Mathematics Education - 2009-10 Page 1 of 7
Mathematics Education – Initial Preparation
Annual Program Report
Academic Year 2009-10
October 15, 2010
1. Continuous Assessment Results
a. Admission Data
Table 1 provides the average admission test scores and admission grade point average (GPA) of
Mathematics 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
Admission
GPA
N
Mean
5
3.06
ACT
Program
270101-Mathematics
N
4
Mean
28
b. Course Based Assessment Data
Table 2 provides the percentage of Mathematics candidates (N = 38) 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%
0%
87%
13%
EDU-489
0%
0%
31%
69%
EXED-330
0%
0%
0%
100%
LTCY-421
0%
0%
100%
0%
PSY-310
0%
0%
17%
83%
SEC-351
0%
0%
50%
50%
SEC-352
0%
0%
30%
70%
SEC-453
0%
0%
32%
68%
SEC-477
0%
0%
17%
83%
0%
0%
45%
55%
Grand Total
Mathematics Education - 2009-10 Page 2 of 7
Table 3 indicates the level of Mathematics candidate (N = 38) 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, Mathematics Education candidates
are typically performing above average.
Table 3. Percent of Mathematics Candidates Scoring Proficient on CPs by KTS
Program
Mathematics
Unit-Wide
1
100%
98%
2
100%
98%
3
100%
97%
Kentucky Teacher Standards
4
5
6
7
100% 100% 100% 100%
96%
98%
98%
98%
8
100%
98%
9
100%
97%
10
100%
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
There were no Mathematics candidates who have scored 2 or lower (below proficiency) on
critical performances during this academic year.
c. Clinical Experiences Data
The Mathematics program uses the following courses and experiences to evaluate candidate
dispositions: EDU 250, SEC 477, and EDU 490. The program has identified the following courses
and experiences where candidates report the diversity of their field experiences: EDU 250, SEC
477, and SEC 352. SEC352 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 Mathematics Education candidates performed on dispositions as they
entered and progressed through their program (N = 30) and during their student teaching
experience (N = 12). Students are considered “proficient” who average at 3 or higher on each
disposition category.
Table 5. Mathematics 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%
100%
100%
100%
Over this academic year, Mathematics Education candidates (N = 13) reported demographic
information on 17 field placements with an average of 23% ethnically diverse students, 45%
students on free/reduced lunch, and 9% 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
Mathematics Education - 2009-10 Page 3 of 7
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
% 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)
0%
53%
0%
29%
59%
47%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
76%
12%
76%
59%
94%
94%
Overall, as can be seen in Table 6, in 94% of their field experiences Mathematics candidates
reported working with at least one student with special needs and in 94% 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
Mathematics Education - 2009-10 Page 4 of 7
purposes our goal is that at least 80% of program candidates will achieve “3 – Proficient” or
higher. Table 7 presents the proficiency rate for Mathematics candidates (N = 12).
Table 7. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates
Program
Mathematics 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 Mathematics 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 Mathematics Candidates
Program
Mathematics Education
Unit-Wide
CF
100%
96%
LG
92%
98%
Teacher Work Sample Components
AP
DFI
IDM
100%
100%
92%
91%
98%
94%
ASL
92%
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 Mathematics Candidates who “Passed” each Teacher Standard
Program
Mathematics Education
Unit-Wide
1
100%
97%
Kentucky Teacher Standards (Measured by TWS)
2
4
5
6
7
92%
92%
100%
92%
100%
98%
95%
90%
96%
95%
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 Mathematics Education
student teachers (N = 12) 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. Mathematics Education Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards
Program
Mathematics Education
Unit-Wide
1
92%
95%
2
100%
90%
3
92%
93%
Kentucky Teacher Standards
4
5
6
7
92% 100%
92%
92%
88%
84%
94%
86%
8
100%
93%
9
100%
96%
10
100%
89%
Mathematics Education - 2009-10 Page 5 of 7
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
(2008-09)
7
7
Program/Type of Assessment
Mathematics: Content Knowledge
Math Proofs Models Problems Part I
WKU Pass Rate
(2008-09)
100%
100%
WKU Pass Rate
(2007-08)
100%
100%
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 419 student
teachers, 410 (98%) completed the survey; out of a possible 1521 alumni, 217 (14%) completed
the survey. Below are the results for Mathematics student teachers and alumni, 16 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 Mathematics survey results.
Table 12. Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions for Mathematics Education
Respondents
Program
Mathematics Education
Unit-Wide
1
2
3
2.94
3.34
3.24
3.33
3.53
3.54
Kentucky Teacher Standards
4
5
6
7
3.03
3.28
3.03
3.20
2.72
3.30
2.98
3.29
8
9
10
2.70
3.10
3.08
3.32
2.89
3.10
Respondents were also able to provide comments if they answered “poor” for any item. Table
13 presents Mathematics Education respondent comments by years of experience (0 = Student
Teaching).
Table 13. Mathematics Education Respondent Comments
tch exp
0
2
1
0
0
0
Comments
I think I would have been more prepared to do the Teacher Work Sample if I could learn more about it before my student
teaching experience. I feel that it could have been better explained or provided more practice for it.
We were not shown various forms of technology that we could use in the classroom, so that was new to me when I started
teaching.
Classroom management should be more of a focus as well as leadership and planning quality lessons
Reaching diverse learners was the only area in student teaching that I did not feel completely prepared.
The math methods class was not effective. It was a waste of my time!! I was never taught how to collaborate.
SEC 477 was a criminal class. There were very few methods even mentioned in this class. I think one method was actually taught.
This class was a waste of 2 hours of my life twice a week on Monday and Wednesday during the fall semester of 2009. I honestly
feel this class needs to be completely overhauled and I should get to take this class at no expense. The instructor of this class sat
in front of the class and talked about her life. The assessments in this class were not covered in the class and no feedback was
provided on 80% of the assignments until the day final grades were posted on topnet. So, I had no clue where I stood in the class.
Also, my critical performance still has not been graded for this class. So my electronic portfolio shows no feedback for SEC 477.
Mathematics Education - 2009-10 Page 6 of 7
2. Summary of Results by Kentucky Teacher Standards and Other Key Conceptual Framework
Values
Admission Data:
The mean ACT score and mean GRE composite scores were above the means of all candidates.
The admission GPA of 3.06 was less than the mean of 3.28 for all students.
Course Based Assessment Data:
Critical Performance (CP) proficiency level percentages indicate the Mathematics candidates
are performing as well as or better than average.
Clinical Experiences Data:
The percentages of students working with diverse populations are within guidelines.
Culminating Assessment Data:
The Mathematics proficiency rates on the Unit-Wide Dispositions are 100% across the board.
Teacher Work Sample Proficiency rates and the Kentucky Teacher Standards suggest that the
areas that have the most room for improvement compared with the unit are “Learning Goals,”
KTS2, KTS4, and KTS6. Mathematics Education and Education Faculty need to collaborate to
ensure that mathematics students are able to transfer what they learn to the mathematics
classroom.
Exit and Follow Up Data:
The pass rate on the 2008-2009 Praxis was maintained with 100% of candidates passing both
the Mathematics Content Knowledge test and part 1 of the Math Proofs and Models Problems.
The results of the WKU Teacher Survey that looks at the respondent’s perception of WKU
preparation on each of the Kentucky Teacher Standards show that student teachers from
mathematics rate the program at or below that of the unit. While the results were close, there
is no way to tell if this is significant but efforts will be made to improve these ratings.
3. Efforts to Report and Disseminate Results
This report was forwarded to the Mathematics Department’s Teacher Education Committee for
reading and discussion. Issues raised by this report will inform future decisions regarding the
direction of the program.
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 believe that data collection is comprehensive and requires no changes
at this time.
Mathematics Education - 2009-10 Page 7 of 7
b. Program Curriculum or Experiences Changes Based on Assessment Results
We recognize the need to work with methods instructors to ensure that emphasis is
placed on all components of the TWS. In addition, mathematics educators in the
Department of Mathematics need to discuss other avenues for helping students in
meeting KTS. We will work together to help students plan, implement, and manage
instruction and assess learning.
c. Decisions about Group/Individual Student Progress Based on Assessment Results
We plan to hold a joint meeting with math faculty and the mathematics education
faculty in the College of Education to discuss improvements in the program.