1d. Student Learning for Teacher Candidates
[Note: In this section, institutions must address both (1) initial teacher preparation programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels and (2) licensure and non-licensure graduate programs for teachers who already hold a teaching license.]
1d1. What data from key assessments indicate that candidates in initial teacher preparation programs can assess and analyze student learning, make appropriate adjustments to instruction, monitor student learning, and develop and implement meaningful learning experiences to help all students learn? (Institutions that have submitted programs for national review or a similar state review are required to respond to this question only for programs not reviewed).
All programs have been reviewed and approved by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and some have also received program accreditation by national specialty agencies. Please refer to content accreditation reports. In addition, the majority of assessments for this area take place in the Phase 3 and Phase 4 portfolio, specifically WTS 2, 3 and 8. All teacher candidates regularly choose artifacts that document student learning (such as lesson plans, tests, writing samples) and faculty, cooperating teachers and supervisors provide assessments of teacher candidate work in the portfolio. Data on WTS 2 (teachers know how children grow), WTS 3 (teachers understand that children learn differently) and WTS 8 (teachers know how to test for student progress) have been collected and analyzed for the portfolios. Teacher candidate mean score on each standard rises between Phases 3 and 4 (average of .34 per standard). The largest rise occurs in WTS 8 (.36). All artifact scores for these standards average between a 2.84 and 2.92 (Phase 3) and 3.18 to 3.23 (Phase 4) on a zero to four scale. For specific examples of how preservice teachers assess student learning, see example portfolios. Student teacher exit surveys from 2003 to 2007 (n=177) also suggest that candidates are well prepared to assess and analyze student learning and create positive learning environments. Average ratings on the question “I believe I have attained an appropriate level of proficiency to be expected of a beginning teacher in terms of adapting instruction to meet the diverse needs of pupils, including those with disabilities and exceptionalities are 4.23 out of 5 possible points. Exit surveys also indicate an average score of 4.51 out of 5 possible points on the question “I believe I have attained an appropriate level of proficiency to be expected of a beginning teacher in terms of creating a positive learning environment.” (Please refer to support data for question 1d1).
1d2. What data from key assessments indicate that advanced teaching candidates demonstrate a thorough understanding of the major concepts and theories related to assessing student learning and regularly apply them to practice?
All advanced programs have been reviewed and approved by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and some have also received program accreditation by national specialty agencies. Please refer to content accreditation reports for the advanced programs. Data on this area can be found under WTS 2 (teachers know how children grow), WTS 3 (teachers understand that children learn differently) and WTS 8 (teachers know hot to test for student progress) and other standards as adopted by the specialty content area.
1d3. What do follow-up studies of employers and graduates indicate about graduates’ ability to help all students learn? If survey data are being reported, what was the response rate? (A table summarizing the results related to student learning could be attached here.).
An alumni survey was administered in the spring of 2006 followed by an employer survey in the winter of 2007. The alumni survey had a 35% response rate and the employer survey had a 25% response rate. Questions in the alumni and employer survey linked to WTS 2, 3 & 8 were analyzed (standards most closely aligned with student learning success). There was no significant difference between alumni and employer overall ratings for WTS 2 and 3. It is important to note, however, that when a question-by-question analysis was done, there was a statistical difference on question 5 (teaching English-language learners). This is part of WTS 3. For this question, alumni rated themselves significantly lower than employers. There was also a statistical difference between the way employers and alumni responded to questions related to WTS 8. For this standard the alumni mean rating is significantly higher than the employer mean rating. (Please refer to support data for question 1d3). As with previous examinations, it was decided to wait until another alumni survey is undertaken before significant program revision is done. A new survey of employers and alumni will be undertaken in spring, 2009 to compare results. This has been discussed in CoPRA meetings, department meetings and with multiple advisory boards.