Agriculture Education 2009-10 Page 1 of 5
Agriculture Education – Initial Preparation
Annual Program Report
Academic Year 2009-10
January 21, 2010
1. Continuous Assessment Results
a. Admission Data
Table 1 provides the average admission test scores and admission grade point average (GPA) of
Agriculture 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
Agriculture Ed.
N
9
Mean
23
PPST
Math
N Mean
1
185
PPST
Reading
N
Mean
1
175
PPST
Writing
N
Mean
1
172
SAT
N
Mean
GRE
Composite
N
Mean
Admission
GPA
N
Mean
12 3.16
b. Course Based Assessment Data
Table 2 provides the percentage of Agriculture Education candidates (N = 16) 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
EDU-250
EDU-489
EXED-330
LTCY-444
PSY-310
Grand Total
1
2
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
3%
3
67%
100%
50%
100%
0%
55%
4
33%
0%
50%
0%
82%
39%
Table 3 indicates the level of Agriculture Education candidate (N = 16) 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, Agriculture Education candidates
are typically performing about average.
Agriculture Education 2009-10 Page 2 of 5
Table 3. Percent of Agriculture Education Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS
Program
Agriculture Ed.
Unit-Wide
1
100%
98%
2
100%
98%
3
86%
97%
Kentucky Teacher Standards
4
5
6
7
100%
94% 100% 100%
96%
98%
98%
98%
8
-98%
9
100%
97%
10
-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 Agriculture Education candidates (N = 2) who have scored 2 or
lower (below proficiency) on critical performances during this academic year.
Table 4. Agriculture Education Candidates Scoring Below Proficient on CPs
Student ID
9247
2882
Grand Total
Score
1
Student Count
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
c. Clinical Experiences Data
The Agriculture Education program uses the following courses and experiences to evaluate
candidate dispositions: AGED 250, AGRI 398e, AGED 470, AGED 471, and SEC 490. The program has
identified the following courses and experiences where candidates report the diversity of their
field experiences: AGED 250 and AGRI 398e. AGRI 398e 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 Agriculture Education candidates performed on dispositions as they
entered and progressed through their program (N = 16) and during their student teaching
experience (N = 11). Students are considered “proficient” who average at 3 or higher on each
disposition category.
Table 5. Agriculture Education Proficiency Rates on Unit-Wide Dispositions
Period
Prior to Student Teaching
During Student Teaching
Values
Learning
100%
100%
WKU Professional Education Dispositions
Values Personal
Values
Values
Values
Integrity
Diversity Collaboration
Professionalism
100%
---100%
100%
100%
100%
Over this academic year, no Agriculture Education candidates reported demographic
information on their field placements
Agriculture Education 2009-10 Page 3 of 5
Table 6. Percentages of Field Experience by Category Types
(No Data Available)
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 Agriculture Education candidates (N = 10).
Table 7. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates
Program
Agriculture Education
Unit-Wide
% Proficient
100%
99%
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 Agriculture 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 Agriculture Education Candidates
Program
Agriculture Ed.
Unit-Wide
CF
100%
96%
Teacher Work Sample Components
LG
AP
DFI
IDM
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
91%
98%
94%
ASL
89%
87%
RSE
100%
93%
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.
Agriculture Education 2009-10 Page 4 of 5
Table 9. Percentage of Agriculture Education Candidates who “Passed” each Teacher Standard
Program
Agriculture Ed.
Unit-Wide
Kentucky Teacher Standards (Measured by TWS)
2
4
5
6
7
100%
100%
89%
100%
89%
98%
95%
90%
96%
95%
1
100%
97%
9
100%
91%
Additionally, all candidates are assessed during their student teaching experience using the
Student Teaching Evaluation form. Table 10 reports the percentages of Agriculture Education
student teachers (N = 11) 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. Agriculture Education Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards
Program
Agriculture Ed.
Unit-Wide
1
100%
95%
2
100%
90%
3
100%
93%
Kentucky Teacher Standards
4
5
6
7
100% 100% 100% 100%
88%
84%
94%
86%
8
100%
93%
9
100%
96%
10
91%
89%
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 2008-09 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
(2008-09)
5
Program/Type of Assessment
Agriculture
WKU Pass Rate
(2008-09)
100%
WKU Pass Rate
(2007-08)
100%
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. Below are the
results for Agriculture Education student teachers and alumni, 12 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 Agriculture Education survey results.
Table 12. Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions for Agriculture Ed. Respondents
Program
Agriculture Ed.
Unit-Wide
1
3.10
3.34
2
2.87
3.33
3
3.37
3.54
Kentucky Teacher Standards
4
5
6
7
2.93
2.92
3.29
3.00
3.28
3.20
3.30
3.29
8
2.92
3.10
9
2.83
3.32
10
2.83
3.10
Agriculture Education 2009-10 Page 5 of 5
Respondents were also able to provide comments if they answered “poor” for any item. Table
13 presents Agriculture Education respondent comments by years of experience (0 = Student
Teaching).
Table 13. Agriculture Education Respondent Comments
tch exp
2
0
0
Comments
Information learned in my Ag Ed classes has been much more useful than the regular Educational classes I attended.
I believe that WKU did a wonderful job in teaching me to be the best teacher that I could possibly be and I learned alot of things
that I will use for the rest of my entire career.
I think WKU could've better prepared student teachers by more thoroughly explaining the requirements that were expected of
us. I became very confused as to what I was expected to do, turn in, and participate in and more explanation would have been
helpful. I think it would be more beneficial if past student teachers could mentor new student teachers as well.
2. Summary of Results by Kentucky Teacher Standards and Other Key Conceptual Framework
Values Learning climate and assessment are always areas that can stand more attention. Being
organized and giving high school students and their parents more is always a plus. It is
important for our future teachers to never forget that. To have more assessments over less
material at a time will always help students succeed.
3. Efforts to Report and Disseminate Results
We will be sure to share this report with our future teachers.
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 will not make any changes in collection of the data or assessment.
b. Program Curriculum or Experiences Changes Based on Assessment Results
It appears that we are doing an adequate job preparing our students to teach. Based on the
results, more time needs to be spent in laboratory management, lab activities, and planning
and development of clear assessments.
c. Decisions about Group/Individual Student Progress Based on Assessment Results
The majority of our students are graduating and feeling prepared to begin their teaching
careers. We will continue to have as many hands on laboratory experiences as time will allow.