% (Standards 1 and 8). Except for Standards 1 and 8, 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. Physical Education Teacher Education‐2010‐2011 Page 8 of 10 The results from the WKU Teacher Survey completed by our student teachers and alumni ranked WKU preparation for each of the Kentucky Teacher Standards. The scores ranged from 3.00 to 3.53 (on a 4 point scale). Standard 6‐Technology was the low score and below the unit‐
wide score. Our second lowest score, 3.27, on Standard 7‐ Reflection was above the unit‐wide score. Our scores on Standards 1‐Content Knowledge, 2‐Designs/Plans Instruction, 3‐Maintains Learning Climate, and 6‐Technology were below unit‐wide scores, but our scores on Standards 4‐Implements/Manages Instruction, 5‐Assessment/Evaluation, 7‐Reflection, 8‐Collaboration, 9‐
Professional Development, and 10‐Leadership were above unit‐wide scores. There were no written comments. According to Table 11, Physical Education Teacher Education candidates had a 100% pass rate on the Physical Education‐Content Knowledge Praxis II for 2009‐2010; this remains unchanged from 2008‐2009. Our candidates had a 93% pass rate on Physical Education‐Analysis & Design Praxis II; this is a 7% drop from 2008‐2009. Examining the scores of the test, Physical Education Analysis and Design, in more detail, our students scored below state‐wide and national averages of % correct in the Praxis II test category of Assessing Fitness and Designing Routines to Achieve Goals. However, they exceeded both state‐wide and national averages of % correct in the Praxis II test category of Designing Activities for Skill Mastery or Achievement of Objectives. Examining the test, Physical Education Content Knowledge, in more detail our students scored above both the state‐wide and national averages of % correct in the Praxis II test category of Content Knowledge and Student Growth and Development; they scored well above both the state‐wide and national averages % correct in the test category of Management, Motivation, and Communication. In the test category of Planning, Instruction and Student Assessment, our students scored equal to the state‐wide results and above the national results. In the final test category of Collaboration, Reflection, and Technology, our students again scored well above both the state‐wide and national averages. 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. However, the 3 measurements do not necessarily show the same results. For instance, the highest 2 scores and the lowest 2 scores from each of the measurement instruments – Critical Performances, TWS and Student teacher Evaluations (in that order) – are as follows: Highest (100% in each measurement) – KTS (4 and 10); (3 and 8); (1 and 8) Lowest (85%, 64%, 36% respectively) – KTS (8 and 9); (6 and 7); (5 and 6) There are 2 KTS that show up more than once. Considering KTS 8 (Collaboration) our students scored 100% in the TWS and Student Teacher Evaluations, but scored the lowest 85% in terms of Critical Performances. KTS 6 (Technology) was indicated twice (TWS and Student Teacher Evaluation) as an area needing improvement scoring 64% and 36% respectively. Physical Education Teacher Education‐2010‐2011 Page 9 of 10 3. Efforts to Report and Disseminate Results The Physical Education Teacher Education program of study has been revised and approved by the Kinesiology, Recreation and Sport Department, College of Health and Human Services, College of Education and the University; it is now beginning to be implemented. These revisions and modifications were completed by the physical education faculty after the data over the past few years was critically examined. The 2010‐2011 data is generally consistent with past data; specifically technology and assessment are areas that need to be strengthened. The revised curriculum will gradually be put into effect as students under the old program complete those courses which have been revised or deleted from the new program. One new course (PE 314 Physical Education Curriculum) was added in the fall semester of 2011. Currently, the physical education faculty is analyzing the Critical Performance for each course In the Physical Education Teacher Education Program; appropriate revisions will be made each critical performance in order to strengthen our students learning and proficiency on the Kentucky Teacher Standards. 4. Key Discussions and/or Decisions Made Based on Assessment Results a. Assessment or Data Collection Changes Based on Assessment Results  Put revised or new critical performances into effect for courses in our recently revised curriculum to address each Kentucky Teacher Standard.  New courses are being implemented 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.  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.  Additional training in the area of assessment of instruction is being introduced. c. Decisions about Group/Individual Student Progress Based on Assessment Results Physical Education Teacher Education‐2010‐2011 Page 10 of 10 


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. 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.