Professional Education Unit
Assessment Report - Initial Preparation Programs
Academic Year 2009-10
Report Version: August 10, 2010
Note: Any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report should be directed to Tony Norman
(tony.norman@wku.edu), CEBS Associate Dean, Accountability & Research.
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 2 of 27
Professional Education Unit Assessment Report - Initial Preparation Programs
Academic Year 2009-10
Overview: This report includes assessment and survey results from the following data collection points
and sources:
 Admission Data (Academic Year 2009-10)
o Number, percentage, and average GPA by program of teacher preparation candidates approved
by the Professional Education Council for admission
o Admission test score averages by program
 Course-Based Assessment Data (Academic Year 2009-10)
o Percentage of candidates scoring at each level of proficiency on critical performances
o Percentage of program candidates scoring proficient on critical performances by Kentucky
Teacher Standards
o Listing of candidates scoring below proficiency on at least two critical performances
 Clinical Experiences Data (Academic Year 2009-10)
o Field Experience Summary demographic information (National Center for Education Statistics
[NCES] and candidate self-report data)
o Student teaching demographic information (NCES data)
 Dispositions Data (Academic Year 2009-10)
o Admission and early clinical dispositions data by program
o Student Teacher Evaluation dispositions results by program
 Culminating Assessment Data (Academic Year 2009-10)
o Teacher Work Sample (TWS) Results: Candidates Meeting Standards (by program, by TWS
components, and by Kentucky Teacher Standards)
o Teacher Work Sample Results: Impact on P-12 Student Learning
o Student Teacher Evaluation results by program and Kentucky Teacher Standards
 Exit and Follow-Up Data
o Praxis results (2008-09 cohort)
o WKU Teacher Survey results (2009-10 student teacher and alumni results)
o Kentucky Teacher Internship Program (KTIP) results (2009-10)
See the WKU Professional Education Unit Wide Continuous Assessment Matrix – Initial Preparation on
the next page for a conceptual map that guides our data collection efforts.
Section 1 describes results by data collection point. Section 2 summarizes these results based on what
they tell us about candidate proficiency toward Kentucky Teacher Standards, as well as other key
Conceptual Framework values. Section 3 discusses current and planned efforts to report and
disseminate these results. Section 4 outlines key decisions made during 2009-10 based on the 2008-09
Annual Report and new decisions to be considered based on the 2009-10 results.
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 3 of 27
KY
REQ's
Content Knowledge
Designs/Plans
Learning Climate
Implements/Manages
Assessment/Evaluation
Technology
Reflection
Collaboration
Professional Development
Leadership
Dispositions
FR a-f
Field Experiences & Clinical
Practice
Diversity
Impacts P-12 Student Learning
DATA MAINTAINED BY:
DATA HOUSED IN:
DATA REPORTING CYCLE:
DATA REVIEWED BY:
Praxis
II
Graduate
Survey
Principal
Survey*
DFI 2**
1a-d, Overall
1a-d
1a-d
1a-d
CF 1-5, LG 1-4,
DFI 1, 3-5
2a-e, Overall
2a-e
2a-e
2a-e
3a-e, Overall
3a-e
3a-e
3a-e
IDM 1-3
4a-e, Overall
4a-e
4a-e
4a-e
AP 1-5, ASL 1-4
5a-d, Overall
5a-e
5a-e
5a-e
DFI 6
6a-d, Overall
6a-d
6a-d
6a-d
RSE 1-3
7a-c, Overall
7a-c
7a-c
7a-c
8a-b, Overall
8a-d
8a-d
8a-d
9a-c, Overall
9a-d
9a-d
9a-d
10a, Overall
10a-d
10a-d
10a-d
Ed Tech
Ed Tech
RSE 4-5
FX a-l
Summary
Form
Summary
Form
Component 5:
Exit and Follow-Up Data
State Approved Certification Exams
Faculty
Recs
Various Data Required by State for Admission into Teacher Preparation Programs
Conceptual Framework
Standards/Values
Aligned to Kentucky Teacher Standards
Component 1:
Admission
Data
WKU PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION UNIT WIDE CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT MATRIX - INITIAL PREPARATION
Component 2:
Component 3:
Component 4:
Course-Based
Clinical Experiences Data
Culminating Assessment Data
Assessment Data
Capstone
Early Clinical
Final Clinical
Final Clinical
Exit
Critical Performances
Assessment
Experiences
Experience
Evaluation
Survey
(TWS)
Disp a-l
OTS Data
OTS Data
CF 1-5, AP 5, DFI
4, IDM 2
Disp g
AP 1-5, ASL 1-4
OTS
Faculty
CEBS ACCSYS
CEBS ACCSYS
Semester
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Biannually
PEC
Faculty/Programs/PEC
Program
Programs/PEC
Programs/PEC
Programs/PEC
Programs/PEC
PEC
Programs/PEC
Programs/PEC
*Data sources in the process of being added to the electronic assessment system
**Cells reflect instruments or rubric/survey items keyed to CF Standards/Values
C&I Staff
OTS
CEBS ACCSYS
C&I Staff/Ed Tech
OTS/EdTech
Ed Tech
CEBS ACCSYS
OTS
BANNER/CEBS ACCSYS
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 4 of 27
Section 1. Continuous Assessment Results
A. Admission Data (Academic Year 2009-10)
Table 1 provides the number, percentages, and average overall GPAs of candidates by programs
approved by the Professional Education Council (PEC) for admission into initial teacher preparation
programs. 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 GPA Averages by Program
CIP Code
0-Unknown
131001-Special Education
131012-Communication Disorders
N
Average
GPA
%
6
1%
3.44
29
7%
3.19
14
3%
3.71
175
41%
3.28
131203-Middle Grades Education
54
13%
3.24
131204-Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education
10
2%
3.29
131301-Agriculture
12
3%
3.16
131302-Art Education
6
1%
3.15
131303-Business Education
7
2%
3.48
131308-Family Consumer Science
9
2%
3.33
131312-Music Education
20
5%
3.56
131314-Physical Education
14
3%
2.89
160905-Spanish
2
0%
3.87
190701-Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education
2
0%
3.66
23
5%
3.35
250101-School Media Specialist
9
2%
3.47
260101- Biological Science
7
2%
3.10
270101-Mathematics
5
1%
3.06
131202-Early Elementary Education P-5
230101- English and Allied Language Arts
400501-Chemistry
1
0%
2.54
400703-Earth Science
1
0%
3.79
450101-History/Social Studies
18
4%
3.12
450801-History/Social Studies
3
1%
3.33
500901-Music Education
5
1%
3.40
432
100%
3.28
Grand Total
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 5 of 27
Table 2 provides the average admission test scores of candidates by program approved by the
Professional Education Council (PEC) for admission into initial teacher preparation programs.
Table 2 Approved Candidate Test Score Averages by Program
ACT
CIP Code
N
PPSTM*
Mean
N
Mean
PPSTR*
N
Mean
PPSTW*
N
Mean
0-Unknown
131001-Special Education
SAT
N
1
Mean
1030
GRE
Composite
N
Mean
5
940
12
22
16
998
4
24
10
993
133
23
9
178
10
176
9
174
40
23
2
184
2
184
2
178
2
1115
131204-IECE
7
22
1
177
1
180
1
173
131301-Agriculture
9
23
1
185
1
175
1
172
131302-Art Education
4
24
131303-Business Education
5
24
2
875
131308-Family Consumer Science
4
23
20
25
131314-Physical Education
9
22
160905-Spanish
1
30
1
21
20
26
1
610
8
1093
2
1110
1
1130
47
1006
131012-Communication Disorders
131202-Early Elementary Education
131203-Middle Grades Education
131312-Music Education
190701-IECE
230101- English Allied Lang Arts
1
1
184
179
1
182
1
175
1
178
1
172
1
174
1
173
5
1
1340
1040
250101-School Media Specialist
260101- Biological Science
5
22
270101-Mathematics
4
28
400501-Chemistry
1
29
400703-Earth Science
1
24
450101-History/Social Studies
16
24
450801-History/Social Studies
2
25
500901-Music Education
5
23
1
180
2
181
2
175
Grand Total
303
23 16
179 19
178 18
174
7 1253
*PPST refers to the ETS Pre-Professional Skills Tests: Mathematics (M), Reading (R), & Writing (W) respectively.
B. Course-Based Assessment Data
Table 3 provides the percentage of candidates scoring at each level of proficiency on critical
performances within professional education courses for the 2009-10 academic year. Proficiency levels
are based on the following scale: 1 – Standard Not Met, 2 – Standard Partially Met, 3 – At Standard, and
4 – Above Standard.
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 6 of 27
Course
ED-201
EDU-250
EDU-489
ELED-345
ELED-355
ELED-365
ELED-405
ELED-406
ELED-407
ELED-465
EXED-330
EXED-331
EXED-333
EXED-334
EXED-415
EXED-417
EXED-418
EXED-422
EXED-430
EXED-431
EXED-432
EXED-434
IECE-321
IECE-322
IECE-324
IECE-421
IECE-422
LME-318
LME-407
LME-410
LTCY-310
LTCY-320
LTCY-420
LTCY-421
LTCY-444
MGE-275
MGE-385
MGE-475
MGE-477
MGE-479
MGE-481
MUS-312
MUS-412
Table 3 CP Proficiency Level Percentages
1
2
3
0%
6%
0%
2%
0%
1%
0%
1%
1%
2%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
10%
0%
4%
1%
3%
2%
10%
2%
8%
1%
4%
1%
3%
0%
0%
0%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
4
74%
62%
67%
83%
60%
71%
67%
77%
55%
84%
34%
25%
0%
92%
8%
58%
0%
11%
0%
0%
19%
10%
52%
58%
30%
50%
65%
60%
52%
0%
20%
65%
43%
70%
71%
27%
44%
100%
27%
40%
34%
30%
17%
19%
36%
32%
16%
37%
27%
33%
21%
44%
14%
64%
75%
100%
0%
92%
42%
100%
89%
100%
100%
81%
90%
48%
33%
70%
50%
35%
39%
48%
100%
60%
31%
53%
19%
19%
68%
52%
0%
69%
60%
66%
70%
75%
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 7 of 27
Course
1
MUS-415
PH-261
PSY-310
SEC-351
SEC-352
SEC-453
SEC-475
SEC-477
SEC-479
SEC-481
EXED-416
EXED-419
IECE-325
PE-320
CFS-381
MUS-416
PH-381
FREN-323
GERM-314
GERM-430
Grand Total
2
0%
0%
2%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3
0%
7%
3%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
2%
4
21%
20%
12%
56%
64%
36%
95%
17%
0%
94%
78%
59%
11%
58%
100%
20%
50%
0%
100%
0%
56%
79%
73%
82%
40%
36%
63%
5%
83%
100%
6%
22%
41%
89%
38%
0%
60%
50%
100%
0%
0%
42%
Table 4 indicates the level of candidate proficiency by program across critical performances related to
the Kentucky Teacher Standards. 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.
Table 4 Percent† of Program Students Scoring Proficient on CPs by Teacher Standard
Program
Kentucky Teacher Standards*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Elementary Ed.
98%
98%
97%
97%
98%
99%
98%
98%
97%
100%
Middle Grades Ed.
96%
96%
95%
94%
96%
97%
96%
96%
97%
96%
Secondary Ed.
98%
98%
98%
97%
99%
99%
99%
100%
98%
100%
P-12 Ed.
98%
97%
97%
97%
97%
96%
97%
95%
97%
100%
5-12 Ed.
95%
98%
98%
95%
98%
98%
98%
100%
97%
100%
Exceptional Ed.
99%
94%
92%
98%
97%
100%
100%
100%
96%
100%
IECE
100%
100%
96%
99%
100%
100%
99%
99%
95%
100%
Unit-Wide
98%
98%
97%
96%
98%
98%
98%
98%
97%
99%
†Percentages based on all CPs completed by candidates based on their coursework--not just program requirements
*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
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 8 of 27
Table 5 provides counts of 34 students who have scored 2 or below on two or more critical
performances over the 2009-10 academic year. The table highlights the counts of the 11 students who
scored low on three or more critical performances.
Table 5 Count of Students Scoring Below Proficient on CPs
Student ID
Score
1
0438
1
0119
6059
9635
0341
9280
7604
6231
7863
1
5266
1961
2
0523
8958
3271
1
1212
2
4920
1
7550
7117
1
7821
2
0157
1
4363
1
0138
1
7482
8816
5712
1
0602
4662
1
4600
9063
1
6134
9921
8339
4
4303
1
8839
Student N
Students with three or more low scores
Count Per Student
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
4
3
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
34
11
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 9 of 27
C. Clinical Experiences Data (Academic Year 2009-10)
Over the 2009-10 academic year, 740 students reported demographic information on 893 field
placements, with an average of 15% ethnically diverse students, 46% students on free/reduced lunch,
and 16% student with disabilities (based on data from National Center for Education Statistics and
Kentucky Department of Education). The ethnic diversity percentage continues to be well above the
average 11% diversity of schools in the 30+ counties in our service area. Table 6 reveals 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 Students 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)
15%
62%
13%
36%
50%
30%
9%
7%
30%
15%
19%
8%
83%
10%
65%
39%
88%
91%
Overall, as can be seen in Table 6, in 88% of their field experiences candidates reported working with at
least one student with special needs, and in 91% of their field experiences candidates reported working
with at least one student from a diverse ethnic group.
In addition, Table 7 reports the diversity percentages of the schools where student teachers were placed
during the 2009-10 academic year. The average overall diversity percentage remains slightly above the
average 11% ethnic diversity of the schools in the 31 counties that represent our service area.
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 10 of 27
Table 7 Demographic Percentages of Student Teaching Sites
Key: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaskan, BL/AA = Black/African American, HIS/LAT = Hispanic/Latino, FRL = Students receiving
Free or Reduced Lunch, ELL = English Language Learners, ST W/ DIS = Students with Disabilities
Name of School
AI/AN ASIAN
BL/AA HIS/LAT WHITE DIVERSITY*
FRL†
ELL ST W/DIS
ABRAHAM LINCOLN ES
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.8
97.8
2.2
62.5
0.0
24.4
ADAIR COUNTY ES
0.2
0.0
2.2
2.8
94.8
5.2
69.3
0.0
18.6
ADAIR COUNTY MS
0.0
0.3
2.3
0.8
96.7
3.3
57.6
0.0
12.2
ALLEN COUNTY PRIMARY
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.3
97.5
2.5
53.0
0.0
12.2
ALLEN CTY-SCOTTSVILLE HS
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.4
98.5
1.5
38.4
0.0
11.3
ALVATON ES
0.2
0.2
2.0
2.6
95.0
5.0
32.4
0.0
26.1
APOLLO HS
0.0
0.9
4.5
1.3
93.3
6.7
34.6
0.4
9.4
ATHERTON HS
0.0
2.7
25.9
9.3
62.2
37.9
46.9
0.0
19.2
AUBURN ES
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.8
95.1
4.9
48.9
0.0
13.5
AUDUBON ES
0.2
1.3
9.2
3.2
86.2
13.8
63.8
0.0
21.8
AUSTIN TRACY ES
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
99.2
0.8
71.4
0.0
20.4
BARDSTOWN ES
0.0
1.5
20.3
1.8
76.5
23.5
63.3
0.0
12.7
BARDSTOWN MS
0.0
0.8
21.2
2.7
75.3
24.7
56.4
0.0
12.7
BARDSTOWN PRIMARY SCH
0.2
0.9
16.1
2.3
80.6
19.4
90.8
0.0
21.0
BARREN COUNTY HS
0.2
0.4
1.4
0.5
97.4
2.6
39.5
0.1
9.4
BARREN COUNTY MS
0.3
0.0
0.4
1.0
98.3
1.7
46.0
0.1
9.5
BEAVER DAM ES
0.0
0.2
2.0
9.8
88.0
12.0
70.4
0.0
17.7
**
**
BEECH ES
0.0
1.4
5.5
2.2
90.9
9.1
11.5
**
**
BEECH SENIOR HS
0.3
1.9
8.8
2.4
86.5
13.5
16.0
**
BLOOMFIELD ES
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
99.2
0.8
41.3
0.0
BONNIEVILLE ES
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.7
98.4
1.6
62.3
0.0
16.0
BOWLING GREEN HS
0.1
3.4
22.5
7.7
66.2
33.8
46.2
5.2
9.7
BOWLING GREEN MS
0.1
2.6
23.1
7.0
67.3
32.7
50.1
2.8
11.2
BRECKINRIDGE COUNTY MS
0.0
0.3
2.1
0.7
96.9
3.1
58.1
0.0
12.0
BREMEN ES
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.3
99.0
1.0
59.2
0.0
18.9
BRIARWOOD ES
0.2
4.7
10.1
2.5
82.5
17.5
22.8
0.0
17.9
BRISTOW ES
0.2
1.5
13.5
5.1
79.8
20.2
47.8
0.0
16.8
BURNS ES
0.0
2.3
5.3
4.1
88.3
11.7
38.7
0.0
24.4
CALHOUN ES
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
53.6
0.0
15.7
CAMDEN STATION ES
0.0
0.6
1.9
1.2
96.3
3.7
15.0
0.4
20.7
CANEYVILLE ES
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.8
98.5
1.5
79.3
0.0
23.1
CARRITHERS MS
0.2
0.5
42.6
4.5
52.3
47.7
55.7
0.0
23.7
CAVERNA ES
0.0
0.3
14.2
2.2
83.4
16.6
92.3
0.0
28.5
CAVERNA MS
0.5
0.5
12.6
0.5
85.9
14.1
74.4
0.0
19.5
CENTERFIELD ES
0.0
0.4
1.5
1.7
96.5
3.5
11.9
0.4
15.7
CENTRAL HARDIN HS
0.2
1.4
3.8
1.0
93.7
6.3
30.8
0.0
8.9
CHENOWETH ES
0.0
1.3
39.7
1.9
57.1
42.9
59.0
0.0
25.1
CLARKSON ES
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.5
97.8
2.2
64.6
0.0
19.9
COLLEGE VIEW MS
0.0
1.2
2.3
0.4
96.1
3.9
30.2
0.2
11.2
**
**
COOPERTOWN ES
0.3
0.3
1.7
2.8
94.8
5.2
27.1
**
**
COOPERTOWN MS
0.0
0.6
4.0
3.1
92.3
7.7
24.0
CUMBERLAND COUNTY ES
0.0
0.2
2.5
1.2
96.1
3.9
75.3
0.0
28.4
CUMBERLAND COUNTY HS
0.3
0.3
1.8
0.0
97.7
2.3
58.6
0.0
10.1
CUMBERLAND TRACE ES
0.2
3.1
9.9
6.6
80.2
19.8
51.7
0.2
23.7
DAVID T. WILSON ES
0.0
0.5
2.4
1.0
96.2
3.9
59.1
0.0
11.4
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 11 of 27
Name of School
DAVIESS COUNTY HS
DAVIESS COUNTY MS
DAWSON SPRINGS HS
DAWSON SPRINGS MS
DEER PARK ES
DISHMAN MCGINNIS ES
DRAKES CREEK MS
EAST HARDIN MS
EAST OLDHAM MS
EAST VIEW ES
EDMONSON COUNTY HS
EDMONTON ES
EKRON ES
ELIZABETHTOWN HS
ESTES ES
F T BURNS MS
FLAHERTY ES
FORDSVILLE ES
FOSTER HEIGHTS ES
FRANKLIN ES
FRANKLIN-SIMPSON HS
FRANKLIN-SIMPSON MS
G C BURKHEAD ES
GALLATIN SENIOR HS
GAMALIEL ES
GLASGOW HS
GLASGOW MS
GRAYSON COUNTY HS
GRAYSON COUNTY MS
GREEN COUNTY MS
GREENBRIER ES
GREENWOOD HS
H W WILKEY ES
HANCOCK COUNTY MS
HELMWOOD HEIGHTS ES
HENDERSON COUNTY HS
HENDERSONVILLE HS
HENRY F MOSS MS
HISEVILLE ES
HODGENVILLE ES
HOWEVALLEY ES
INDIAN LAKE ES
IROQUOIS HS
JAMESTOWN ES
JOE SHAFER MS
JOHN ADAIR INTERM SCH
KRISLE ES
AI/AN
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
ASIAN
0.9
0.4
0.0
0.5
1.3
2.2
2.5
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.2
0.0
1.0
4.0
0.0
1.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.7
0.4
3.7
0.8
0.0
1.3
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.3
1.1
3.5
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.7
1.7
0.9
0.0
0.4
1.3
0.5
3.6
0.0
0.7
0.5
0.5
BL/AA
0.8
1.5
0.0
0.0
2.5
31.0
4.8
4.7
1.2
0.7
3.3
0.5
1.7
14.3
15.5
4.7
2.0
0.0
2.6
11.3
11.9
13.5
17.7
22.9
1.4
14.8
18.5
0.9
0.3
1.3
2.2
5.0
2.1
1.1
15.0
9.9
4.8
17.3
0.0
5.8
0.9
1.9
53.2
3.6
21.4
3.1
25.3
HIS/LAT
0.6
1.4
0.0
0.0
1.3
13.9
2.2
0.9
1.6
2.4
0.5
1.8
0.5
2.1
3.7
1.6
2.9
1.1
1.4
2.8
0.7
1.5
2.2
4.2
3.6
1.7
2.4
0.9
0.5
0.3
2.6
2.0
0.6
1.7
2.0
1.0
3.4
7.0
1.7
3.2
0.9
1.4
5.3
1.8
4.8
2.1
10.8
WHITE
97.6
96.7
100.0
99.5
94.9
52.9
90.1
93.9
96.7
97.0
95.8
97.5
96.9
79.6
80.5
92.5
94.3
98.9
96.0
85.0
86.8
84.6
76.2
72.1
95.0
82.2
78.5
97.9
99.1
98.2
94.1
89.3
97.3
97.3
79.0
88.4
90.2
74.8
98.3
90.0
96.6
96.1
37.7
94.7
72.8
94.3
63.4
DIVERSITY*
2.4
3.3
0.0
0.5
5.1
47.1
9.9
6.1
3.3
3.0
4.3
2.5
3.2
20.4
19.5
7.5
5.7
1.1
4.0
15.0
13.2
15.4
23.8
27.9
5.1
17.8
21.5
2.1
0.9
1.8
5.9
10.7
2.7
2.8
21.0
11.7
9.9
25.2
1.7
10.0
3.4
3.9
62.4
5.4
27.2
5.7
36.6
FRL†
25.2
37.6
55.9
59.2
45.5
101.5
23.7
34.3
14.6
67.0
48.9
72.0
50.4
34.3
106.8
44.3
59.3
76.7
49.0
98.6
33.7
49.0
52.1
37.9
80.1
40.8
50.0
41.7
48.7
54.7
30.3
15.7
68.9
36.9
62.7
34.5
15.1
93.2
59.1
56.6
65.1
3.2
72.9
72.2
47.3
54.1
52.1
ELL
0.3
0.4
**
**
0.0
2.8
1.0
0.0
1.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
**
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
**
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
**
1.7
0.0
1.2
0.0
**
0.0
0.0
**
0.0
**
ST W/DIS
8.1
10.7
**
**
21.3
17.8
8.8
11.9
13.7
21.0
9.3
23.3
14.8
8.2
26.9
14.7
15.6
23.7
27.7
31.5
8.9
8.2
20.2
**
18.3
9.2
15.2
6.4
11.4
13.9
**
5.7
18.2
10.5
24.0
9.3
**
9.9
20.2
20.4
28.2
**
28.6
24.2
**
15.1
**
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 12 of 27
Name of School
LAKEWOOD ES
LARUE COUNTY HS
LARUE COUNTY MS
LEBANON JUNCTION ES
LINCOLN ES
LINCOLN TRAIL ES
LIVERMORE ES
LOST RIVER ES
MADISON CREEK ES
MEADE COUNTY HS
METCALFE COUNTY HS
MONROE COUNTY MS
MORGANTOWN ES
MORNINGSIDE ES
MOUNT WASHINGTON ES
MUHLENBERG NORTH MS
MUHLENBERG SOUTH ES
MUNFORDVILLE ES
NANNIE BERRY ES
NEW HIGHLAND ES
NEWTON PARRISH ES
NIAGARA ES
NORTH HANCOCK ES
NORTH HARDIN HS
NORTH TODD ES
NORTH WARREN ES
OAKLAND ES
OHIO COUNTY MS
ORAN P LAWLER ES
OWENSBORO MS
PARK CITY ES
PARKER BENNETT CURRY ES
PORTLAND HS
PORTLAND MS
POTTER GRAY ES
R E STEVENSON ES
RED CROSS ES
RICH POND ES
RICHARDSVILLE ES
RINEYVILLE ES
ROCKFIELD ES
RUCKER STEWART MS
RUSSELL COUNTY MS
RUSSELLVILLE HS
RUSSELLVILLE MS
SALEM ES
SENECA HS MAGNET
AI/AN
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.0
0.1
ASIAN
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.5
0.0
1.9
2.7
0.5
0.4
0.0
0.2
1.9
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.9
3.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
4.6
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.6
3.8
0.4
0.6
2.3
1.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.5
0.2
1.2
0.5
0.0
1.6
BL/AA
4.5
5.9
3.2
0.3
10.3
3.2
2.0
13.9
11.8
1.8
1.8
4.1
0.8
16.6
0.9
2.6
3.1
6.7
12.8
21.8
3.0
1.0
1.4
30.9
2.5
4.3
11.2
0.8
1.1
18.6
2.1
39.6
3.4
5.0
9.0
22.7
0.6
2.7
0.2
6.2
4.3
25.7
0.7
29.4
30.1
0.0
37.7
HIS/LAT
1.8
1.4
2.7
0.3
1.1
1.3
2.0
10.3
2.6
0.7
0.2
1.1
2.8
3.2
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.2
3.0
4.6
3.9
2.2
1.0
6.1
1.8
1.3
8.0
1.6
0.3
0.6
0.9
31.2
2.1
2.7
2.6
3.6
0.9
2.6
1.2
0.8
1.1
7.7
1.2
2.9
3.0
1.7
4.8
WHITE
93.0
92.6
94.2
99.1
87.9
93.7
95.6
73.8
82.7
96.5
97.4
94.6
96.2
78.1
97.9
96.4
96.2
92.7
82.4
69.6
92.1
96.8
97.5
58.1
95.8
94.2
79.3
97.5
98.4
80.9
96.4
25.5
93.8
91.6
85.9
72.6
98.4
92.9
98.6
92.3
94.6
65.8
97.6
66.2
66.0
98.3
55.8
DIVERSITY*
7.0
7.4
5.8
0.9
12.1
6.3
4.4
26.2
17.3
3.5
2.6
5.4
3.8
21.9
2.1
3.6
3.8
7.3
17.6
30.4
7.9
3.2
2.5
41.9
4.2
5.8
20.7
2.5
1.6
19.1
3.6
74.5
6.2
8.4
14.1
27.4
1.6
7.1
1.4
7.7
5.5
34.2
2.4
33.8
34.0
1.7
44.2
FRL†
58.0
43.5
58.7
49.7
47.4
40.6
67.4
93.2
16.4
40.2
54.7
66.7
45.2
55.9
35.5
50.9
70.0
53.5
23.0
58.5
63.4
41.5
51.3
43.4
51.5
58.7
63.0
49.8
63.5
68.9
67.0
100.0
28.5
41.3
32.1
76.6
50.7
26.1
42.7
46.1
50.2
52.4
62.2
52.9
49.8
57.7
41.3
ELL
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
**
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
**
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
3.6
**
**
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
**
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
ST W/DIS
27.6
9.2
17.3
18.8
8.5
22.6
26.7
18.6
**
10.3
12.9
15.6
16.6
12.5
14.0
6.4
19.9
20.8
**
24.2
19.2
15.7
20.4
7.2
33.1
26.2
23.9
15.8
17.5
22.8
18.8
20.6
**
**
9.3
21.4
13.0
14.6
24.7
20.4
16.7
**
10.6
10.8
8.1
22.1
19.8
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 13 of 27
Name of School
AI/AN ASIAN
BL/AA HIS/LAT WHITE DIVERSITY*
FRL†
ELL
SIMPSON ES
0.2
0.4
11.1
1.8
86.6
13.5
55.0
0.0
SORGHO ES
0.0
0.7
3.7
2.2
93.4
6.6
56.7
0.0
SOUTH EDMONSON ES
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
98.1
2.0
59.9
0.0
SOUTH GREEN ES
0.0
1.4
12.7
2.6
83.3
16.7
53.2
0.0
SOUTH HANCOCK ES
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.5
98.4
1.6
63.4
0.0
SOUTH HEIGHTS ES
0.0
0.2
17.2
1.8
80.8
19.2
89.4
0.0
SOUTHERN ES
0.9
0.0
0.4
1.3
97.5
2.6
72.3
0.0
SOUTHERN HS MAGNET
0.1
1.4
29.4
3.5
65.6
34.4
48.9
0.0
SOUTHSIDE ES
0.0
0.2
0.9
0.9
98.1
1.9
62.8
0.0
**
STATION CAMP HS
0.2
1.3
11.0
2.3
85.2
14.8
16.2
STUART PEPPER MS
0.4
0.7
2.4
0.8
95.7
4.3
44.1
0.0
T C CHERRY ES
0.0
1.6
16.3
4.3
77.8
22.2
59.1
0.0
TALTON K STONE MS
0.2
2.2
14.2
1.2
82.2
17.9
44.6
0.0
TAYLOR COUNTY ES
0.0
0.3
1.4
1.4
97.0
3.0
50.5
0.2
TEMPLE HILL ES
0.6
0.0
0.3
0.9
98.1
1.9
68.0
0.0
TODD COUNTY CENTRAL HS
0.2
0.3
10.9
2.2
86.4
13.6
44.6
0.2
TOMPKINSVILLE ES
0.0
0.0
5.7
4.0
90.3
9.7
80.1
0.0
W R MCNEILL ES
0.0
4.1
14.1
2.2
79.7
20.3
27.9
0.5
**
WALTON FERRY ES
0.2
0.4
7.3
3.0
89.0
11.0
26.9
WARREN CENTRAL HS
0.0
1.9
19.5
4.6
74.0
26.0
50.7
5.8
WARREN COUNTY ES
0.0
2.5
27.3
17.4
52.9
47.1
80.6
0.1
WARREN EAST HS
0.2
0.8
10.7
2.2
86.1
13.9
45.9
0.2
WARREN EAST MS
0.0
1.2
8.3
2.6
87.9
12.1
56.8
0.1
WEST HARDIN MS
0.5
0.2
5.3
1.1
92.9
7.1
46.6
0.0
WEST LOUISVILLE ES
0.0
0.4
0.4
2.0
97.2
2.8
52.2
0.0
**
WHITE HOUSE HERITAGE
0.4
1.5
1.4
2.1
94.6
5.5
23.9
**
WHITE HOUSE HS
0.1
0.4
2.9
1.3
95.3
4.7
20.3
WHITESVILLE ES
0.0
0.3
1.3
0.3
98.1
1.9
43.4
0.0
WILLIAM NATCHER ES
0.0
8.2
5.5
4.8
81.5
18.5
19.2
0.9
Average Percentages
0.1
0.9
8.3
2.6
88.1
11.9
51.3
0.2
*Diversity equals combined percentage of Native American/Alaskan, Asian, Black/African American, and
Hispanic/Latino students in the school
†Some percentages exceed 100 because state reports MORE students in a category than the TOTAL number of
students in the school
**n/a - Data not available from Tennessee schools
ST W/DIS
11.0
27.2
21.0
16.4
28.2
21.2
21.7
25.2
28.7
**
12.5
18.9
9.8
16.7
19.2
9.8
20.0
8.6
**
8.6
20.1
8.7
13.4
13.9
29.0
**
**
17.2
17.1
17.1
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 14 of 27
D. Dispositions Data (Academic Year 2009-10)
During the 2007-08 school year, a dispositions rubric was developed and adopted at the initial
preparation level. The faculty recommendation used for teacher program admission now reflects Level
1 dispositions. The full rubric is used as part of the student teaching evaluation process. All initial
programs have developed Program Assessment Plans that outline how each program collects midprogram level dispositions data. These were finalized throughout 2008, as all programs prepared
Program Review Documents (aka folios) to be submitted to the EPSB as a required part of our
accreditation renewal process. Tables 8 and 9 report how initial program candidates are performing on
our dispositions as they enter and progress through their program and during their student teaching
experience. Students are considered “proficient” who average 3 or higher on each dispositions
category.
Table 8 Proficiency Rates on Unit Wide Dispositions Prior to Student Teaching
Program
Elementary Ed.
Values
Learning
99%
WKU Professional Education Dispositions
Values Personal
Values
Values
Integrity
Diversity
Collaboration
100%
100%
100%
Values
Professionalism
99%
Middle Grades Ed.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Secondary Ed.
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
P-12 Ed.
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
5-12 Ed.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Exceptional Ed.
97%
100%
100%
100%
100%
IECE
100%
100%
*
*
*
99%
100%
100%
100%
99%
Unit-Wide
*Data not available
Table 9 Proficiency Rates on Unit Wide Dispositions during Student Teaching
Program
Values
Learning
WKU Professional Education Dispositions
Values Personal
Values
Values
Integrity
Diversity
Collaboration
Values
Professionalism
Elementary Ed.
99%
100%
100%
99%
99%
Middle Grades Ed.
100%
97%
100%
100%
98%
Secondary Ed.
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
P-12 Ed.
85%
93%
93%
90%
88%
5-12 Ed.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Exceptional Ed.
100%
100%
100%
100%
92%
IECE
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Unit-Wide
98%
99%
99%
99%
98%
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 15 of 27
E. Culminating Assessment Data (Academic Year 2009-10)
Teacher Work Sample Results: Candidates Meeting Standards
As Component 4 of our unit wide 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). 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 10 represents three-year proficiency rates by program area.
Table 10 Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates
Program Type
Elementary Ed.
Middle Grades Ed.
Secondary Ed.
P-12 Ed.
5-12 Ed.
Exceptional Ed.
IECE
Unit-Wide
2009-10
99%
99%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
2008-09
92%
95%
90%
93%
100%
100%
100%
93%
2007-08
89%
86%
73%
84%
80%
96%
100%
86%
Because faculty score TWS at the indicator level, we can use their 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 associated with each component. Table 11 and Chart 1 depict the percentage of
candidates by program 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 SelfEvaluation.
Table 11 Percentage by Program of Candidates who “Passed” Each TWS Component
Major
CF
LG
AP
DFI
IDM
ASL
RSE
ELED
98%
98%
85%
98%
95%
89%
97%
MGE
100%
100%
98%
98%
83%
90%
90%
SECED
87%
95%
97%
97%
95%
74%
84%
P-12
97%
100%
97%
100%
100%
92%
92%
5-12
100%
100%
96%
100%
100%
92%
100%
EXED
92%
100%
100%
100%
100%
83%
92%
IECE
100%
100%
89%
100%
95%
95%
100%
Total
96%
98%
91%
98%
94%
87%
93%
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 16 of 27
Chart 1 Percentage by Program of Candidates who “Passed” Each TWS* Factor
*TWS Key: CF – Contextual Factors, LG – Learning Goals, AP – Assessment Plan, DFI – Design
for Instruction, IDM – Instructional Decision-Making, ASL – Analysis of Student Learning, RSE –
Reflection & Self-Evaluation
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 (Chart 2 and Table 12).
Chart 2 Percentage by Program of Candidates who “Passed” Each Kentucky Teacher Standard*
*KTS Key: 1 – Content Knowledge, 2 – Designs/Plans Instruction, 4 – Implements/Manages
Instruction, 5 – Assessment/Evaluation, 6 – Technology, 7 – Reflection, 9 – Professional
Development
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 17 of 27
Table 12 Percentage of Program Candidates “Passing” Each Kentucky Teacher Standard*
Major
1*
2
4
5
6
7
9
ELED
97%
98%
95%
86%
94%
97%
95%
MGE
100%
100%
85%
96%
96%
96%
88%
SECED
92%
95%
95%
87%
95%
89%
81%
P-12
97%
100%
100%
97%
100%
95%
89%
5-12
100%
100%
100%
92%
100%
96%
96%
EXED
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
92%
92%
IECE
100%
100%
95%
89%
95%
100%
100%
Total
97%
98%
95%
90%
96%
95%
91%
*KTS Key: 1 – Content Knowledge, 2 – Designs/Plans Instruction, 4 – Implements/Manages Instruction,
5 – Assessment/Evaluation, 6 – Technology, 7 – Reflection, 9 – Professional Development
Teacher Work Sample Results: Impact on P-12 Student Learning
Like many NCATE institutions, WKU has relied on the TWS to document candidate impact on P-12
student learning. Although it seems intuitive that candidate success on the TWS should translate into
positive impact on P-12 learning (and NCATE accepts such evidence), the national mood requires “proof
positive” that teacher preparation does so. One line of evidence that many TWS institutions present is
the pre-post assessment data embedded within the TWS. Guided by the earlier work of these
institutions and with WKU faculty input, the Associate Dean for Accountability and Research, the
Manager of the Educational Technology Center, and CEBS Web Developer created an Excel workbook to
capture these data. Additionally, the workbook was enhanced to provide candidates completing TWS
with readymade graphs of P-12 student learning once the data were entered. Volunteer faculty
provided this workbook to their candidates, who in turn entered the performance of individual P-12
students (without names) on each learning goal. Candidates then uploaded their completed workbooks
along with their TWS into the WKU E-PASS Electronic Portfolio System.
During the 2009-10 academic year, 235 candidates in ELED 405 or EDU 489 uploaded completed Excel
workbooks containing 5295 records of P-12 student learning data. These data were compiled to
ascertain P-12 student learning gains on goals established in each TWS. For reporting purposes, all P-12
student scores were converted to percentages of items correct for each learning goal. Chart 3 reveals
the average P-12 student learning gains (35% gain for Learning Goal A; 37% gain for Learning Goal B)
reported in TWS. Additionally, candidates set targets for each learning goal that represented how well
individual P-12 students had to perform in order to be considered as reaching proficiency on a particular
goal. Chart 4 reveals the increasing numbers of students (47% more students on Learning Goal A; 45%
more on Learning Goal B) who reached the target level on the post-assessment items related to the two
learning goals.
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 18 of 27
Chart 3 Average P-12 Student Gains on TWS Learning Goals
Chart 4 Percentage of P-12 Students Reaching Proficiency on TWS Learning Goals
Student Teacher Evaluation Results
Additionally, all candidates are assessed during their student teaching experience using the Student
Teaching Evaluation form. Although in years past this form had been somewhat standard aligned, a
shortcoming of the form was that indicators for standards were not fully developed, with the result that
nearly all candidates received high marks. Three years ago, the form was redesigned to align more
clearly with the Kentucky Teacher Standards and the descriptive rubrics developed for these standards
as part of the Kentucky Teacher Internship Program. These rubrics were developed by a statewide Task
Force under the direction of the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board and, as a result,
represent statewide consensus on what “Not Met,” “Partially Met,” and “Met” levels of a standard look
like. Where appropriate, the language from these rubrics was added to our new Student Teacher
Evaluation. Table 13 reports the percentages of 2009-10 student teachers successful on each standard.
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 19 of 27
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 13 Student Teaching Evaluation Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards*
Program
Kentucky Teacher Standards
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Elementary Ed.
97%
93%
97%
93%
89%
97%
91%
96%
98%
94%
Middle Grades Ed.
89%
86%
90%
83%
84%
95%
84%
89%
94%
86%
Secondary Ed.
96%
87%
83%
80%
80%
93%
83%
91%
96%
80%
P-12 Ed.
85%
78%
85%
78%
65%
80%
70%
83%
80%
78%
5-12 Ed.
93%
96%
96%
93%
93%
96%
78%
93%
100%
89%
100%
85%
92%
92%
69%
92%
77%
92%
92%
92%
Exceptional Ed.
IECE
93% 100%
100%
100%
86%
100%
100%
93%
100%
93%
Unit-Wide
94%
89%
93%
88%
84%
94%
86%
92%
95%
88%
*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 – Professional Leadership
F. Exit and Follow-Up Data
Praxis Results (2008-09 Cohort)
Tables 14 and 15 delineate the most recent Educational Testing Service reports of pass rates on content
licensure and Principles of Learning and Teaching and related exams of 2008-09 program completers
(N=405) compared to previous pass rates.
Table 14 Pass Rates on Content Licensure Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation
Program
Name of Licensure Test
Elementary Education
Middle Grades Education
Middle Grades Education
Middle Grades Education
Middle Grades Education
Secondary Education
Secondary Education
Secondary Education
Secondary Education
Secondary Education
Secondary Education
Secondary Education
P-12 Education
P-12 Education
P-12 Education
P-12 Education
P-12 Education
P-12 Education
ELEMENTARY ED CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
MIDDLE SCHOOL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
MIDDLE SCHOOL MATHEMATICS
MIDDLE SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES
MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE
BIOLOGY CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
ENG LANG LIT COMP CONTENT KNOW
ENG LANG LIT COMP ESSAYS
MATHEMATICS: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
MATH PROOFS MODELS PROBLEMS PART 1
SOCIAL STUDIES: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
SOCIAL STUDIES: INTERPRET MATERIALS
ART MAKING
ART CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
FRENCH CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
MUSIC CONCEPTS AND PROCESSES
MUSIC CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
PHYSICAL ED: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
N Taking
Assessment
(2008-09)
189
297
20
25
16
2
19
20
7
7
19
18
4
4
-24
25
11
WKU
Pass Rate
(2008-09)
99%
100%
100%
84%
100%
100%
100%
95%
100%
100%
84%
94%
100%
100%
-92%
100%
100%
WKU
Pass Rate
(2007-08)
94%
97%
100%
94%
100%
100%*
94%
88%
100%*
100%*
100%
95%
33%*
88%*
100%*
100%
100%
100%
WKU
Pass Rate
(2006-07)
100%
96%
94%
92%
100%
100%*
100%
87%
86%*
100%*
100%
91%
100%*
100%*
-100%
90%
100%
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 20 of 27
Program
N Taking
Assessment
(2008-09)
10
1
5
7
4
7
--41
25
13
540
Name of Licensure Test
P-12 Education
P-12 Education
5-12 Education
5-12 Education
5-12 Education
5-12 Education
5-12 Education
Exceptional Education
Exceptional Education
Exceptional Education
Exceptional Education
Overall Pass Rate
*Pass rate based on N<10
PHYSICAL ED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
SPANISH CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
AGRICULTURE
BUSINESS EDUCATION
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES II
TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION
SE STUDENTS W/MENTAL RETARDATION
EDUC. EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS: CK
ED EXCEPT STUDENTS: MILD/MOD. DISAB.
ED EXCEPT STUDENTS: PROFND. DISAB.
WKU
Pass Rate
(2008-09)
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
--98%
92%
92%
97%
WKU
Pass Rate
(2007-08)
100%
100%*
100%*
100%*
0%*
-100%*
88%*
100%
94%
100%*
96%
WKU
Pass Rate
(2006-07)
100%
100%*
100%
100%*
100%*
-100%*
100%
100%
100%
-92%
Table 15 Pass Rates on Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills Praxis Test
Type of Assessment
Aggregate – Professional Knowledge
Aggregate – Teaching Special Populations
Unit-wide
N Taking
Assessment
(2008-09)
341
58
399
Institutional
Pass Rate
(2008-09)
98%
91%
97%
Institutional
Pass Rate
(2007-08)
96%
96%
96%
Institutional
Pass Rate
(2006-07)
96%
98%
96%
WKU Teacher Survey Results (Academic Year 2009-10)
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. 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 16 reports
student teacher results by program with averages below 3 highlighted; Table 17 reports alumni results.
Table 16 Student Teacher Averages on Teacher Standards Questions by Program
Kentucky
Teacher
Standard*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ELED
N=197
3.60
3.67
3.76
3.52
3.51
3.51
3.67
3.37
3.46
3.39
MGE
N=63
3.37
3.19
3.45
3.17
3.15
3.20
3.05
3.04
3.29
2.85
SECED
N=62
3.18
3.13
3.36
3.09
2.97
3.20
2.94
2.85
3.27
3.08
Program
P-12
5-12
N=34
N=25
3.26
3.16
3.46
3.35
3.09
3.07
3.22
2.76
3.15
2.82
3.18
3.09
3.36
3.16
3.10
3.39
3.08
2.93
3.18
2.95
EXED
N=10
3.45
3.38
3.74
3.42
3.32
3.40
3.40
3.58
3.58
3.10
IECE
N=16
3.52
3.48
3.74
3.64
3.40
3.45
3.35
3.55
3.55
3.22
Grand Total
N=407
3.44
3.42
3.60
3.37
3.30
3.36
3.37
3.17
3.37
3.17
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 21 of 27
Table 17 Alumni Averages on Teacher Standards Questions by Program
Kentucky
Teacher
Standard*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Program
ELED
MGE
SECED
P-12
5-12
EXED
IECE
Grand Total
N=93
N=19
N=28
N=14
N=6
N=19
N=9
N=188
3.23
3.35
3.46
3.24
3.11
3.24
3.29
3.00
3.23
3.03
2.98
2.95
3.42
2.75
2.85
2.95
2.95
2.76
3.15
2.82
2.92
2.88
3.23
2.92
2.72
2.95
2.90
2.62
3.29
2.70
3.16
3.10
3.38
3.19
3.05
2.92
3.13
2.78
3.23
2.95
3.42
3.00
3.53
2.70
3.23
3.79
3.22
3.08
3.42
3.46
3.32
3.06
3.64
3.22
3.12
3.34
3.13
3.33
3.27
3.01
3.17
3.22
3.47
3.31
2.93
3.31
3.07
3.19
3.06
2.86
3.17
3.18
3.44
3.13
3.02
3.18
3.16
2.96
3.23
2.96
10
*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
In years past, we reported results from the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board New
Teacher Survey. However, these data will not be available until fall 2010. They will be reported
separately.
Kentucky Teacher Internship Program Results (2009-10)
All candidates in our initial teacher preparation programs who enter the profession participate in a
yearlong internship entitled the Kentucky Teacher Internship Program (KTIP). During KTIP, candidates
are mentored and observed by their building principal, a resource teacher, and a teacher educator at a
nearby Kentucky university. In addition, candidates must develop several artifacts tied to the Kentucky
Teacher Standards including lesson plans; a videotaped lesson; plans for professional development,
collaboration, and leadership with documented evidence of carrying them out; and a standards-based
unit very similar to the WKU TWS. Based on these sources of evidence, the mentor team rates
candidates on each Kentucky Teacher Standard on a three-point scale (1 – Not Met, 2 – Partially Met,
and 3 – Met) over several cycles of the internship. Of most interest to us are the first cycle scores
because they are assigned near the beginning of the internship, and, thus, should reflect the strength of
our preparation programs. It should be noted, however, that because the goal of the internship is
showing intern growth, mentor teams tend to score candidates at the “partially met” level. Thus, for
the first cycle, we consider ourselves successful if overall our newly prepared teachers average at least 2
on each standard. However, our goal is that by the last cycle all our candidates are performing at the
proficient level (averaging at least 2.5 or higher on each standard). Below are several years of internship
data. Table 18 reports the percentage of our candidates averaging at least 2 during the first cycle. Table
19 reports the percentage of candidates averaging at last 2.5 by the last cycle.
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 22 of 27
Table 18 Percentage of Candidates Averaging 2 (First Cycle)
Year
Kentucky Teacher Standards*
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
8
9
10
2005-06
100%
99%
99%
99%
99%
93%
98%
96%
95%
n/a
2006-07
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
96%
98%
95%
95%
n/a
2007-08
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
97%
94%
94%
n/a
2008-09
100%
100%
100%
99%
96%
97%
98%
94%
94%
94%
2009-10
100%
99%
99%
97%
94%
97%
97%
91%
92%
90%
8
9
10
Table 19 Percentage of Candidates Averaging at least 2.5 (Last Cycle)
Year
Kentucky Teacher Standards*
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
2005-06
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n/a
2006-07
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n/a
2007-08
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n/a
2008-09
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
2009-10
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100% 100%
*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 – Professional Leadership
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 23 of 27
Section 2. Continuous Assessment Results
A. Introduction and Context
Although WKU’s Professional Education Unit Conceptual Framework describes the unit’s mission, vision,
and core beliefs, in the current assessment cycle the unit is focusing on the following key values:
Belief 3 – Diversity. WKU should offer a variety of field experiences that reflect student diversity and
demonstrate success with all students.
Belief 5 – Reflection. WKU should provide multiple opportunities for candidates to reflect on their
experiences toward the goals of improving their skills and P-12 student learning.
Belief 7 – Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions. WKU should align curriculum, experiences, and
assessments to ensure that all candidates have the opportunity to develop these essential competencies
and dispositions.
Belief 8 – Technology. WKU’s education professional preparation unit should strive to provide
instruction in, model, and assess the use of technology tools considered essential for instruction,
assessment, management, and research related to schools.
Beliefs 9 & 10 – Accountability and Assessment. WKU should model accountability by monitoring
candidate progress through assessments that are aligned to professional standards.
This report represents WKU’s efforts to live out Beliefs 9 and 10. Competencies identified in the
Kentucky Teacher Standards (Belief 7) are reflection (Belief 5) and technology (Belief 8). We evaluate
diversity (Belief 3) efforts in light of field experiences data. Below is a summary of our assessment
results based on what they tell us about candidate proficiency toward Kentucky Teacher Standards, as
well as other key Conceptual Framework values.
B. Kentucky Teacher Standards Assessment Summary
Table 20 provides a summary of candidate passing rates within and across assessments and surveys.
Note that the overall average is the calculated average pass rate across assessments and surveys, with
each instrument average receiving equal weight.
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 24 of 27
Table 20 Summary of Assessment Results (Based on Most Recent Year) by Kentucky Teacher Standard and Component
Kentucky Teacher Standards
Component 2:
Course Based
Assessment Data
Component 4:
Culminating Assessment Data
Component 5:
Exit and Follow Up Data
OVERALL
Critical Performance
Pass Rates
TWS Pass Rates
Student Teacher
Evaluation Pass Rate
Student Teacher
Survey Pass Rates*
Praxis II Pass Rate
KTIP Results
(1st Cycle)
AVERAGE
1 - Content Knowledge
98%
97%
94%
88%
97%
100%
95%
2 - Designs/Plans
98%
98%
89%
84%
99%
94%
3 - Learning Climate
97%
93%
91%
99%
95%
4 - Implements/Manages
96%
95%
88%
81%
97%
91%
5 -Assessment/Evaluation
98%
90%
84%
79%
94%
89%
6 - Technology
98%
96%
94%
83%
97%
94%
7 – Reflection
98%
95%
86%
86%
97%
92%
8 - Collaboration
98%
92%
74%
91%
89%
9 - Professional Development
97%
95%
84%
92%
92%
10 - Leadership
99%
88%
74%
90%
88%
91%
97%**
*Survey Pass Rates calculated as percentage of respondents with Kentucky Teacher Standard Averages >2.99 on survey questions
**Not included in Rough Average Calculation
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 25 of 27
C. Other Conceptual Framework Values Summary
Diversity
As described earlier, overall, in 88% of their field experiences candidates reported working with at least
one student with special needs, and in 91% of their field experiences candidates reported working with
at least one student from a diverse ethnic group. These percentages have remained steady over the last
several years. However, to ensure that all candidates have at least one diverse field experience, all
initial education preparation programs have developed Program Assessment Plans that identify a course
and experience where all candidates within the program will be assigned to schools that meet or exceed
that average level of diversity (11%) of schools in our service area.
Impact on P-12 Student Learning
This year represents our first routine effort to capture impact on P-12 student learning based on data
reported within the TWS, with promising results. As reported earlier, the P-12 students who candidates
work with make large gains on learning goals and large percentages of these students reach proficiency
on these goals. Thus, we have additional substantive evidence that our candidates do know how to
make an impact on the students they teach.
Section 3. Dissemination Efforts
Portions and drafts of this report have been shared with the College of Education and Behavioral
Sciences Dean and Associate Dean for Academic Programs. Planned efforts to disseminate the final
version of this report include the following audiences:






Other WKU College Deans
Professional Education Council
CEBS department heads and associated faculty
Education Professional Standards Board staff
NCATE
The public via the CEBS website (reported in summary form)
These audiences will be invited to discuss; provide insight regarding; and suggest edits, corrections, and
alternative explanations to the findings of this report. More importantly, these audiences have
contributed and will again contribute to Section 4 that outlines key decisions made during 2009-10
based on the previous Annual Reports and new decisions to be considered based on the 2009-10 results.
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 26 of 27
Section 4. Key Decisions Made and to be Considered
Below is a listing of decisions and changes that took place over the 2009-10 academic year based on the
previous Unit-Wide Assessment Reports, as well as decisions that remain to be made (highlighted) based
on challenges associated with developing the current report.
 Mapping Critical Performances: Earlier Unit-Wide Assessment Reports indicated that some
Kentucky Teacher Standards are clearly assessed more often than others and that there is variability
in coverage by program. Based on that finding, program coordinators worked in 2008-09 with their
faculty to develop a Program Assessment Plan that maps out their performances by standard. In
some cases, new assessments were developed and added to the Electronic Portfolio System to fill
gaps in standard coverage. During 2009-10, Program Assessment Plans and Critical Performances
continued to be refined or created. For example, to reflect the new SKyTeach Math and Science
programs, all plans were revised and new Critical Performances are under development.
 Monitoring and Following Up Candidate Performance on Critical Performances: Table 5 reports
students (names are available from the Associate Dean for Accountability & Research) who have
scored low on critical performances. The PEC adopted a transition plan that monitors candidate
proficiency on critical performance for progress through initial preparation programs at specific
transition points: Admission to Teacher Preparation, Student Teaching, and Program Exit. These
transition points included minimum levels of proficiency candidates must demonstrate in course
work, Kentucky Teacher Standards measured by critical performances, and unit dispositions.
Because Student Teaching is a university course, establishing minimal proficiencies as course
prerequisites required making “Multiple Revisions” to these courses and passing them through the
entire university curriculum process during the 2008-09 academic year. This year a School of Teacher
Education task force was created to develop a policy to work with candidates who apply for student
teaching but do not meet minimal proficiencies. This policy passed in the School of Teacher
Education and is now ready to make its way through the curricular process this upcoming (2010-11)
year.
 Establishing Acceptable TWS Individual Score and Program-Level Pass Rates: The PEC formally
adopted a TWS cutoff score that candidates must meet in order to complete a program, as well as
policies for dealing with candidates who fall below the cutoff. However, the current report continues
to reveal program variability in the proficiency rates of candidates. Based on last year’s
recommendation in this report, program faculty worked together to revise the TWS to align better
with Kentucky Teacher Standards. They also discussed differences in implementing and interpreting
TWS processes with the goal of a stronger TWS instrument, as well as opportunities to refine
programs to prepare candidates for the knowledge and skills associated with the TWS.
 Collecting Impact on P-12 Student Learning Data: A routine process was established this year.
Work will continue to encourage more faculty and students to use the Excel workbook created for
this purpose.
 Reviewing Survey Results: Although Tables 16 and 17 indicate that, in general, student teachers and
alumni feel adequately prepared to meet Kentucky Teacher Standards, variability exists among
programs and across standards. Program faculty should review these results to ascertain potential
program weaknesses, especially in light of other data sources from this and past years.
Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final Page 27 of 27
 Developing a Comprehensive Diversity Plan: Although diversity of clinical experience placement is
important to monitor, it is a small piece in what should be a more comprehensive diversity plan.
Based on recommendations in last year’s Unit-Wide Assessment Report, this year a School of Teacher
Education task force was created to develop a set of diversity proficiencies. These proficiencies were
adopted by the School of Teacher Education and are now ready to make their way to the PEC for
consideration and adoption.