Learning Outcomes:

Upon completion of the baccalaureate degree, students in the science adolescent/young adult teacher education program are expected to:

1. Demonstrate competence of subject matter in the content area of specialization;
2. Demonstrate competence in the theories and practices of sound pedagogy
3. Apply theories of human development and learning to plan, implement and assess daily lessons and units of instruction
4. Exhibit professional and ethical behavior when working with students, their parents, other educators and community members.

Annual Report

Learning Outcomes assessed this year

Based on data from last year, we chose to focus on two areas focusing on the assessment tools and the data collected to inform changes specifically to the science education courses. They are outcomes #3 and #4:

3. Apply theories of human development and learning to plan, implement and assess daily lessons and units of instruction
4. Exhibit professional and ethical behavior when working with students, their parents, other educators and community members.

Beginning this year we were able to utilize two new methods and student teaching instruments. Each of these instruments directly correlate to the National Science Teacher Association (NSTA) guidelines for planning, implementing, and assigning lesson plans, as well as professionalism. We have continued to note similar findings in outcomes 1 and 2 from past years and no new changes were implemented directly related to these outcomes. Beginning next year there are program requirement changes that will directly impact outcomes 1 and 2 and we hope with these changes and our new assessments that we will have positive changes to report in the future.

Assessment Methods, Data Collection and Analysis

Outcome three directly relates to BGSU science AYA students ability to apply their knowledge to create, implement and assess daily lesson plans. 
3. Apply theories of human development and learning to plan, implement and assess daily lessons and units of instruction

Currently, there are two main assessments to directly assess student’s ability to plan, implement, and assess daily lesson planning. Both of these assessments are utilized during the preservice teachers methods semester. First, students are required to plan and teach a minimum of five to ten days of instruction based on the preservice teachers cooperating teachers current standards and district curriculum. The unit plans are evaluated before and after a preservice teacher teaches the unit to make recommendations and to note reflective growth and changes based on daily reflection of student progress. The rubric that is used to evaluate the unit plan is based on seven main characteristics: introductory information, content analysis of topic, student learning outcomes, procedures, resources and references, reflective analysis, classroom observation. The total possible score on this rubric is 50 points. In order for a student to meet target they must earn 43 points, acceptable, 30 points. The methods instructor completes this rubric and students who do not meet the acceptable level have the opportunity to redo and resubmit based on instructor and cooperating teacher comments.
    This rubric has been utilized for two concurrent semesters after being pilot tested in 2004. The following chart shows the individual scores on the assessment. A total of 28 students participated in AYA science methods 2005-06. One student who scored 20 on the unit assessment repeated methods a second time successfully resulting in a total of 29 scores reported. The mean score was a 41.8 which is in the acceptable score range from 30-43 out of 50. Our median score is 42, and the mode is 40.

This assessment can also be used to determine areas where students have areas of strength and weakness. This assessment revealed that the greatest area of weakness, or most missed points towards total score was in the areas of student learning outcomes and reflective analysis. These are areas that we will continue to stress as part of the science methods course and work to collaborate further with the methods assessment course the preservice teachers also take.

    The second assessment tool is a classroom teaching observation form that is based on the NSTA standards for good science teaching. This tool has ten main areas for observation: content, nature of science, inquiry, context of science, skills of teaching, science curriculum, social context of science, assessment, environment for learning and professional practice. Again, this rubric rated on the target, acceptable, and not acceptable criteria. However, the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor in the field complete this form. For outcome #3 only four of the categories from this instrument are considered: context of science, skills of teaching, science curriculum, and assessment. The cooperating teacher and university supervisor will rate performance requirements under each competency and determine an overall score of target, acceptable, and not acceptable. Each performance requirement is rated as a 3, 2, or 1 (target, acceptable, not met respectfully). The cooperating teacher ranks the performance and the methods instructor assigns a raw score. This form is part of the students final performance portfolio turned in at the end of the semester. A student is evaluated on the sub categories during methods and all of the categories during student teaching. Below you will find a table detailing the student scores on the classroom observation tool. Students could earn a total score of 16. 21/29 student met target scores on the observation data. An additional, 7/29 was at the acceptable range and only 1 did not meet levels, but successfully completed the second semester.

This assessment is completed a second time during student teaching. At this time only 16 of the students have completed student teaching and cooperating teachers are still returning data. Reports of this data will be available next year. All 16 students passed student teaching and are eligible for graduation and licensure upon completion of content and pedagogy PRAXIS II tests.
                Finally, additional data should be available next year to help us understand how AYA science majors are doing on the PRAXIS II PLT. This data will also help us to determine program changes for science majors specifically. We look forward to being able to study these results from our students specifically.

Outcome Four: Exhibit professional and ethical behavior when working with students, their parents, other educators and community members.

This outcome was also addressed using a different tool this year. As was noted in the past this is an area of strength for many of our students, but it was difficult to determine exactly where problem areas were with individual students from the traditional student teaching assessment. The past assessment was the traditional student teaching assessment that evaluated the students in four categories, the last being professionalism. In this document there are four professional requirements under professionalism were students can be scored. Overall, as in the past, the AYA science students score well in this area, but it was difficult to determine how to improve for those who were not meeting expectations. This year, during methods and student teaching, cooperating teachers were asked to rate preservice teachers on their science professional practice in four areas: participation in professional organizations in the community, ethical behavior with students, reflective practice, and work with peers, supervisors and others. The cooperating teacher and university supervisor will rate performance requirements under each competency and determine an overall score of target, acceptable, and not acceptable. Each performance requirement is rated as a 3, 2, or 1 (target, acceptable, not met respectfully). The cooperating teacher ranks the performance and the methods instructor assigns a raw score. This form is part of the students final performance portfolio turned in at the end of the semester. The data below is the data collected from the methods courses. Again, only one cohort has entered and completed student teaching and the data is still being returned. There was a total of 12 points possible. 17/29 students met the target range of 10-12. 10/29 students met the acceptable range of 8-10; only one student did not make acceptable range, but repeated and was ranked as acceptable the second time. From the individual scores,

From the individual scores, it is clear that many students are losing points in one main area: participation in professional organizations. A stronger connection to these opportunities will be made in future science methods courses.

Inferences from Assessments

Outcome #3- Apply theories of human development and learning to plan, implement and assess daily lessons and units of instruction.

    Data from the methods course and from the field show that our students are meeting acceptable criteria. The data also documents the course of one student who struggled, but through remediation was able to obtain successful completion. There are two main areas of weakness suggested by the methods unit rubric that is of student learning outcomes and reflective practice. Student learning outcomes can be difficult for new preservice teachers because the state standards are not written as learning outcomes in science as they are for many other subject areas. In the Ohio science learning outcomes, the preservice teacher needs to be able to take apart the key ideas, create lesson plans, and then pull these ideas back together for themselves and students. BGSU students are able to plan and implement the separate pieces of the outcomes, but in some cases, they forget to plan to pull the big ideas, or the outcomes back together so the concepts are in context. Course activities should more concretely make this apparent and examples should be provided. In addition, collaboration with the assessment faculty about these differences should be repeated each semester.
                Reflective practice as a novice learner can sometimes be difficult. There are many expectations on the preservice teacher learner during methods. The preservice teacher is expected to make mistakes and reflect on how he/she would change in the future. These reflective moments are difficult to capture on paper. Often when talking individually with students they are more likely to share the changes and the ideas that were part of the reflective practice, but they are not always making this explicit in the text they are submitting. One solution might be instead of having a written reflection, have an oral reflection with the methods instructor after one lesson, much like they would with their cooperating teacher or university supervisor. Continuing to stress the reflective practices as part of methods courses, as well as guiding the reflective paper with more questions might also aid this process.
                Overall, a major problem with these assessments is the length of time and the amount of information that the cooperating teachers are required to record. It has been suggested by the cooperating teachers instead of a rubric with room for written evidence for each requirement, that a more simple form be developed with room for overall comments at the end. Such an assessment is being developed to be added to the student teaching form for next fall and may also help expedite the speed at which information is returned for data analysis.

Outcome #4- Exhibit professional and ethical behavior when working with students, their parents, other educators and community members.

In the past we were able to make general inferences that our students were acting in a professional manner based on overall scores from the student teaching assessment. Now we are able to examine that data as well as look more closely at what makes a professional science teacher according to NSTA. The main area of weakness for our BGSU AYA science majors is the area of professional organizations and community resources. Several opportunities are available to students, BG/UT SECO, which is a student science organization on campus; SECO, the science educators conference in Ohio; the Toledo Zoo; COSI Toledo to name a few. Students are made aware of these resources, and even participate in creating a lesson plan for COSI Toledo in groups as part of the AYA science methods course. However, it may be difficult unless the preservice teacher shares this information with their cooperating teacher for them to know that they have been participating. In the future, it might be best to have the cooperating teacher rate three of the four categories and the methods teacher rate the fourth based on required course professionalism requirements. This may be a more accurate representation of how our students are performing.

Actions Taken/Program Improvements

Outcome #3- Apply theories of human development and learning to plan, implement and assess daily lessons and units of instruction.
                Several actions will be taken during the 2006-07 academic year as a result of the findings of this report. First, closer collaboration with faculty who teach the assessment courses will be maintained. Deeper discussions of state science outcomes and how to plan for these specific types of assessments will become a core part of the science methods course. Also, additional reflective journals will be added to course syllabus for the fall to help preservice teachers practice reflecting on lessons taught to peers before reflecting on lessons taught to students. Finally, being able to utilize effectively data from PRAXIS II PLT when it is available for the AYA science students specifically will be an additional indicator of areas for program improvement during the next academic year.
                Finally, beginning next fall a second form will be attached to the general student teaching form for AYA science majors. This assessment will specifically deal with positive learning environments, scientific principles and ideas, as well as lesson planning and implementation. This assessment will collect quantitative data that will be quicker to assess for the cooperating teacher. This will also help to address specific areas during student teaching that NSTA is requiring for NCATE review.

Outcome #4- Exhibit professional and ethical behavior when working with students, their parents, other educators and community members.
    In the past two professional development activities were required each semester. However, cooperating teachers are still unaware in many cases that their students were involved in these activities. In order to help the cooperating teacher understand the breath of experience that their preservice teacher has an additional step can be added where the preservice teacher has to share a resource or activity that they learned during their professional development with their cooperating teacher and have the teacher sign off on the documentation. This might help show a more accurate picture of how the BGSU AYA science preservice teacher is doing on professionalism in the field.