cwu home     site map         
        
    

CTL PROGRAM REPORT
History Program

  
 
1.   Please describe your program's assessment process and what standards you are measuring in relation to the NCATE and State standards of knowledge (content, pedagogy and professional), skills (professional and pedagogical) and dispositions. Is the system course based, end of program based, or other? Be sure to reference how the faculty in your program was involved in developing the assessment process. In addition, describe how the assessment of standards relates to the unit's and program's conceptual framework.
 

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

In addition to using course grades and grade point averages to assess candidate mastery, the programs leading to history and social studies endorsements utilize at least three other forms of quantitative assessment: (1) an electronic portfolio-based assessment system that has been in place and collecting data on all history and social studies candidates since winter 2005; (2) the Performance Based Pedagogy Assessment (PBPA) tool; and, (3) the ETS West E/Praxis II subject area exam in Social Studies #0081.


(1.) ELECTRONIC PORTFOLIO-BASED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM:

In the interdisciplinary majors, History Teaching—Broad Area and Social Science Teaching, students take a wide-range of courses across a number of disciplines that include history, geography, political science, economics, sociology, and anthropology. In each of these content areas, students generally choose from a range of courses. As a consequence, there are very few content area courses that are taken by all students in the social studies education program, making consistent and uniform assessment of their content knowledge difficult. Thus, this assessment program focuses on the capstone course that all students in the major have in common (aside from freshman level survey courses): History 421, Methods and Materials—Social Studies. This course is, by definition and purpose, interdisciplinary. The methods course focuses on each of the content disciplines in the social studies.

The electronic portfolio-based assessment system was developed and adopted by the history and social studies program in late 2004 and is modeled on assessments articulated by the National Council of Social Studies’ Guidebook for Colleges and Universities Preparing Social Studies Teachers, Vol. 3 (2004). These tasks have been identified by the NCSS as appropriate assessment tools that measure content area knowledge and skills and pedagogical knowledge and skills for each of the ten thematic strands of the NCSS standards. The tasks have also been aligned with the six Washington State core competencies for social studies as well as the standards identified in the Center for Teaching and Learning’s Conceptual Framework (in particular, CTL 1.1 and 1.2). Artifacts have placed in the candidates’ electronic portfolios over the course of the past three years.

These electronic assessments will be revised by social studies program faculty, and supplemented as necessary, to more directly address to two new state competencies in “Social Studies Skills” and “Instructional Methodology” that are part of the 2007 revision of the Washington State competencies.


(2.) THE PERFORMANCE BASED PEDAGOGY ASSESSMENT:

The PBPA tool requires pre-service teacher candidates to document evidence of positive impact on candidate learning through development and implementation of a unit plan specific to the history or social studies endorsement. The unit plan addresses the diversity of students in the pre-service candidate’s field placement and includes effective planning, instructional strategies, management of instruction, and assessment strategies.

(3.) ETS WEST E/PRAXIS II ASSESSMENT (SOCIAL STUDIES #0081):

Prior to certification, candidates are required to take and pass the West E Social Science #0081 exam. We also anticipate making any necessary changes that might result from the adoption of a new ETS West E/Praxis II exam by the State of Washington in 2009.


In sum, consistent with CTL standard 2.12, the social studies program at Central continues to monitor and review on a regular basis the appropriateness of the assessments as well as the trends that these assessments reflect. With approximately 3 years of longitudinal data, we are beginning to identify relative strengths and weaknesses in candidate knowledge among the various competencies. [See Section 3 for examples.]

2. Below is an analysis of the frequency with which your program cites CTL, WA State Standards/Competencies, and/or national standards within your LiveText artifacts, rubrics, and reports. Please examine the charts and write your program's interpretations and conclusions based on the information provided. (e.g., Are the standards dispersed appropriately in your program? Are all the standards represented as you wish them to be? After reviewing this analysis are there changes your program would recommend making to the way you cite standards or assess your candidates using LiveText?)
 
 

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

As alluded above, each of the major assessments used in the social studies education program have been closely aligned with CTL, State, and National (NCSS) standards. These correlations have largely remained intact since the creation of the assessment program in 2005. However, the recent (2007) revision in the Washington State core competencies for History and Social Studies, will require modest revision in the program’s assessment system, particularly in the LiveText component. Those revisions will be described below.

OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT ARTIFACTS AND STANDARDS ALIGNMENT

(A.) Diversity and History Education Essay Artifact—Correlates with: CTL 1.1, 1.2, 1.3; WA State SS.5, SS.6; NCSS 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5

(B.) History Unit Objectives Artifact—Correlates with: CTL 1.1, 1.2; WA State SS.1; NCSS 1.2, 1.8

(C.) Civics Lesson Plan Artifact—Correlates with: CTL 1.1, 1.2, 1.3; WA State SS.3; NCSS 1.6, 1.10

(D.) Geography Lesson Plan Artifact—Correlates with: CTL 1.1, 1.2, 1.3; WA State SS.2; NCSS 1.3, 1.9

(E.) Economics Lesson Plan Artifact—Correlates with: CTL 1.1, 1.2, 1.3; WA State SS.4; NCSS 1.7, 1.8

In sum, collectively, the artifacts used in the LiveText assessment program encompass not only all of the State and NCSS standards for history and social studies, but also is consistent with the conceptual framework and standards of the CWU Center for Teaching and Learning.

CHANGES NEEDED IN THE LIVETEXT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM RELATED TO STANDARDS ALIGNMENT

(A.) Correct correlation of standards with artifact rubrics:
While the artifacts collectively address and correlate with all relevant CTL, State and NCSS standards, LiveText does not currently match all relevant standards to the appropriate rubrics. For example, while the Geography Lesson Plan clearly assesses NCSS standard 1.3, the LiveText rubric for this artifact lists a correlation only with NCSS 1.9. Thus, LiveText rubrics need to be updated so that a greater variety of, and specificity in, assessment reports can be generated and so that the correlation between artifacts and standards is more apparent.

(B.) Changes to Address March 2007 Revised Washington State Competencies for History and Social Studies: The social studies education program has examined the March 2007 revised competencies for Secondary Social Studies. The most obvious changes in the revised competencies are the inclusion of two new core competencies, “Social Studies Skills” and “Instructional Methodology,” as well as the elimination of two other core competencies that were included in the previous version, “Culture and Cultural Diversity” and “Individuals, Groups, and Institutions.” Competencies that focus on history, civics, geography, and economics remain largely unchanged in substance. Slight modification is necessary in course content and assessment artifacts to more closely align with the new state standards.

Upon review, it is apparent that the coursework and experiences currently required for completion of the two majors leading to social studies endorsements, the “History Broad Area Teaching” and “Social Science Teaching” majors, also address the new competencies. For example, and in brief, to insure candidate mastery in Core Competency 6.0 (Instructional Methodology), History 421—Methods and Materials in Social Studies—continues to be required and addresses each of the new sub competencies 6.1 through 6.14, including the application of the new state requirements for Course Based Assessments. These skills continue to be reinforced and practiced in the candidates’ field experiences. Likewise, for Core Competency 5.0 (Social Studies Skills), coursework that requires candidates to acquire and demonstrate social studies skills, as articulated in sub-competencies 5.1 through 5.3, remains intact. Any LiveText assessment that currently correlates with CTL standard 1.2 can be used to address the new Washington State Core Competencies 5.0 and 6.0.

3. Below you will find one sample of your Live Text Report that identifies an aggregation of candidate learning outcome data. Please examine all of your reports in the LiveText exhibit area and discuss the accuracy, consistency, and fairness of the data, as well as what improvements could be made in the program assessment rubrics, courses, artifacts, or reporting. Include your interpretations relative how well your candidates are meeting standards. After examining all of your report data, list any changes your program is considering.
 

 

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

CHANGES MADE IN THE LIVETEXT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (SUMMER 2006):
After four quarters of assessing students using the initial Live Text portfolio created in late 2004 and early 2005, the history and social studies program decided that the portfolio should be modified slightly, commencing summer quarter, 2006. Originally, the five artifacts measuring student knowledge were each lesson plans in history, geography, civics, economics, and cultural diversity. While this system aligned very well with CTL, state, and national standards, it was determined that the some of the information was redundant: while data from the first three lesson plans reflected improved student learning, candidates had clearly achieved the desired outcomes by the third, making two additional lesson plans unnecessary.

Instead, what the data did indicate, was that students were having a particularly difficulty in identifying sound lesson and unit plan objectives. Consequently, a new assignment was added, the History Unit Objectives artifact, which provides a clearer picture of the candidate’s ability to write objectives.

Similarly, when it became apparent that students were weak in the area of the philosophy and theory of social studies education, a new essay assignment, the Diversity and History Education Essay, was added to require candidate attention in this area. This new assessment also allowed the program to more closely align with CTL standard 1.3 which had not previously been assessed. Both of these are examples of how we continually assess not only student knowledge but also the effectiveness and utility of our assessment system.

CHANGES NEEDED IN COURSES TO ADDRESS REVISED WASHINGTON STATE COMPETENCIES IN HISTORY:
All coursework and experiences that were previously in place to insure candidate exposure to NCSS and pre-2007 Washington State standards have been left in place. Not only do they inform the competencies required by the state under the new standards, but they also continue to address the ten thematic strands of the national (NCSS) standards as well as the standards established by the Center for Teaching and Learning at Central Washington University.

While no new coursework is necessary to address the revised state competencies, one or more courses will be, or have been, modified to more directly address the new requirements. One example of this is the inclusion and coverage of the new state CBA requirement for social studies in the program’s methodology course, History 421. Although this curricular change pre-dated the revised state competencies, the correlation between that course and the new competencies have been and will be more clearly delineated.

SUMMARY REPORT OF LIVETEXT ASSESSMENT RESULTS:

(1.) In each of the five major assessments included in the LiveText Assessment system, candidate scores in the key categories that measure content knowledge, mean scores are at or above the satisfactory level. See #4, below, for an important caveat.

(2.) Likewise, pedagogical indicators consistently demonstrate that students become better at applying that knowledge with greater practice. By the end of the program, students demonstrate mean performance at or well above satisfactory levels.

(3.) Inter-rater reliability indicators point to consistent scoring for all artifacts and candidates.

(4.) The quantitative scores from lesson plan artifact scores must be interpreted carefully. For example, although students show continued improvement from the first civics lesson plan, to the second geography lesson plan, and then to the third economics lesson plan, student improvement in lesson plan design tends to hide a corresponding decrease in the relative mastery of content area knowledge. For example, the “Economics Content Knowledge and Skills” score of the Economics Lesson Plan rubric stands at 2.27 out of 3.0 (compared to a score of 2.0 for Civics and 1.71 for Geography). On the surface, this would seem to indicate that students are more knowledgeable in economics than in civics or geography. However, part of this apparent mastery of economics is the result of the Economics Lesson plan being submitted third, after the student has already submitted and received feedback on the two previous lesson plans in civics and geography. As a result, the economics score is more a product of an increased student ability to harness what they do know about economics into a pedagogically effective lesson plan than it is a reliable indicator of how much they know about economics.

To be sure, measuring the student’s ability to pedagogically apply content area knowledge is an important function of the assessment program. Likewise, demonstrating continued student improvement is also an intended outcome of an effective assessment system. However, the data that is generated in these lesson plans cannot adequately measure overall student knowledge in the subject field. The breadth of content area knowledge is best measured through the other assessment system components, most notably by the Praxis II/West E scores and by candidate GPA in specific disciplines.

PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES AS THE RESULT OF LIVETEXT ASSESSMENT:

The following programmatic changes have been made or are being contemplated as a result of LiveText assessment:

(1.) LiveText Assessment Program Revision (Summer 2006)—The LiveText assessment system, initially created in December 2004, was significantly revised in the summer of 2006 to better reflect assessment needs and to provide greater consistency. See above.

(2.) Revision of HIST 421: Addition of Unit Objectives Assessment Artifact—What the data did indicate, was that students were having a particularly difficulty in identifying sound lesson and unit plan objectives, a new assignment and assessment was added to HIST 421 in Summer quarter 2006 that provides a clearer picture of the candidate’s ability to write objectives. Preliminary data acquired since Summer 2006 suggests improved student learning in this area.

(3.) Revision of HIST 421: Addition of Diversity and History Education Essay Assessment—When it became apparent that students were weak in the area of the philosophy and theory of social studies education, a new essay assignment, the Diversity and History Education Essay, was added in Summer 2006 to require candidate attention in this area. This new assessment also allowed the program to more closely align with CTL standard 1.3 which had not previously been assessed. As above, preliminary data suggests improved student learning in this area.

(4.) New Experiential Learning/Practicum Opportunity—When overall data from LiveText assessements suggested students could be stronger in the pedagogical application of knowledge, new opportunities were created allowing students the opportunity to mentor students and to observe practicing teachers in local school districts through the Bridges program. Anecdotal evidence suggests improved ability to apply content knowledge in a pedagogically effective manner.

4. Below you will find a chart of the CTL Standards aggregated by course. Please examine the data results and discuss any improvements if any you might consider for your program. Using these data, please reflect upon your candidates' success in meeting standards. Compare these data to the data provided in the WEST B and E charts that follow. Is there consistency in the rates of success? What do these data tell you?
 
 

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

CONSISTENCY OF LIVETEXT DATA WITH WEST B AND WEST E SCORES

As Table 1 indicates, evidence from LiveText assessments suggests that a high percentage of students have demonstrated achievement in meeting Washington State, NCSS, and CTL standards at the proficient or exemplary level. For the standards covered by the Diversity and History Education Essay assessment this percentage is 93%. For the History Unit Objectives Assessment: 89%. For the Civic Lesson Plan Assessment: 86%. For the Geography Lesson Plan: 92%. For the Economics Lesson Plan: 94%.

The numbers above are very consistent with overall passage rates on the both the West B and West E exams taken between 2005 and 2007. [See below.] This suggests a high degree of validity among the various assessments used to measure student achievement in the history and social studies education program.

After the implementation of the new Washington State version of the Social Studies West E in 2009, we will need to reexamine whether this consistency remains intact.

5.

Please find below the West B data for the teacher residency program. Please use these data, the LiveText data, and the West E data found below to predict candidate success in your program. Given theses summaries, are there changes to your program or to the unit your program recommends the CTL consider?

  • Between 2005-2007, 49% of the candidates passed all three sections of the exam their first attempt, 84% passed the reading portion in their first attempt, 82% math their first attempt, and 65% passed writing their first attempt.
  • The mean number of candidates not passing reading portion is 11%, math 12%, and writing 25%.

CTL WEST B Data Summary 2002 to Present

 
 

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

WEST B DATA TRENDS
West B data is quite consistent with both LiveText data and West E Data , as well as with first and third year teacher surveys.

To be more useful, West B data needs to be broken down by content area. For example, the CTL West B Data Summary does not identify students by the endorsement they are seeking. Since students take the West B relatively early in their four-year programs, and often just before or just after they declare their intended endorsement area, having this information would allow us to better anticipate areas of student weakness and to adjust our program accordingly.

Additionally, the particularly glaring difficulty students have with the West B writing portion is consistent with the levels of writing proficiency instructors in the history/socials studies program report in both 100- and 200- level social studies courses, as well as in the preliminary assignments completed in HIST 302, the program’s initial research and writing focused class. West B data suggests the need to consider an additional prerequisite course(s) in English composition, beyond those required to meet university general education requirements.

By graduation, however, evaluation of the Diversity and History Education Essay (the LiveText artifact that most closely correlates with writing skills) indicates that 97% of students are writing at a satisfactory level or above, with 78% being rated as strong or above, and 32% writing at the target level. Undoubtedly, much of this improvement can be attributed to a writing intensive program of study in history and the social sciences.

6. The WEST E is administered by ETS as a state requirement for program Exit, measuring content knowledge by endorsement area. ETS has not sent the final corrected data summary at the time of this report, however, the data we keep on a continuously updated basis is described below in the following graph. The graph compares 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 data by endorsement area. We suspect the 2006-2007 data will change after all scores are received from ETS. According to this set of data, 2005-06 pass rates were 90%. Remember all candidates must pass the test to be certified, so they take it multiple times. We are working on authenticating a different process that will show how many times candidate take the test and when. The 2006-07 data indicates pass rates of 87%. If your program is one of those with a pass rate below 80%; what program recommendations are you considering that will positively affect the rate of passing the WEST-E for 2007-2009?
 
 

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

WEST E DATA TRENDS
In our last year of fully reported results on the West E Social Science #0081 exam, social studies endorsement-seeking candidates achieved a passage rate of 88%. As noted above, this is consistent with other assessments, most notably the LiveText assessment program, the West B exam, and with first and third year teacher surveys

Within this passage rate, however, it appears that student achievement varies by sub-discipline. For example, while CWU candidates met or significantly exceeded national averages in U.S. history, world history, and geography; they underperformed in the areas of civics, economics, and the behavioral sciences. Perhaps not coincidentally, it is in the latter areas that students take the least amount of coursework. History and social studies faculty will continue to monitor longitudinal trends in West E data to determine whether program adjustments in the amount of courswork taken in each of the sub-disciplines is warranted.

Making this longitudinal assessment difficult, however, is the inconsistent reporting by the West E administrator, ETS. Only for some years has ETS provided a breakdown of student scores by discipline within the social studies. In other years, ETS merely reports overall passage rates. While overall passage rates are essential, it is the discipline-specific breakdown of scores that provides the most useful data upon which programmatic changes can be made.

Also compounding the challenge to acquiring useful longitudinal data is the state’s decision to implement its own version of the Social Sciences West E in 2009. Consequently, the history and social studies education program has determined that it would most beneficial to wait to make major program revisions until pre- 2009 exam data trends can be compared to post-2009 version data trends.

Finally, of particular need is the acquisition and distribution of West E data by the CTL that indicates whether students pass on initial or subsequent attempts. Likewise, more specific data is needed indicating whether overall passage rates are reflective of all students enrolled in the history and social studies education program, or whether overall passage rates are distorted by a few individual students who fail the exam repeatedly.

7.

Please find below the EBI teacher and principal data for all program completers. Discuss and report in the space provided what your program recommends the unit should accomplish to improve overall satisfaction, or what your program is doing to improve the trend.

  • This survey is administered through OSPI and is contracted through Educational Benchmarking Inc. These data are collected for all new teachers in public schools by surveying new teachers and their principals.
  • Response rate average over the seven years n=105
  • The graph represents a seven year average satisfaction trend by category
  • Highest satisfaction ratings are in the areas of:
    • Student learning
    • Instructional strategies
    • Management, control and environment
  • Lowest satisfaction ratings are in the areas of:
    • Reading skills
  • 5 year Principal responses followed similar patterns as teachers n=41

 

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

EBI TREND DATA

In order to better prepare candidates for the K-12 environment, to better prepare them to impact student learning, and to give them the opportunity to observe the instruction and managerial strategies of practicing teachers, the history and social studies education program has continued to increase the opportunities for students to acquire more practicum and in-classroom experience to supplement their course based program of study. Three examples of such opportunities include:

(1.) Over the past three years, over 50 history and social studies education majors have participated in a mentoring partnership with Morris Schott Middle School in Mattawa, Washington where Central Washington education students travel to Mattawa and pair with midde school students to construct projects for History Day competitions. Not only does this given Central students an opportunity to mentor and teach middle school students, the Central students are themselves mentored by Mattawa teachers. Administered through the Bridges Program and the coordinator for social studies education, this program allows Central students the opportunity to learn teaching through the experiential process.

(2.) An additional collaboration was realized when four CWU history, social studies, and education majors to lead a group of 50 Morris Schott Middle School students on a 10-day field trip to Washington, D.C. during the summer of 2006..

(3.) Candidate’s have been provided the opportunity to work with practicing K-12 teachers through programs such as the “History is Central” program where students from area schools came to Central Washington for a day of American history and government mini-lessons presented by CWU social studies education majors.

Meaningful, CTL-provided opportunities for field experiences beyond the Pre-Autumn and Student Teaching practicum, are one important means of ensuring that students are better prepared to practice and demonstrate exceptional skill in the categories measured by the EBI trend data.

8.

Please find below first year and third year teacher survey results summarized by graphing mean responses for each question.

  • This survey is administered by CTL and data trend summary represents 2004-07
  • The average response rate for 2004-2007 is 15%
  • First year teacher N= 375, Third year teacher n =200
  • The graph and subsequent ANOVA demonstrates a significantly higher average satisfaction rating from first year teachers when compared to third year teachers (p<.05)
  • Highest satisfaction ratings are in the areas of:
    • Subject matter knowledge
    • Application of EALR's
  • Lowest satisfaction ratings are in the areas of:
    • Classroom management
    • Involving and collaborating with parents
 

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

FIRST AND THIRD YEAR TEACHER SURVEY TREND DATA

Students report high satisfaction with their pre-service acquisition of subject matter knowledge and ability to incorporate state and national standards in their curriculum. This data is consistent with the GPA, LiveText, and West E data analyzed above.

Areas of weakness including classroom management can be addressed in at least two ways:

(1.) As noted above, meaningful, CTL-provided opportunities for field experiences beyond the Pre-Autumn and Student Teaching practicum, are one important means of ensuring that students are better prepared handle classroom management.

(2.) Content-area methods courses can focus on the connection between content method and classroom management. In HIST 421, the course covering methodology and materials for social studies teachers, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the connection between method and classroom management.

9.

Please find below a comparative analysis of candidate dispositions from beginning candidates to finishing candidates. Please comment on the changes you observe in your candidates over time and describe how and why you think this occurs. What does your program specifically do to engage candidates in developing professional teacher dispositions?

  • This inventory is administered by the CTL at admissions (N=645), and again at the end of student teaching (N= 195). Some of the 645 candidates have not yet student taught, which is why the n's are different.
  • There is a significant difference in 12 of 34 items (p<.05) between beginning candidates and candidates completing student teaching
  • Change is in the preferred direction from agree to strongly agree
  • This means somewhere between entry and before exit, the teacher program candidates are developing stronger professional beliefs and attitudes that reflect the underlying values and commitments of the unit's conceptual framework. Future work will include data that tells us where this change is occurring and if there are difference caused by demographic variables. If you want to read more about this disposition instrument, the validation study is published on the OREA web site under research.
 

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

CANDIDATE DISPOSITIONS

The history and social studies program does a couple of things to ensure that candidates develop professional teacher dispositions:

(1.) The concept of “professionalism” is a core component of the HIST 421 capstone course that is usually the last course taken by students before they commence their student teaching experiences. Moreover, course objectives and standards require students to submit all projects and presentations in a manner that is consistent with what they might submit as practicing teachers. Focus in this course is also placed on the importance of the teacher as the professional advocate for the teaching of their discipline. This concept of “professionalism” will also be a core component of a new UNIV 101 course that prospective freshman-level social studies education majors will take as part of their curriculum beginning Fall 2008.

(2.) In upper-division content area courses, student’s are encouraged to select elective projects other than traditional research essays that result in products usable in their future K-12 teaching experiences. Such projects are evaluated according to the degree that they reflect the professional quality and dispositions required of classroom teachers. In other words, students are encouraged to integrate content area knowledge with the types and quality of work required by education professionals.

 

10. 

Final Student Teaching Evaluation Report on LiveText

  • The data report is too large to be placed in this document. Please access the data by going to this link on our assessment system web site http://www.cwu.edu/~ectl/ncate2.0/wastate/fsted-ltr.html
  • The report reveals the final assessment of elements found in state standards IV and V
  • Candidates are generally performing at a high level, although there are some candidates as depicted by the colors green and red who are not performing to standard.
  • Examination of those elements indicates some agreement with results provided in the 1st and 3rd year teacher survey.

Please look at these data carefully and discuss with your program faculty some ways the teacher residency program can begin to address the few but common deficits occurring in candidate knowledge and skills relative to the State standard elements. If you need to refer to state standards please refer to this link in the assessment system website: http://www.cwu.edu/~ectl/ncate2.0/wastate/istandards.html

 

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

FINAL STUDENT TEACHING EVALUATION REPORTS

Aggregate “Final Student Teaching Evaluation Report” data indicate that candidates have achieved the knowledge consistent with, and demonstrated competence in applying, the standards articulated in the Center for Teaching and Learning’s Conceptual Framework.

Report data broken down by content area would provide more useful feedback for specific endorsement programs.

11.

Please examine these data and report any discussions your program has regarding the reported results.

  • This survey is conducted by Career Services and reported to OSPI. The report, however, has been reanalyzed and the summary reflects the new analysis, which covers 2002-2006.
  • Average response rate = 57%
  • Of that 57%, the average percent of graduates who get jobs in state is 94%
  • The average percent of graduate still seeking a position is 27%
  • Two percent of the 57% have decided not to teach
  • For 2005-2006; 35 % of the program graduates responded to questions regarding ethnicity and gender. Out of the 35% who responded, 90% were Caucasian, 5% were Hispanic, 3% were African-American, and 1.8% were Asian.
 

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

CAREER SERVICES DATA

In order to be a useful diagnostic tool, and in order for the faculty in the history and social studies education program to advise students effectively, Career Services data relating to candidate placement in teaching positions needs to be broken down by discipline. Having this information available to students will allow them to select endorsement major and minor areas in part on the basisi of those that are in high demand and most likely to lead to full-time employment.

   

 

 

 

 

 
© Central Washington University   |   All Rights Reserved