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.