Chemistry Education 2009-10 APR Page 1 of 5
Chemistry Education – Initial Preparation
Annual Program Report
Academic Year 2009-10
October 5, 2010
1. Continuous Assessment Results
a. Admission Data
Table 1 provides the average admission test scores and admission grade point average (GPA) of
Chemistry 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
Chemistry
N
1
Mean
29
PPST
Math
N Mean
PPST
Reading
N
Mean
PPST
Writing
N
Mean
SAT
N
Mean
GRE
Composite
N
Mean
Admission
GPA
N
Mean
1
2.54
b. Course Based Assessment Data
Table 2 provides the percentage of Chemistry Education candidates (N = 4) 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
ED-201
0%
0%
50%
50%
EDU-250
0%
0%
0%
100%
EDU-489
0%
0%
100%
0%
SEC-453
0%
0%
33%
67%
Grand Total
0%
0%
25%
75%
Table 3 indicates the level of Chemistry Education candidate (N = 4) 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, Chemistry Education candidates are
typically performing above average.
Chemistry Education 2009-10 APR Page 2 of 5
Table 3. Percent of Chemistry Education Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS
Program
Chemistry 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
100%
89%
*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 Chemistry Education candidates (N = 0) who have scored 2 or
lower (below proficiency) on critical performances during this academic year.
Table 4. Chemistry Education Candidates Scoring Below Proficient on CPs
Student ID
Grand Total
Score
1
Student Count
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
c. Clinical Experiences Data
The Chemistry Education program uses the following courses and experiences to evaluate
candidate dispositions: EDU 250, PSY 310, SEC 351, SEC 352, SEC 453, SEC 479, SEC 490 and EDU
489 as well as CHEM 222, CHEM 330 and CHEM 342. The program has identified the following
courses and experiences where candidates report the diversity of their field experiences: EDU
250, SEC 352, and SEC 472-484. SEC 352 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 Chemistry Education candidates performed on dispositions as they entered
and progressed through their program (N = 2) and during their student teaching experience (N
= 1). Students are considered “proficient” who average at 3 or higher on each disposition
category.
Table 5. Chemistry 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 Chemistry Education candidates completed the Fieldwork
Summary Form, so no data are available regarding the diversity of their field experiences. This
is likely because of the small number of Chemistry Education candidates matriculating through
the program at any given time.
Chemistry Education 2009-10 APR Page 3 of 5
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)
-------------------------------------
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 Chemistry Education candidates (N = 1).
Table 7. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates
Program
Chemistry Education
Unit-Wide
% Proficient
100%
100%
Chemistry Education 2009-10 APR Page 4 of 5
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 Chemistry 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 Chemistry Education Candidates
Program
Chemistry Ed.
Unit-Wide
CF
100%
96%
LG
100%
98%
Teacher Work Sample Components
AP
DFI
IDM
100%
100%
100%
91%
98%
94%
ASL
0%
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.
Table 9. Percentage of Chemistry Education Candidates who “Passed” each Teacher Standard
Program
Chemistry Ed.
Unit-Wide
Kentucky Teacher Standards (Measured by TWS)
2
4
5
6
7
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
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 Chemistry Education
student teachers (N = 1) 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. Chemistry Education Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards
Program
Chemistry Ed.
Unit-Wide
1
100%
95%
2
0%
90%
3
0%
93%
Kentucky Teacher Standards
4
5
6
7
100% 100% 100% 100%
88%
84%
94%
86%
8
100%
93%
9
100%
96%
10
100%
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 2008-9 academic year (the
most recent year with complete data).
Table 11. No Chemistry Education candidates took the Praxis II during the 2008-09 year.
Chemistry Education 2009-10 APR Page 5 of 5
Annually, the WKU Teacher Survey is sent to student teachers and alumni who potentially have
been teaching one or more years. For the 2009-10 academic year, out of a possible 1 student
teacher, 1 (100%) completed the survey; no alumni completed the survey. Below are the
results for Chemistry Education student teacher who 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 Chemistry Education survey results.
Table 12. Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions for Chemistry Education
Respondents
Program
Chemistry Ed.
Unit-Wide
1
4.0
3.34
2
3.6
3.33
3
4.0
3.54
Kentucky Teacher Standards
4
5
6
7
3.4
4.0
3.75
4.0
3.28
3.2
3.3
3.29
8
3.5
3.1
9
4.0
3.32
10
4.0
3.1
Respondents were also able to provide comments if they answered “poor” for any item. Table
13 presents Chemistry Education respondent comments by years of experience (0 = Student
Teaching).
Table 13. Chemistry Education Respondent Comments
No CHEM students/graduates made comments.
2. Summary of Results by Kentucky Teacher Standards and Other Key Conceptual Framework
Values
We don't have enough candidates coming through our program to make valid judgments about
them.
3. Efforts to Report and Disseminate Results
We don't have enough candidates coming through our program to disseminate our results.
4. Key Discussions and/or Decisions Made Based on Assessment Results
We don't have enough candidates coming through our program to make valid judgments about
the quality of our program.