GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION · questions over the student’s coursework, or an alternative format, consisting of an annotated bibliography and synthesis related to the

GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Department of Special Education Self Study Report

College of Education University of Northern Iowa

Sandra Alper, Interim Department Head

Deborah Gallagher Susan Etscheidt

Submitted to the Committee on Academic Program Review

November, 2006

i

II. Table of Contents II. Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... ii III. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

A. Campus unit responsible for delivery of program .................................................................... 1 B. Department and College administering the unit ....................................................................... 1 C. Brief history of the program. .................................................................................................... 1

Figure 1 - Department of Special Education Organizational Chart ................................................. 3

D. Program goals and objectives .................................................................................................... 3 Appendix A: Previous External Reviewers Reports Appendix B: Previous/Current Program Plan

IV. Curriculum ..................................................................................................................................... 3 A. List of courses currently offered with catalog descriptions ...................................................... 3 B. Schedule of course rotations ..................................................................................................... 4 C. Requirements for completing program ..................................................................................... 4 D. Rate of program completion and the average time to complete ............................................... 4 E. Discussion: Should any part of this program’s curriculum be located in some other program? Should any part of another program’s curriculum be located in this program? ............................................................................................................................ 4 F. Description of any non-degree and/or service curricula in terms of their value to other programs, including College-wide and/or University-wide interests .............................. 5 G. Description of external/distance delivery of courses. Possibilities for future program expansion via distance education ............................................................................... 5 H. Description of opportunities for graduate research................................................................... 6 I. Description of experiential and/or service learning opportunities for students in the program ............................................................................................................. 6 J. Strengths of program curriculum .............................................................................................. 7 K. Unique/distinctive features of program curriculum .................................................................. 7 L. Weaknesses of curriculum ........................................................................................................ 7 M. Recommendations for improvement of program curriculum ................................................... 7 Appendix B: Requirements for Completing the Program Appendix B: MAE Program Plan of Study Appendix B: Course Descriptions/Schedule of Course Rotations Appendix D: Enrollment Statistics Appendix D: Registrar’s Class-Size Reports Appendix D: Graduate Degrees Granted

V. Student Outcomes Assessment ...................................................................................................... 8 A. Routine procedures for measuring student outcomes ............................................................... 8 B. Summary of Important Findings ............................................................................................... 8 C. Recommendations for Improvement in the SOA Process ........................................................ 8 Appendix C: UNI Student Outcomes Assessment Policy VI. Students ........................................................................................................................................... 9

A. Ways in which the program recruits qualified students ............................................................ 9 B. Description of the strengths and weaknesses of students entering the program ....................... 9 C. Description of the diversity of students in the program............................................................ 9 D. Ways in which student achievement is recognized/rewarded ................................................ 10

ii

E. Enrollment statistics for the preceding seven years; number of majors and minors in programs, represented by class year ....................................................................... 10 Table 1 - Graduate Enrollment ...................................................................................................... 11

F. Registrar’s third week class-size reports for the past two semesters and summer session ....................................................................................................................... 11 G. Any planned/projected changes in enrollment. ..................................................................... 11 H. Number of degrees granted in past seven years, by class years Table 2 - Special Education Degrees Granted in the Past Seven Years ......................................... 11

I. Ways in which the program places students including graduate school, employment, other ........................................................................................................................................ 11 J. Ways in which students are counseled/advised ...................................................................... 11

K. Recommendations for improvement of student recruitment, retention, quality, as well as implications for program growth and demand for graduates ............................................. 12 Appendix D: Enrollment Statistics Appendix D: Registrar’s Class-size Reports Appendix D: Graduate Degrees Granted VII. Faculty/Staff ................................................................................................................................. 12

A. List of faculty/staff who participate in the program. ............................................................. 12 B. List of support staff for program ............................................................................................ 12 C. Discussion of the balance in research and/or clinical interests among program faculty and the desirability for maintaining or changing that balance .................................... 12 D. Summary Vitae ....................................................................................................................... 13 E. Recommendations for strengthening faculty/staff .................................................................. 13

Appendix E: Faculty Information VIII. Facilities and Resources .............................................................................................................. 13

A. Physical facilities .................................................................................................................... 13 B. Library resources and support ................................................................................................ 14 C. Computing resources and support .......................................................................................... 14 D. Media and equipment resources and support .......................................................................... 14 E. Research support..................................................................................................................... 14 F. Teaching support .................................................................................................................... 15 G. Strengths and weaknesses of facilities and resources ............................................................. 15 H. Recommendations for strengthening facilities and resources ................................................. 16

Appendix F: Physical Facilities Appendix F: Library Report Appendix F: Computing Websites IX. Budget and Finance ..................................................................................................................... 16

A. Faculty and salaries ................................................................................................................ 16 B. Staff salaries ........................................................................................................................... 16 C. Student wages ......................................................................................................................... 16

D. Fringe benefits ........................................................................................................................ 16 E. Equipment ............................................................................................................................... 16 F. Supplies and services .............................................................................................................. 16 G. Travel ...................................................................................................................................... 16 H. Outside sources of funding that support program objectives ................................................. 17

iii

I. Analysis of overall program budget emphasizing strengths and weaknesses......................... 17 J. Budget recommendations ....................................................................................................... 17

Table 3 - Department of Special Education Budget Comparison Report ...................................... 17 Appendix G: Faculty Salaries Appendix G: Staff Salaries Appendix G: Miscellaneous Budgets X. Program Highlights ..................................................................................................................... 17 XI. Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 18

A. Program history and development .......................................................................................... 18 B. Nature/focus/intent of current program .................................................................................. 18 C. Nature/focus/intent of program for the future ........................................................................ 19

iv

V. Student Outcomes Assessment-Graduate

A. Routine procedures for measuring student outcomes The Department uses five major procedures for measuring outcomes of its master’s students. They are described below: Student outcomes are measured at the course level through written products and class

participation geared to the objectives of each course. The Graduate College monitors the ongoing GPA of each graduate student and notifies the

student and the department if it falls below a 3.0. Each masters student is required to pass a written comprehensive examination supervised by

his/her adviser or a designated graduate faculty member. This examination may be the traditional day-long examination consisting of written responses (without the aid of outside resources) to questions over the student’s coursework, or an alternative format, consisting of an annotated bibliography and synthesis related to the planned topic of the student’s research paper.

Each masters student is required to write a research paper under the supervision of his/her adviser or a designated graduate faculty member. This paper incorporates one of the research methodologies covered in the student’s graduate coursework and addresses a topic related to the student’s field of study.

Detailed reports on student progress are filed yearly with the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, on all masters students funded by federal grants. It is estimated that these students constitute 66% of the masters students in our program. The format used for these reports is contained in Appendix C.

B. Summary of important findings The findings of these procedures for measuring student outcomes will be reported under each of the previous categories.

Student outcomes at the course level are quite strong. It is estimated that 95% of masters students pass their coursework.

According to the Graduate College, only 1.6% of masters students had a GPA that fell below a 3.0.

Department records indicate that 98% of masters students satisfactorily complete their comprehensive exams.

Department records indicate that 95% of masters students satisfactorily complete their research papers. A number of these research papers are further refined, with the help of the student’s adviser, and submitted for publication in refereed journals.

Examples of the two types of reports submitted to the U.S. Department of Education (without student names) are included in Appendix C. Both of these reports indicate a very high degree of program completion or continued enrollment.

C. Recommendations for improvement in the SOA process Although as a department we collect a great deal of data on student outcomes, we do not have a formal SOA plan in place. This is due in part to the degree of flux in which we have found ourselves over the past five years. During that time, we have had three interim department heads as a result of continued reorganization efforts in the College of Education and the overwhelming budget cuts the College has experienced. In addition we have lost 5 faculty members, due to moves for advancement or personal reasons. We have been allowed to fill only one of these positions. We plan to pursue two major activities in the next year related to SOA:

5

Develop and implement a formal SOA plan. Develop an ongoing process for summarizing SOA results by year.

6

University of Northern Iowa School of Health, Physical Education & Leisure Services

Division of Athletic Training Post‐Professional Athletic Training Master’s Program

Master of Science in Athletic Training Student Outcomes Assessment Plan

A. THE PROGRAM

The Post‐Professional Athletic Training Master’s Program (PPATMP) is a 2‐year, 37 ‐38 graduate credit program depending on the student’s choice of completing a thesis or non‐thesis research paper. Currently, only the statistical methods course is taught outside the Division of Athletic Training, which gives the graduate faculty within the division amble opportunity to collect, analyze and synthesize student learning outcomes data. Moreover, this core group of faculty has a variety of expertise and a strong working relationship to implement course and program changes to meet the needs of the graduates. The PPATMP also serves the Athletic Training Entry‐Level Program as well as UNI Athletics, local area high schools, and the community by providing athletic training coverage and supervision of undergraduate students. The common thread between the faculty and program is its mission and vision.

Mission Develop graduates into scholarly clinicians using advanced instruction beyond entry‐level knowledge, offering experiential learning opportunities that increase AT skills and applied knowledge, and expand the AT body of knowledge through quality research experiences by fusing didactic, clinical and scholarly components of graduate education. In turn, the graduates will be prepared for leadership roles in the athletic training profession. Vision Become a distinctive, top‐respected and diverse leader of Master’s in Athletic Training education to produce individuals that will impact the profession.

B. ASSESSMENT PLAN PHILOSOPHY The PPATMP is committed to its mission and vision of teaching and learning to facilitate

student success. The assessment of student outcomes is ultimately the assessment of the program’s, institution’s and community’s ability to provide learning opportunities consistent with its mission. Program assessment data is used to meet the goal of enhancing educational, scholarly, and field experiences for current and future students. This, in turn, will allow us to identify areas where improvements in our program might be necessary or desirable.

C. STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES

OUTCOME I. Increase depth and breadth of understanding of athletic training subject

matter and skills beyond those of the entry‐level certified athletic trainer. Graduates will be able to state and demonstrate knowledge and skills within the scope

of practice as defined by the NATA‐BOC Role Delineation over and above Athletic Training Entry‐Level Program Competencies and Clinical Proficiencies.

OUTCOME II. Enhance critical thinking to aid knowledge of discipline assumptions and develop understanding of viable alternative assumptions.

Graduates will be able to explain the importance of using more Evidence‐Based Practice methods in their practice, as well as be able to summarize and justify which practice methods should provide the best care for their athletes when Evidence‐Based Practice data in unavailable.

OUTCOME III. Develop understanding of the theoretical bases of advanced athletic training knowledge and skills.

Graduates will devise various advanced athletic training practices that can be implemented to achieve therapeutic goals most of which are not Evidence‐Based.

OUTCOME IV. Expand ability to discover and develop new knowledge, and increase desire to

develop as scholars. Graduates will be able to appraise scholarly work based on established systematic

methods of inquiry and answer a research question in an attempt to expand the body of athletic training knowledge through hands‐on quantitative or qualitative science.

OUTCOME V. Advance knowledge and skills in preparation for leadership in athletic training. Graduates will be able to identify common characteristics of good leadership and relate

them into practice.

OUTCOME VI. Instill a responsibility of service to the profession and communities Graduates will be able to recognize the impact athletic trainers have on the discipline

and the community athletic trainers serve.

D. FREQUENCY OF ASSESSMENTS The PPATMP Program Director in collaboration with the graduate faculty in the Athletic

Training Division agrees to review assessment data at least once a year. Assessment data will be collected from the graduating class members and the respective stakeholders every year. In addition, assessments are provided to the alumni every even numbered year. The frequency is important to ensure that timely course and program changes can be assessed by the appropriate university curriculum committees and implemented into the curriculum and university catalogues.

E. ASSESSMENT METHODS

It is important to note that the Division of Athletic Training graduate faculty are athletic trainers that hold the Board of Certification credential, and regularly teach and discuss Athletic Training Entry‐Level Program Educational Competencies and Clinical Proficiencies. Therefore, the working knowledge of each graduate faculty member about what is considered entry‐level

versus graduate level is not of great debate, so the rigor of the graduate course material is left up to the faculty member.

Moreover, the tenure‐track faculty that serve as research project chairpersons are also actively engaged in their own lines of research as well as manuscript reviewers for various athletic training peer‐reviewed publications. Thus, they have in‐depth understanding of research lines and quality of science needed to further the knowledge base of the disciplines they focus on.

There are various tools related to assessing the Student Learning Outcomes stated above, which are identified specifically in the following:

Outcome I. As aforementioned the graduate faculty understands the needed rigor,

depth and breadth of the subject and skills to be taught within graduate athletic training, so the course topics chosen to be in included in the program are of value. The level of value is assessed via the UNI Post‐Professional Athletic Training Master’s Program Exit Evaluation under heading Course Work.

Outcome II. This outcome is assessed directly within the Evidence‐Based Rehabilitation Practice I and Evidence‐Based Rehabilitation Practice II core courses. Successful completion of these two courses is necessary for the MS in AT degree.

Outcome III. Advanced athletic training topic seminar courses such as Alternative Therapeutic Interventions, Advanced Rehabilitation Techniques, and Psychological Applications to Athletic Injury must be successfully completed to earn the MS in AT degree.

Outcome IV. One research methods course and one statistics course are part of the program core. These courses help the students develop scientific skills that are used to answer original research questions. As mentioned the graduate faculty mentor the students to answer questions that will help advance the athletic training profession. Learning outcomes are assessed in the courses, as well as during defense of the scholarly work. Students are encouraged to disseminate the findings through peer‐review avenues. The exit evaluation asks the students to reflect and report on their research experiences.

Outcome V. The core courses, Current Topics in Athletic Training and Administration and Leadership in Athletic Training, gauge the student’s ability to identify leadership characteristics. The exit evaluation asks the students to reflect and report on their field experiences to aid assessment of the site. By engaging in research dissemination activities the student also demonstrates leadership qualities. Lastly, field supervisors and stakeholders are asked to complete an Athletic Training Appraisal. This appraisal asks specific questions about the student’s performance as a professional, team‐builder, independent thinker, communicator, and responsible individual.

Outcome VI. This is quantified by the response rate of the Alumni Survey and the professional service activities at the local, state, district, and national level.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (UNDERGRADUATE) ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT

2011-2012

Name of College: COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

Name of Department/Unit: CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

Program: ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BA)

Department/Unit Mission: The mission of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction faculty is to (a) communicate knowledge, skills, and attitudes underlying effective educative processes, (b) assume leadership specialties, and (c) add to the knowledge base of the academic profession and specialties.

Program Learning Goals: Principle #1: Content Knowledge The candidate understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful for students. Principle #2: Learning and Development The candidate understands how children learn and develop, and can provide learning opportunities that support their intellectual, social and personal development. Principle #3: Diverse Learners The candidate understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners. Principle #4: Instructional Strategies The candidate understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students' development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills. Principle #5: Classroom Management The candidate uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation. Principle #6: Communication The candidate uses knowledge of effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction in the classroom. Principle #7: Planning Instruction The candidate plans instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals. Principle #8: Assessment The candidate understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social and physical development of the learner. Principle #9: Reflection and Professional Development The candidate is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning community) and who actively

Page 2 of 4

seeks out opportunities to grow professionally. Principle #10: School-Community Relations The candidate fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents, and agencies in the larger community to support students' learning and well-being. Principle #11: Use of Technology The candidate integrates the computer and other high and low technology into classroom teaching activities, assessment and/or documentation.

Persons submitting this report (names and e-mails): Lynn E. Nielsen Email: [email protected] Sarah Montgomery Email: [email protected]

Date submitted: September 25, 2012

Assessment Measurements Conducted During the Current Year

Student Learning Outcomes Assessed

Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented,

number assessed, person responsible, etc.)

Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed

reports are kept at the department level.)

Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information

Principles #1-11: (See Program Goals above)

The Articulation Document overviewing the entire major in Elementary Education http://www.uni.edu/icss/articulation/index.html includes the SOA Plan built around five elements:

• Assessment Philosophy • Student Outcomes and Professional

Competencies • Frequency of Assessments • Assessment Methods • Methods of Evaluating and Interpreting

Results

However, at this time formal assessment procedures are in development and the outline for the SOA Plan has not been fully implemented.

Historically, we have used multiple strategies to improve the program. The following program assessment activities have provided information for use

We possess the essential building blocks for an articulated major in elementary education but a number of factors prevent us from moving forward with this plan in a timely way. The most critical need is summarized data related to each of the nine critical performances. We simply do not have this data nor is it available through the office of the Director of Teacher Education.

This information has been shared in the following contexts:

• Department meetings • Division meetings • Communications with

COE Advising Center staff

Elementary Education (Undergraduate) Annual Assessment Report, 2011-2012 (revised)

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.uni.edu/icss/articulation/index.html

http://www.uni.edu/icss/articulation/index.html%23Assessment_Philosophy

http://www.uni.edu/icss/articulation/index.html%23_Student_Outcomes_and_Professional_Competencies:_


http://www.uni.edu/icss/articulation/index.html%23Frequency_of_Assessments:

http://www.uni.edu/icss/articulation/index.html%23Assessment_Methods:

http://www.uni.edu/icss/articulation/index.html%23Methods_of_Evaluating_and_Interpreting


Page 3 of 4

in program improvement:

• Elementary Division Meetings • Department Meetings • Individual faculty consultations • Intradepartmental consultations • Feedback from school district personnel and

employers • Annual reviews of Teacher Work Samples

(TWS) completed during the student teaching semester

• Activities related to the Council on Teacher Education

• Curriculum Mapping • The Seven Year Academic Program Review

Process • The State Program Approval Site Visit • Input from COE Advising Center Staff

Next Steps:


Page 4 of 4

Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year

Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps

Recommended Program Changes Program changes will be dependent upon access to data related to the nine critical performances embedded in the program.

Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes NA

SOA Plan Revisions We have developed an Articulation Document overviewing the entire major in Elementary Education; included are “critical performances” http://www.uni.edu/icss/articulation/index.html

To support the SOA plan, we need data sets corresponding to each of the critical performances found on the Articulation Document overviewing the entire major in Elementary Education. http://www.uni.edu/icss/articulation/index.html

1. Level I Field Experience 2. Praxis I 3. Level II Field Experience 4. Professional Portfolio—(5 standards) 5. Level III Field Experience 6. Praxis II 7. Professional Portfolio—(6 standards) 8. Student Teaching Evaluation 9. Teacher Work Sample

Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) Elementary Education is the largest single major on campus with approximately 1200 majors. Collecting data on a program this large will require significant institutional support. Of the nine critical performances in the SOA Plan, three (#4, #5 and #7) fall within the purview of the department of Curriculum and Instruction. All others appear in different departments within the COE or are functions of the Teacher Education Program across campus. Fully implementing an SOA plan on this scale is very challenging and will require strong institutional support.




ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (MAE) ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT

2011-2012

Name of College: Education

Name of Department/Unit: Curriculum & Instruction

Program: MAE Elementary Education

Department/Unit Mission: The mission of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction faculty is to (a) communicate knowledge, skills, and attitudes underlying effective educative processes, (b) assume leadership specialties, and (c) add to the knowledge base of the academic profession and specialties.

Program Learning Goals: The goals for the MAE in Elementary Education Program are drawn from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. The program goals are premised on the NBPTS CORE PROPOSITIONS.

I. Knowledge of Students Accomplished teachers draw on their knowledge of child development and their relationships with students to understand their students’ abilities, interests, aspirations, and values.

II. Knowledge of Content and Curriculum Accomplished teachers draw on their knowledge of subject matter and curriculum to make sound decisions about what is important for students to learn within and across the subject areas of the middle childhood curriculum.

III. Learning Environment Accomplished teachers establish a caring, inclusive, stimulating, and safe school community where students can take intellectual risks, practice democracy, and work collaboratively and independently.

IV. Respect for Diversity Accomplished teachers help students learn to respect and appreciate individual and group differences.

V. Instructional Resources Accomplished teachers create, assess, select, and adapt a rich and varied collection of materials and draw on other resources such as staff, community members, and students to support learning.

http://www.nbpts.org/the_standards/standards_by_cert?ID=27&x=59&y=9


http://www.uni.edu/icss/maeeled/nbptspropositions.html

http://www.uni.edu/icss/maeeled/nbptspropositions.html

Page 2 of 4

VI. Meaningful Applications of Knowledge Accomplished teachers engage students in learning within and across the disciplines and help students understand how the subjects they study can be used to explore important issues in their lives and the world around them.

VII. Multiple Paths to Knowledge Accomplished teachers provide students with multiple paths needed to learn the central concepts in each school subject, explore important themes and topics that cut across subject areas, and build overall knowledge and understanding.

VIII. Assessment Accomplished teachers understand the strengths and weaknesses of different assessment methods, base their instruction on ongoing assessment, and encourage students to monitor their own learning.

IX. Family Involvement Accomplished teachers initiate positive, interactive relationships with families as they participate in the education of their children.

X. Reflection Accomplished teachers regularly analyze, evaluate, reflect on, and strengthen the effectiveness and quality of their practice.

XI. Contributions to the Profession Accomplished teachers work with colleagues to improve schools and to advance knowledge and practice in their field.

Persons submitting this report (names and e-mails): Lynn E. Nielsen, [email protected] Sarah Montgomery, [email protected]

Date submitted: October 1, 2012

Elementary Education (MAE) Annual Assessment Report, 2011-2012 (revised)



Page 3 of 4



Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where

implemented, number assessed, person responsible, etc.)




(Outcome) The Articulation Document overviewing the entire MAE program in Elementary Education http://www.uni.edu/icss/maeeled/index.html includes the SOA Plan built around five elements:

• Assessment Philosophy • Student Outcomes and Professional

Competencies • Frequency of Assessments • Assessment Methods • Methods of Evaluating and Interpreting

Results

This plan was not developed until the spring of 2010. Prior to that time program faculty used multiple strategies to improve the program. The following program assessment activities provided information for use in program improvement:

• Elementary Division Meetings • Department Meetings • Individual faculty consultations • Intradepartmental consultations • Feedback from school district personnel

and employers • Activities related to the Council on

Teacher Education • The Seven Year Academic Program

Review Process • The State Program Approval Site Visit • Input from Continuing Education staff

By 2011, we had developed a fully articulated MAE program in terms of course sequence and SOA plan.

This information has been shared in the following contexts:

• Department meetings • Division meetings • Intradepartmental meetings • Communications with

Continuing Education Staff.


http://www.uni.edu/icss/maeeled/index.html

http://www.uni.edu/icss/articulation/index.html%23Assessment_Philosophy



http://www.uni.edu/icss/articulation/index.html%23Frequency_of_Assessments:

http://www.uni.edu/icss/articulation/index.html%23Assessment_Methods:



Page 4 of 4

Next Steps:



Recommended Program Changes We developed a fully articulated online description of the MAE in Elementary Education. It can be found by going to http://www.uni.edu/icss/maeeled/index.html This program now includes a full program description including the following elements:

• Program Overview • Program Goals • Critical Performances • Student Learning Outcomes Assessment • Typical Course Sequence • Program Faculty Profiles • Student Outcomes Assessment Plan

In addition, the program now places much more emphasis on action research than it did previously. The research requirement for the program is now articulated throughout the program so student knowledge and classroom applications are a regular part of the program sequence.

The online articulation of the MAE program and SOA plan continues to be developed and will be on into the future. We have fully “closed the loop” on assessment and will use the data for this cohort’s SOA Plan to improve the program for subsequent cohort groups.

Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes NA

SOA Plan Revisions The articulation of the program is now an ongoing process. We have completed the first cycle of activating the SOA plan. We are not only gleaning information about the program itself but also about how the SOA process needs to be improved for subsequent cohort groups.

Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.)


http://www.uni.edu/icss/maeeled/index.html

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT 2011-2012

Name of College: College of Education

Name of Department: Curriculum and Instruction

Program: Instructional Technology

Department/Unit Mission: Department of Curriculum and Instruction Mission: We prepare caring and effective professional educators for diverse settings by linking theory, scholarship and democratic practices. Instructional Technology Division: We prepare technology leaders with the knowledge to have a vision and the skills to make it happen. The Division of Instructional Technology is committed to: ● Model digital-age learning and teaching experiences ● Promote digital citizenship, multiculturalism and ethical behavior in the global culture. ● Challenge students to think beyond the status quo and be change agents for learning ● Prepare reflective and innovative educators committed to professional growth and life-long learning

Person submitting this report (name and e-mail):

Leigh Zeitz [email protected]

Date submitted: October 24, 2012

Page 2 of 12

Program Learning Goals: Our alignment of program learning goals to the AECT/ECIT (2005) Standards and Indicators for Educational Technology. Courses in the Instructional Technology Master’s Degree program are aligned to these standards: LEADERSHIP – Demonstrating the ability to apply best practices articulate the meaning of such practices for the many educational audiences with whom the instructional technology practitioner collaborates. 4.0.1 - Demonstrate leadership attributes with individuals and groups (e.g. interpersonal skills, group dynamics, team building). [INSTTECH 5131, 5138, 5139, 5147, 5170, 5210, 5232, and 5237] 4.1.1 - Develop and apply project management techniques in various learning and training contexts. [INSTTECH 5153, and 5237] 4.2.1 - Develop and apply resource management techniques in various learning and training contexts. [INSTTECH 5153 and 5237] 4.3.1 - Develop and apply delivery system management techniques in various learning and training contexts. [INSTTECH 5153, 5210, and 5237] 4.4.1 - Develop and apply information management techniques in various learning and training contexts. [INSTTECH 5210 and 5237] 5.4.1 - Develop a long-term strategic plan related to any of the domains or sub-domains [INSTTECH 5237] SCHOLARSHIP – Applying scholarly methods of Instructional Technology to research question of importance to improving the practice. 1.1.1.a - Write appropriate objectives for specific content within their area(s) of preparation. [INSTTECH 5150, 5232, and 5240] 1.1.2.b - Create instructional plans (micro-level design) throughout their program preparation and field experience(s). [INSTTECH 5237 and 5240] 1.1.5.b - Demonstrate the use of formative and summative evaluation within practice and contextualized field experiences. [INSTTECH 5237 and 5240] 1.2.a - Apply known principles of attention, perception, and retention to the selection of media for macro- and micro-level design of instruction. [INSTTECH 5138, 5237, and 5240] 1.4.b - Describe and/or document specific learner characteristics which influence the selection of instructional strategies. [INSTTECH 5150 and 5240] 2.0.2 - Select appropriate technological tools based on research and evaluation for developing effective instructional and professional products. [INSTTECH 5138, 5139, 5147, 5150, 5153, 5237, and 5260] UNDERSTANDING THEORY AND RESEARCH – Translating foundational theoretical understandings into practical school library and classroom applications. 1.1.b - Identify a variety of instructional systems design models and apply at least one model. [INSTTECH 5240] 1.1.c - Identify learning theories from which each model is derived and the consequent implications. [INSTTECH 5240] 1.1.1.a - Write appropriate objectives for specific content within their area(s) of preparation. [INSTTECH 5150, 5232, and, 5240] 1.1.1.b - Analyze instructional tasks and content.[INSTTECH 5153, 5237, and 5240] 1.1.1.c - Categorize objectives within their area(s) of preparation (e.g., cognitive, affective, psychomotor). [INSTTECH 5150, 5153, 5232, 5237, and 5240] 1.1.1.d - Compare and contrast curriculum objectives for their area(s) of preparation with federal, state, and/or professional content standards. [INSTTECH 5153 and 5237] 1.3.c - Analyze their selection of instructional strategies and/or models as influenced by the learning situation, nature of the specific content, and type of learner objective. [INSTTECH 5210 and 5240] 1.3.d - Select motivational strategies appropriate for the target learners, task, and learning situation. [INSTTECH 5232 and 5240]

Instructional Technology Annual Assessment Report, 2011-12

Page 3 of 12

1.4.a - Identify a broad range of observed and hypothetical learner characteristics for their particular area(s) of preparation. [INSTTECH 5240] 1.4.b - Describe and/or document specific learner characteristics which influence the selection of instructional strategies. [INSTTECH 5150 and 5240] 1.4.c - Describe and/or document specific learner characteristics which influence the implementation of instructional strategies.[INSTTECH 5240] 2.0.1 - Select appropriate media to produce effective learning environments using technology resources [INSTTECH 5138, 5153, 5232, 5237, and 5240] 2.0.2 - Select appropriate technological tools based on research and evaluation for developing effective instructional and professional products. [INSTTECH 5138, 5139, 5147, 5150, 5153, 5232, and 5260] 2.0.3 Use appropriate analog and digital productivity tools to develop instructional and professional products. [INSTTECH 5138, 5139, 5153, and 5240] 2.0.4 - Apply instructional design principles to select appropriate technological tools for the development of instructional and professional products. [INSTTECH 5153 and 5232] 2.0.5 - Apply appropriate learning and psychological theories to the selection of appropriate technological tools and to the development of instructional and professional products. [INSTTECH 5138, 5150, 5153, 5232, 5240, and 5260] 3.1.1 - Identify key factors in selecting and using technologies appropriate for learning situations specified in the instructional design process. [INSTTECH 5131, 5139, 5147, 5153, 5210, 5232, and 5240] 3.2.1 - Identify strategies for the diffusion and adoption of innovations in learning communities. [INSTTECH 5131, 5153, 5232, and 5237] 3.3.3 – Identify strategies to maintain use after initial adoption. [INSTTECH 5131, 5232, and 5237] 3.4.5 – Identify policies and regulations which apply to the utilization, application, and integration of distance [INSTTECH 5153, 5210, and 5237] APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE – Developing a growing body of understandings that informs the professional decisions of an instructional technology practitioner. 1.1.1.a Write appropriate objectives for specific content within their area(s) of preparation. [INSTTECH 5150, 5232, and 5240] 1.1.2.a - Create a plan for a sub topic of their content area(s) (e.g., a thematic unit, a text chapter, an interdisciplinary unit) to demonstrate application of the principles of macro-level design. [INSTTECH 5138, 5237, and 5240] 1.1.2.b - Create instructional plans (micro-level design) throughout their program preparation and field experience(s). [INSTTECH 5237 and 5240] 1.1.3.a - Produce instructional materials relevant to their content area(s) which require the use of multiple media (e.g., computers, video, projection). [INSTTECH 5138, 5139, 5150, 5153, and 5260] 1.1.3.b - Demonstrate personal skill development with at least one: computer authoring application, video tool, or electronic communication application (not telephone). [INSTTECH 5138, 5139, 5147, 5150, 5153, and 5260] 1.1.4.a - Use instructional plans and materials which they have produced in contextualized instructional settings (e.g., practica, field experiences, training). [INSTTECH 5237] 1.1.5.a - Utilize both traditional and alternative assessment measures to determine the adequacy of learning and instruction. [INSTTECH 5153, 5237, and 5240]


Page 4 of 12

1.1.5.b - Demonstrate the use of formative and summative evaluation within practice and contextualized field experiences. [INSTTECH 5237 and 5240] 1.1.5.c - Demonstrate congruency among goals/objectives, instructional strategies, and assessment measures. [INSTTECH 5232, 5237, and 5240] 1.2.a - Apply known principles of attention, perception, and retention to the selection of media for macro- and micro-level design of instruction. [INSTTECH 5138, 5237, and 5240] 1.2.b - Apply known principles of attention, perception, and retention to the development of instructional messages specific to the learning task. [INSTTECH 5138, 5150, and 5240] 1.2.c - Understand, recognize and apply basic principles of message design in the development of a variety of communications with their learners. [INSTTECH 5138, 5147, 5170, and 5240] 1.3.a - Select instructional strategies appropriate for a variety of learner characteristics and learning situations. [INSTTECH 5232 and 5240] 1.3.b Identify at least one instructional model and demonstrate appropriate contextualized application within practice and field experiences.[INSTTECH 5153 and 5240] 2.0.2 Select appropriate technological tools based on research and evaluation for developing effective instructional and professional products. [INSTTECH 5138, 5139, 5147, 5150, 5153, 5232, and 5260] 2.0.6 Develop and implement evaluation strategies and techniques for assessing effectiveness of instructional and professional products. [INSTTECH 5138, 5139, 5170, and 5237] 2.0.7 Implement evaluation methods and techniques for revising and updating instructional and professional products. [INSTTECH 5150 and 5237] 2.1.1 – Develop instructional and professional products using a variety of technological tools to produce text for communicating information. [INSTTECH 5138, 5170, and 5260] 2.1.2 – Produce print communications (e.g., flyers, posters, brochures, newsletters) combining words and images/graphics using desktop publishing software. [INSTTECH 5237 and 5260] 2.1.3 - Use presentation application software to produce presentations and supplementary materials for instructional and professional products. [INSTTECH 5131, 5138, 5139,5147, 5170, and 5260] 2.1.4 - Produce instructional and professional products using various aspects of integrated application programs. [INSTTECH 5138, 5139, 5147, 5170, 5232, 5237, and 5260] 2.2.1 - Apply principles of visual and media literacy for the development and production of instructional and professional materials and products. [INSTTECH 5138, 5139, 5147, 5150, and 5170] 2.2.2 - Apply development techniques such as storyboarding and or scriptwriting to plan for the development audio/video technologies.[INSTTECH 5138, 5139, 5147, and 5150] 2.2.3 - Use appropriate analog and digital video equipment (e.g., camcorders, video editing) to prepare effective instructional and professional products.[INSTTECH 5138, 5147, and 5150] 2.2.4 - Use appropriate analog and digital audio equipment to produce instructional and professional products. [INSTTECH 5138 and 5150]


Page 5 of 12

2.3.1 - Synthesize content information in order to design and produce audio/video instructional materials which use computer-based technologies.[INSTTECH 5138, 5139, 5147, and 5260] 2.3.2 - Use theory and research to design, produce, and use digital information with computer-based technologies. [INSTTECH 5138, 5139, 5147, 5153, 5170, and 5260] 2.3.3 - Apply principles of learning theories to produce computer-based instructional activities/environments. [INSTTECH 5138, 5139, 5147, 5153, 5170, and 5260] 2.4.2 - Develop and prepare instructional materials and products for various distance education delivery technologies. [INSTTECH 5153] 2.4.3 - Combine electronic and non-electronic media to produce instructional materials, presentations, and products. [INSTTECH 5138 and 5153] 2.4.4 - Use telecommunications tools such as electronic mail and browsing tools for the World Wide Web to develop instructional and professional products. [INSTTECH 5147, 5153, and 5260] 2.4.5 - Develop effective Web pages with appropriate links using various technological tools (e.g.,print technologies, imaging technologies, and video). [INSTTECH 5153, 5170, and 5260] 2.4.7 - Use appropriate software for capturing Web pages, audio wave files, and video files for developing off-line presentations. [INSTTECH 5150, 5170, and 5260] 3.1.2 - Use educational communications and instructional technology resources in a variety of learning contexts. [INSTTECH 5153, 5232, and 5237] 3.3.1 - Use appropriate instructional materials and strategies in various learning contexts. [INSTTECH 5131, 5138, 5170, and 5232] 3.3.2 - Identify and apply techniques for integrating educational communications and instructional technology innovations in various learning contexts.[INSTTECH 5131, 5232, and 5237] 3.4.1 - Identify standards for instructional technology utilization and application. [INSTTECH 5153, 5210, 5232, 5237, and 5240] 3.4.2 - Identify and apply policies which incorporate professional ethics within practice. [INSTTECH 5150, 5153, 5237, and 5260] 3.4.3 Identify and apply copyright and fair use guidelines within practice. [INSTTECH 5138, 5139, 5147, 5150, 5153, 5170, 5237, 5240, and 5260] 3.4.4 - Identify and implement effective policies related to the utilization, application, and integration of instructional technologies.[INSTTECH 5131, 5153, 5237, and 5240] 5.1.1 - Identify and apply problem analysis skills in appropriate educational communications and instructional technology contexts. [INSTTECH 5139, 5147, 5153, 5232, 5237, and 5240] 5.2.1 - Develop and apply criterion-referenced measures in a variety of educational communications and instructional technology contexts.[INSTTECH 5232, 5237, and 5240] 5.3.1 - Develop and apply formative and summative evaluation strategies in a variety of educational communications and instructional technology contexts. [INSTTECH 5138, 5170, 5232, 5237, and 5240]


Page 6 of 12



Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed, person responsible, etc.)

Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed reports are kept at the department level.)


Outcomes Assessment Critical Performance: Five points of Critical Performance have been identified throughout the program:

1. Media Planning and Production - Final Project (early in program)

2. Instructional Development - Final Project (early in program)

3. Coordinating Technology in an Educational Setting - Final Project (Late in program)

4. Master’s Paper (Final project in program)

5. Electronic Portfolio (Final project in program)

The first three critical performance points are assignments in program courses. Each of these assignments are evaluated using rubrics. These rubrics can be used for self and peer assessment throughout the development process and ultimately for summative evaluation by the professor. The Master’s Paper has no rubric. It is assessed by each student’s first reader and ultimately by the second reader. The Electronic Portfolio is evaluated using a newly-revised rubric. This rubric evaluates the quality of the presentation as well as the reflections on each assignment, each standard and the summative reflection on progress throughout the program.

See table at the end of the report for the scores and statistics for each of these critical performances.

The final project for Media Planning and Production involved creating a video for C&I Up-close event and is shared via YouTube. It is also used at the C&I event. The students’ final projects are posted and shared on the class wiki.

Master’s Paper/Thesis Thesis: Paper: * Review of the literature * Original research * Project report * A journal article

The thesis paper is a 6-credit venture, which requires the student to select a committee of three faculty members. The student must submit and present a proposal to the committee for approval. The student can begin the research process for writing the paper when the proposal has passed the committee. Ultimately, the student must submit and defend the final paper for the committee approval. The departmental graduate research requirement for a non-thesis option may be met in one of four paper formats: a literature review, original research, a graduate project, or a journal article.

Thesis 1

Original research 2

Literature review 17

Project 1

All the Master’s papers/theses are kept in the UNI library for sharing.


Page 7 of 12

Each of the options includes a literature review. The final determination of the type of paper to be selected must be decided in consultation with the director(s) of the study. This paper requires two faculty members to serve as first and second readers for the paper. The first reader is a director for the project and works with the student in topic selection, research, and writing the paper. When the student and faculty member have refined the paper and are satisfied with its quality, the paper is submitted to the second reader. The second reader provides a detached perspective to the paper. This faculty member will make editing recommendations, or, if the paper still requires a great deal of editing, the second reader can return the paper to the student and first reader for further work.

Electronic Portfolio evaluating student philosophical position, their course reflections, and overall program reflection

Rubric for evaluating the portfolio reviewed in 2012 Need for revision for providing template to help organization of portfolio - due to staff changes/course requirements

20

Post-Graduation Assessment *alumni survey

We received 10 responses from our alumni. Our alumni consider themselves as Good to Excellent in preparing students to effectively use multimedia materials and other technologies in delivering instruction. Our alumni feel very comfortable using current technologies in an educational environment. They are prepared to develop practical and innovative workshops, and are open to learning and using new technologies. They serve in technology committees or coordinate technology integration. They are also active in professional communities and seek to nurture their professional growth. According to the survey results, our alumni tend to be slightly stronger in Application of Knowledge (Q 1,5,7,11,13,14,15) and Leadership (Q 6, 10) than Understanding Theory and Research (Q 2,4,8). Given the dynamic and fast evolving nature of their profession

A summary of our findings can be found in an attachment at the end of the report.

The online survey can be found at http://tinyurl.com/uni-italumnisurvey


http://tinyurl.com/uni-italumnisurvey

http://tinyurl.com/uni-italumnisurvey

Page 8 of 12

(Director of Technology, Technology Integrationist, Instructional Development Support Specialist, Teachers, Instructor, Library Director) these are admirable skills, necessary to keep up with technology trends. Overall, according to comments provided by our alumni, our program gave them a strong foundation and prepared them for their profession. They suggested that we could improve our program by including more instruction about hardware and more advanced applications such as Flash. "

Next Steps: The Provost’s Office and Dean Watson requested that we streamline and restructure our Instructional Technology Master’s program and Educational Technology minor program in August, 2012. The overall critical performances should not change much because the course that contains those projects will remain in the program. The Master’s paper and electronic portfolio will remain as the culminating activities. We believe that it is appropriate to share our future plans (as of now) and how they have been affected by input of our students and identified deficits in our program. Our division serves 6 programs: Graduate:

● Online Instructional Technology Master’s Cohort (2 years) ● On-campus (and on-line) Instructional Technology Master’s program ● COE’s Ed.D. program - INSTTECH 7340 Designing Instructional Systems (required in the C&I ISA)

Undergraduate: ● On-campus Educational Technology minor program ● On-campus Educational Technology and Design program (to serve Teacher Education candidates as a requirement for teacher licensure.) ● Interactive Digital Arts (Some of our program courses compose a “Digital Bundle” which provides some of the courses listed in this new program from the

Communications Department) This reformation will involve reducing the required number of credits, realigning our Master’s program with the revised 2012 AECT standards, reducing the number of available electives, and making scheduling changes that will expedite program completion.

● Required credits for the Master’s degree will be reduced from 35 to 31 credits. We are achieving this reduction by removing the LITED 6212 Methods and Materials in Literacy Education course from the program and reducing the number of electives from 10 to 9 credits.

● The courses have been mapped with the AECT Standards, 2012 version. These are more concise and instructionally-oriented than the AECT/ECIT standards that we used in 2001.

● Two previously required courses will be removed from our requirements. One will be eliminated and the other’s content will be included in an existing course. ● Six elective courses will be discontinued as part of the curricular changes described below. ● Individual sections (7 sections) for the individual study course, INSTTECH 6160 Instructional Technology Projects, will be consolidated into a single section. ● On-campus Master’s students will only be allowed to begin their programs in the Fall and the online Cohort Master’s students will begin their program in the

summer of evenly-numbered years (i.e., 2014)


Page 9 of 12 Programming changes based upon student input:

● The INSTTECH 6289 Seminar: Writing a Graduate Paper course in the online cohort was too involved to complete in an 6-week summer format. ○ We will move this course to the spring semester.

● Students had learned something about writing a literature review but received no background in completing original research. ○ The last three semesters will build a sequence of learning to support the culminating research endeavor

■INSTTECH 6289 Seminar: Writing a Graduate Paper will be taught simultaneously with the Educational Research course in the 3rd to last semester. The professors will collaborate to align their courses throughout the semester.

■An Action Research course (Online Master’s Cohort only) will be introduced for the second to last semester to provide background in emperical research.

■The INSTTECH 6299 Research course, taught during the final semester, will allow the student to complete work begun in the previous courses. We believe that this will support the meaningfulness and quality of the students’ final work.

● These courses will be removed from our requirements: ○ LITED 6212 Methods and Materials in Literacy Education ○ ELEM 6201 Issues and Trends in Education (some of these contents will be included in the 6232 Technology in Education course.)

These elective courses will be discontinued:

● INSTTECH 4150/5150 Digital Video Television Production ● INSTTECH 4140/5140 Data-Driven Decision Making ● INSTTECH 4147/5147 Digital Imaging ● INSTTECH 6205 Instructional Computing Design ● INSTTECH 6230 Communication Theory in Media ● INSTTECH 6235 Performance Management and Technology ● Individual sections (7 sections) for the individual study course, INSTTECH 6160 Advanced Instructional Technology Projects will be consolidated into a single

section. This course will be added. It will be required for our online cohort students and will be available as an elective for our on-campus students:

● INSTTECH XXXX Improving Learning Through Action Research

Ed Tech Minor The Ed Tech Minor program will no longer have electives. It will have 6 designated courses, however 2 of the courses can be replaced by other courses (in specific subject areas i.e., Assistive Technologies for Special Ed) with student request and instructor permission:

● INSTTECH 1031/1020 Ed Tech and Design or Secondary Ed Tech and Design ● INSTTECH 1030 Creating Technology-Enriched Learning Environments ● INSTTECH 4131 Issues and Trends in Instructional Technology ● INSTTECH 4139 Instructional Media Planning and Production ● INSTTECH 4138 Visual Literacy* ● INSTTECH 4210 Online Learning*

Individual sections (7 sections) for the individual study course, INSTTECH 4160 Instructional Technology Projects will be consolidated into a single section.


Page 10 of 12


Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps Recommended Program Changes No actual program changes were made because it was not the

curriculum revision year. Extensive changes are planned for the upcoming few years. They have been specifically described above.

Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes Alumni Survey was recreated as a Google Doc and posted for alumni to complete as suggested. Although rubrics were used to evaluate projects for successful completion used at the critical performance points, rubrics based upon the C&I goals were not used on these projects nor the culminating Master’s projects. The electronic portfolios rubric was updated in Spring, 2012

The questions for the Alumni Survey will be revised to provide more information for program improvement. The questions will also better align with the C&I goals. It is our intention to integrate the C&I goal rubrics into evaluating the projects at the critical performance points.

SOA Plan Revisions

Use Google documents to create standard reporting forms for SOAs. Will meet with the COE Director of Assessment to refine our program assessment system and the means for collecting/analyzing data.


Page 11 of 12 Additional Comments: Authentic Experiences Students are involved in authentic projects and practica as part of their studies; both as specific courses and within courses. The specific courses dedicated to providing students with authentic experiences outside of the typical classroom include:

● INSTTECH 6245 Applied Instructional Design ● INSTTECH 6297 Practicum.

Courses that include authentic experiences by designing and developing products for actual clients include:

● INSTTECH 5139 Media Planning and Production; ● INSTTECH 5205 Instructional Television Production; ● INSTTECH 5237 Coordinating Technology in an Educational Setting. ● INSTTECH 6240 Instructional Design


Page 12 of 12 Critical Performance Indicators (2011-2012)

Course Poss. Average %

Media Planning and Production - Spring, 2012 (5 grads & 7 undergrads)

270 260 260 270 290 300 270 90

Media Planning and Production - Summer, 2012

105 101 111 112 112 108 114 114 112 112 114 113 114 114 112 113 114 111 115 112 97

Instructional Development - Spring, 2012 (5 Master’s & 8 EdD.)

440 400 400 435 450 420 440 450 440 435 440 440 445 440 450 431 96

Coordinating Technology in an Educational Setting - Spring 2012

126 151 151 151 151 154 154 154 154 155 155 155 155 156 156 156 158 158 158 158 159 159 159 159 160 154 96

Master’s Paper (Number Passed)

21

Electronic Portfolio (Number Passed)

20


DISCUSSION-BASED PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORT

Name of College

College of Education

Name of Department/Unit

School of Health, Physical Education and Leisure Services

Program

Physical Education Teaching

Department/Unit Mission

The mission of the Physical Education Division is to create, interpret, apply, and disseminate scientific knowledge and artistic expression in order to help students become responsible professionals, be life-long learners, and establish successful careers as teachers, scholars, leaders, performers, and promoters of physically active, healthy lifestyles in a multicultural society. We pursue this mission by addressing the biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors that influence movement in the pursuit of long-term health and/or athletic achievement.

Program Learning Goals

The benchmarks for the Physical Education program are based on student outcomes and performance. This requires us to systematically collect data on student performance that is then analyzed, interpreted, and discussed in the context of program improvement. As such, the Physical Education – Teaching program outcomes include: Outcome I. Be knowledgeable about concepts and principles relating to Human Movement. Outcome II. Be able to perform a variety of movement skills. Outcome III. Understand students and the process of learning. Outcome IV. Demonstrate the ability to teach effectively to both groups and individuals. Outcome V. Understand responsibilities and opportunities in order to continue to develop as

teachers and leaders throughout their careers

`

Forrest Dolgener [email protected]

1

Date submitted

October 30,, 2012

Student Performance in the Program As It Currently Exists

Details of the meeting(s) to discuss student performance in the program

Meeting was held on 10-24-12 and was attended by the following faculty in the PE Division: Dr. Forrest Dolgener, Dr. Ripley Marston, Dr. Fabio Fontana, Dr. Travis Ficklin, Dr. Robin Lund, Dr. Oksana Matvienko, Dr. Mick Mack, Dr. Jennifer Waldron, Jane Toerner, Paul Waack, Shelly McCumber. The meeting lasted 1.5 hours.

What students in the program are doing well and how we know

Students in the PE Teaching Program report that they felt prepared for their student teaching experience. Their performance in the Teaching Methods course is competent to highly competent. Everyone performs well because by the time students get to the senior level courses they are committed to teaching and the weak or disinterested students have dropped out. For the 2011-2012 school year, 22 of 23 graduates were employed. Lastly, all the graduates were successful in getting teaching licenses.

What students in the program are doing less well and how do we know

There is always room for improvement in writing skills. Although majors were competent in writing skills for development of lesson plans and evaluations, some were less competent in writing skills needed for areas like reports and discussion questions on exams. Although our goals do include adequate writing skills, we do feel it is not our primary focus to develop extensive writing skills. This should come primarily from the LAC. With the large number of majors we have coupled with low staffing producing large class sizes, it become an overwhelming task to do extensivef writing in our courses.

Areas of student performance for which we would like additional information and/or evidence

Normally we would use data from the Teacher Education Work Sample for further assessment. Unfortunately, a change in Directors delayed the dissemination and transmission of the most recent data from these work samples. Such data will be used in the future.

2

Potential Action Steps

Potential changes/actions to take with respect to courses, curriculum, or other aspects of the program during the remainder of the current academic year or beyond

We are currently making changes to the curriculum for the 2014-2016 cycle. The one course change that we are making is to revamp PEMES 3162 Foundations of Human Movement (probably a new course) to make it more germane to the career goals of teaching majors. The intent is to include aspects of developing resumes and portfolios, career paths, and successful job searches in order to better prepare our graduates to compete in their field. We are also have approval to replace a faculty that resigned this past August who taught in the assessment area who will be able to provide some additional leadership in the assessment process.

Steps to take with respect to development/revision of student learning outcomes for the program

We think our learning outcomes are sufficient at this time.

Steps to take with respect to development of a meaningful and useful plan (or revision of the current plan) for assessing student learning in the program

One aspect of our plan that we have been lax on is data with respect to the fitness level of our majors. New procedures will be initiated to assess and collect this data as part of PEMES 3174 Assessment Processes in Physical Education. As part of the class requirements, the Fitnessgram test battery will be administered to all students and aggregated data will be reported on future SOA reports.

Additional Comments

E.g., current challenges, anticipated future changes/challenges, resources to explore, or other thoughts/ideas to capture for future discussion and use in the program.

We feel our biggest challenge is the large classes we have due to high student numbers and low staffing. If the college and university are truly interested in providing an optimal experience for the students they should address this issue and redirect resources where the students are.

3

SCHOOL LIBRARY STUDIES ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT

2011-2012

Name of College: College of Education Name of Department/Unit: Curriculum & Instruction Program: School Library Studies Department/Unit Mission:

We prepare caring and effective professional educators for diverse settings by linking theory, scholarship and democratic practices.

Program Learning Goals: Note: Goal categories based on departmental goal structure. Specific professional benchmarks based on state licensure requirements.

APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE: Developing a growing body of understandings that informs the professional decisions of teacher librarians. 1.a. collaborate with other teachers to integrate developmentally appropriate literature in multiple formats to support literacy for youth of all ages. (SLS 4132/5132; SLS 4134/5134) 1.b demonstrate knowledge of resources and strategies to foster leisure reading and model personal enjoyment of reading, based on familiarity with selection tools and current trends in literature for youth of all ages (SLS 4132/5132; SLS 4134/5134) 1.c understand how to develop a collection of reading and informational materials in print and digital formats that support the diverse developmental, cultural, social and linguistic needs of all learners and their communities SLS 6250) 1.d. have skills to model and teach reading comprehension strategies to create meaning from text for youth of all ages. (SLS 4132/5132; SLS 4134/5134) 2.d. use skills and knowledge to assess reference sources, services, and tools in order to mediate between information needs and resources to assist learners in determining what they need. (SLS 6250) 2.e. model and facilitate authentic learning with current and emerging digital tools for locating, analyzing, evaluating and ethically using information resources to support research, learning, creating, and communicating in a digital society. (SLS 6230) 2.f. demonstrate knowledge of creative and innovative uses of technologies to engage students and facilitate higher-level thinking . (SLS 6230) UNDERSTANDING THEORY AND PRACTICE: Translating foundational theoretical understandings into practical school library and classroom applications. 3.b. demonstrate knowledge to organize the library collections according to current, standard library

Page 2 of 6

cataloging and classification principles. (SLS 4115/5115) 4.a. apply knowledge of learning styles, stages of human growth and development, and cultural influences of learning at the elementary and secondary levels. (SLS 6290) 4.b. implement the principles of effective teaching and learning that contribute to an active, inquiry-based approach to learning in a digital environment at the elementary and secondary levels. (SLS 6290) 4.c . participate in curriculum development, engage in school improvement processes, and other professional development to other educators. (SLS 6223) 4.d. collaborate to integrate information literacy and emerging technologies into content area curricula. (SLS 6290) 2.a. teach multiple strategies to locate, evaluate, and ethically use information in the context of inquiry-based learning. (SLS 6223) 2.g. develop an articulated information literacy curriculum grounded in research in the information search process (SLS 6223) LEADERSHIP: Demonstrating the ability to apply best practices articulate the meaning of such practices for the many educational audiences with whom the teacher librarian collaborates. 2.b. advocate for flexible and open access to the library. (SLS 4114/5114) 2.c. uphold and promote the legal and ethical codes of the profession including privacy, confidentiality, freedom and equity of access to information. (SLS 6225) 3.a. evaluate and select print, non-print, and digital resources using professional selection tools and evaluation criteria to develop and manage a quality collection designed to meet the diverse curricular, personal, and professional needs of the educational community. (SLS 4114/5114) 3.c. develop policies and procedures to support ethical use of information, intellectual freedom, selection, reconsideration, and the privacy of users of all ages. (SLS 6225) 3.d. develop strategies for working with regular classroom teachers, support services personnel, paraprofessionals, and other individuals involved in the educational program.

School Library Studies Annual Assessment Report, 2011-12

Page 3 of 6

(SLS 6225) 3.e. demonstrate knowledge of best practices related to planning, budgeting (including alternative funding), organizing, and evaluating human, information resources, and facilities to ensure equitable access. (SLS 6225) 3.f. understand strategic planning to ensure that the school library program addresses the needs of their diverse communities. (SLS 6225) 3.g. advocate for school library and information programs, resources, and services among stakeholders. (SLS 6225) 3.h. promote initiatives and partnerships to further the mission and goals of the school library program. (SLS 6225) SCHOLARSHIP: Applying scholarly methods of library and information science to research questions of importance to improving practice 2.h understand the process of collecting, interpreting, and using data to create new knowledge to improve the school library program. (SLS 6295) 2.i. employ the methods of research in library and information science. . (SLS 6299)

Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Jean Donham [email protected]

Date submitted: 10/5/2012


Page 4 of 6



Assessment Procedures (include methods used, when and where implemented, number assesses, person responsible, etc.)

Summary of Findings (tables, graphs, etc., may be attached in appendices or retained at the department/program level)


Graduation portfolio Particular attention was paid this year to the rubric for assessing the graduating portfolio; the rubric for assessment of the introductory and exit portfolio are now aligned so that we can more clearly measure growth.

Ongoing…need further data before drawing conclusions.

Portfolio requirements provided to students in SLS 4114 /5114 and in SLS 6295 for entry and exit requirements. See: http://www.uni.edu/coe/departments/curriculum-instruction/school-library-studies/portfolio

Critical Performances

Seven critical performances have been identified for assessments as evidence of meeting licensure requirements.

A chart summarizing scores on critical performances was generated for the Program Review. See below.

Performances on the critical performances are summarized in the program review; assessment files are maintained in the program office for review by faculty during course planning and syllabus development.

Reference course assessment of information literacy

Two external tools were introduced in the reference course in 2011/12 to pre and post-test students information literacy skills The TRAIL (Tools for Real Time Information Literacy Assessment Online) and SLIM (Student Learning through Inquiry Measure)

Range of scores in pre-testing indicate a wide variance in students’ knowledge entering the program

Need to continue collecting data in subsequent cohorts before identifying specific needs/patterns

Next Steps: Monitor reference assessment described above and consider adding a module on advanced information searching to SLS 6295 to extend learning opportunities.


Page 5 of 6



Recommended Program Changes

Implementation of 33-hour MA program with Fall 2011 cohort. Retroactive opportunity for participation offered to previously enrolled students.

Monitor attention to information and instructional technology in courses; consider revision of course content in SLS 5115 (to include library automation) and SLS 6230 ( to focus on information and instructional technologies for library programs).

Reconciliation of content for SLS 5114 and SLS 6250

Moved Lowe text previously required in SLS 6250 to SLS 5114 Purpose of change is to support focus on print collection in SLS 5114 and digital resources in SLS 6250.

SOA Plan Revisions Revision of SOA plan to describe assessment process more fully. Submit to UNI Assessment Office for posting updated plan.


Page 6 of 6


School Psychology Program (2011-12 academic year) 1

College of Education Department of Educational Psychology & Foundations School Psychology Program Report for 2011-12 academic year I. Program Mission and Philosophy The mission of the University of Northern Iowa School Psychology Program is to prepare reflective practitioners who have the knowledge and skills to enhance the educational and psychological wellbeing of children and adolescents. The program focuses on data-based decision-making and strives to use data to drive both training and practice. The UNI School Psychology Program faculty believes that effectively linking multi-method assessment to evidence-based interventions is crucial to successful practice. To this end, we prepare practitioners who make professional judgments that take into consideration ethical principles; social, political, and policy contexts; and best practices derived from research and theory. Valid and reliable professional judgments are made by school psychologists who are committed to a process of continuous professional growth, necessitating ongoing, critical examination of both practice and the current literature in the field. The program strives to train practitioners who will become leaders in the practice of school psychology and advocates for all children and families. Interrelated didactic, seminar, and practicum training experiences are designed to facilitate students’ development of knowledge and critical thinking skills. Personal and professional development is further promoted through participation in a learning community of professors, other graduate students, and practitioners. II. Program Goals and Objectives Goal 1: To train specialist-level school psychologists who practice data-based decision making. Objectives:

A. Students will demonstrate an understanding of foundational principles of research and data analysis. B. Students will demonstrate the ability to make decisions regarding assessment and intervention based on valid and reliable data collected from multiple sources. C. Students will be familiar with empirically-supported assessment techniques and interventions and be able to use technology to access these in the literature. D. Students will be able to apply research principles to the evaluation of programs and/or larger scale interventions.

Goal 2: To train specialist-level school psychologists who have a foundation of knowledge in both education and psychology. Objectives:

A. Students have a strong foundation of knowledge in psychology (including, but not limited to, human development, biological bases of behavior, and social psychology) and are able to apply these principles to their work this students, families and school personnel. B. Students have a strong foundation of knowledge in education (including learning, cognition, and effective instruction) and are able to apply these principles to their work with students, families, and school personnel.

Goal 3: To train specialist-level school psychologist who are ethical decision-makers. Objectives:

A. Students will demonstrate an understanding of NASP’s Principles for Professional Ethics. B. Students will be able to apply a problem-solving model in making ethical decisions. C. Students will be familiar with the benefits and challenges of practicing school psychology in rural areas.


D. Students will develop the necessary skills to work in a rural environment (e.g. students will have the skills to access resources using technology).

Goal 4: To train school psychologists who have expert skills as indicated by the school psychology literature. Objectives:

A. Students will demonstrate the knowledge and skills associated with effective psychoeducational assessment. B. Students will demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to develop, implement, and evaluate empirically supported interventions. C. Students will demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to work with school personnel to identify and solve individual, group, and systems level problems D. Students will demonstrate the skills and knowledge necessary to work with families to increase a student’s success.

Goal 5: To train specialist-level school psychologists who understand, consider, and respect differences in gender, culture, ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation and who will promote a safe and respectful school environment for all individuals. Objectives:

A. Students will demonstrate an understanding of individual differences and apply this knowledge to decisions regarding assessment and intervention. B. Students will develop an understanding of the social, cultural, socioeconomic, and experiential factors that affect the development and behavior of an individual. C. Students will have the knowledge and skills necessary to access information about individual differences through the use of technology and consultation with colleagues.

Goal 6: To train specialist-level school psychologists who engage in reflective practice. Objectives:

A. Students will understand the importance of ongoing professional development to maintain the knowledge and skills to effectively practice in a changing field. B. Students will demonstrate an understanding of the field of school psychology in terms of historical development, trends in roles and practice, and current issues. C. Students will develop an understanding of the state and national issues that affect the education of children and the practice of school psychology.

Kerri Clopton, Ph.D., Program Coordinator [email protected] October 26, 2012




Assessment Procedures Summary of Findings Methods Used for Sharing

Information Goal 1: To train specialist-level school psychologists who practice data-based decision making. Objectives:


MAE Students Fall 2011: MEASRES 6205 Educational Research (8 students) MEASRES 6282 Individual Intellectual Assessment (8 students) Spring 2012: MEASRES 6283 Academic Assessment and Intervention (8 students) Summer 2012: MEASRES 6281 Measurement and Statistics (8 students) Ed.S. (1st year) Fall 2011: MEASRES 6284 Advanced Psychodiagnostics (10 students) Practicum III (evaluation completed by supervisor; 10 students) Spring 2012: EDPSYCH 6289 Interventions in Natural Environments (10 students)

MAE Students: The lowest average grade point was in MEASRES 6283 (mean= 3.56 median=4.0). The average grade point in Educational Research was 3.94 and all students earned an A in Measurement and Statistics. The average grade point in MEASRES 6282 was 3.84. Ed.S. Students: Average course grades in MEASRES 6284 and EDPSYCH 6289 were 3.95 and 3.98, respectively. Practicum III: The target for domain scores at this level of practicum is between “Developing” (rating =2.0) and “Competent” (rating=3.0). The mean cohort domain scores for the Practicum III evaluations were all above the “Competent” level and very close to a “High Competent” rating. All students were rated at or above “Competent” in all areas. Practicum IV: The target for domain scores at this level of practicum is between “Developing” (rating =2.0) and “Competent” (rating=3.0). The mean domain scores for the Practicum IV evaluation were all above the “Competent” level. All nine students were rated at or above “Competent” on Effective Instruction and Development of Cognitive/ Academic Skills; Student Diversity in Development and Learning; and Research and Program Evaluation domains. All students received a rating of Developing or above in the Data-Based Decision-

Assessment data was shared with the School Psychology Committee through email. Results were discussed at the October 10, 2012 committee meeting.


Practicum IV (evaluation completed by field supervisor; 9 returned to university supervisor) Ed.S. (2nd year; internship) Internship Evaluation completed by field supervisor (6 out of 8 evaluations returned during the fall semester; 8 out of 8 available for spring semester) Comprehensive Case Exam (evaluation completed by a minimum of two raters; evaluations available for 8 students) Praxis II (7 students)

Making and Socialization and Development of Life Skills domains. Practicum ratings suggest students were able to apply the knowledge and skills learned in their courses at an appropriate level. Ed.S (internship year) Fall Internship Evaluation: The target for performance for the spring internship evaluation is a domain rating of Competent (3.0). All students received average domain ratings at or above the Competent level across all five domains. The mean cohort domain scores were between 3.56 and 4.08. Spring Internship Evaluation: The target for performance for the spring internship evaluation is a domain rating of Competent (3.0). All students received average domain ratings at or above the Competent level across all five domains. The average domain ratings for all five domains were between High Competent (4.0) and Exceptional (5.0). The target for performance for the comprehensive case presentation is a domain rating of Competent (3.0). All students received a domain rating of Developing or Above in all five domains. Mean ratings for each domain were between Competent and High Competent. All students scored in the Average or the Above Average range on the Praxis II Data-Based Decision Making subtest.



Assessment Procedures Summary of Findings Methods Used for Sharing Information


A. Students have a strong foundation of knowledge in psychology (including, but not limited to, human development, biological bases of behavior, and social psychology) and are able to apply these principles to their work this students, families and school personnel. B. Students have a strong foundation of knowledge in education (including learning, cognition, and effective instruction) and are able to apply these principles to their work with students, families, and school personnel.

MAE Students Fall 2011: MEASRES 6205 Educational Research (8 students) Spring 2012: EDPSYCH 6214 Foundations of Instructional Psychology (8 students) Summer 2012: EDPSYCH 6232 Risk and Resilience (8 students) MEASRES 6281 Measurement and Statistics (8 students) Ed.S. Students (1st year) Fall 2011: Practicum III (evaluation completed by supervisor; 10 students) Spring 2012: Practicum IV (evaluation completed by field supervisor; 9 returned to university supervisor) Ed.S. (2nd year; internship) Internship Evaluation (Internship Evaluation completed by field supervisor (6 out of 8 evaluations returned during the fall semester; 8 out of 8 available for spring

MAE Students All MAE students earned an A in MEASRES 6281 EDPSYCH 6214 and SPED 5180. The cohort’s average grade point was 3.94 in both MEASRES 6205 and EDPSYCH 6232. Ed.S. Students Practicum III: All students were rated as “Competent” or above in all domains. The mean cohort domain scores ranged from 3.88 to 3.95. Practicum IV: All nine students were rated at or above “Competent” in the Consultation and Collaboration; Effective Instruction and Development of Cognitive/Academic Skills; and Prevention, Crisis Intervention, and Mental Health domains. Students were rated as Developing (2.67) and above on the Socialization and Development of Life Skills domain. Ed.S. (Internship) Fall Internship Evaluations: All students were rated as Competent or above in all four domains. The cohort’s average domain scores ranged from 3.56 to 4.12 (midway between Competent and High Competent) for all four domains. Spring Internship Evaluations: All students were rated as Competent or above in all four domains. The cohort’s average domain scores ranged from 4.12 to 4.36 (between High Competent and Exceptional) for all four domains. Comprehensive Case Exam: All students received a



semester) Praxis II (7 students)

domain rating of Competent or above in the Prevention, Crisis Intervention, and Mental Health domain. All students were rated as Developing or above in the Consultation and Collaboration and Effective Instruction and Development of Cognitive/Academic Skills; and Socialization and Development of Life Skills domains. The average cohort rating for the four domains ranged from 3.05 to 3.47 (between Competent and High Competent). Praxis II: Approximately 71% of students scored in the Average range in the Ethical, Legal, and Professional Foundations category of the Praxis II. Approximately 86% of the students scored in the Average range or above in the Applied Psychological Foundations category.




Goal 3: To train specialist-level school psychologist who are ethical decision-makers. Objectives:

A. Students will demonstrate an understanding of NASP’s Principles for Professional Ethics. B. Students will be able to apply a problem-solving model in making ethical decisions. C. Students will be familiar with the benefits and challenges of practicing school psychology in rural areas. D. Students will develop the necessary skills to work in a rural environment (e.g. students will have the skills to access resources using technology).

Ed.S. Students (1st year) Fall 2011: MEASRES 6284 Advanced Psychodiagnostics (10 students) Practicum III (evaluation completed by supervisor; 10 students) Spring 2012: EDPSYCH 6289 Interventions in Natural Environments (10 students) Practicum IV (evaluation completed by field supervisor; 9 returned to university supervisor) Ed.S. (2nd year; spring semester of internship) Internship Evaluation (completed by field supervisor; 6 out of 8 evaluations returned during the fall semester; 8 out of 8 available for spring semester) Comprehensive Case Exam (evaluation completed by a minimum of two raters; evaluations available for 8 students)

Ed.S. Students The cohort’s average grade point for MEASRES 6294 was 3.95 and the average grade point for EDPSYCH 6289 was 3.98 (out of 4.0). Practicum III Evaluation: All students were rated as Developing or above in the School Psychology Practice and Development domain. The average and median rating for this cohort was between High Competent and Exceptional. Practicum IV Evaluation: All students were rated as Developing or above in the School Psychology Practice and Development domain. The average and median rating for this cohort was between High Competent and Exceptional. Fall Internship Evaluation: All students were rated in the High Competent range or above in this domain. The mean rating was 4.39 (4= High Competent and 5= Exceptional). Spring Internship Evaluation: All students were rated in the Competent range or above in this domain. The mean rating was 4.58 (4= High Competent and 5= Exceptional). Comprehensive Case Exam: All students were rated Competent or above in this domain. The average rating was 3.70 (3= Competent and 4= High Competent). Praxis II: Approximately 71% of students scored in the Average range in the Ethical, Legal, and Professional Foundations category of the Praxis II.






A. Students will demonstrate the knowledge and skills associated with effective psychoeducational assessment. B. Students will demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to develop, implement, and evaluate empirically supported interventions. C. Students will demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to work with school personnel to identify and solve individual, group, and systems level problems D. Students will demonstrate the skills and knowledge necessary to work with families to increase a student’s success.

MAE Students Fall 2011: EDPSYCH 6280 Psychological Consultation in the Schools (8 students) MEASRES 6282 Individual Intellectual Assessment (8 students) Spring 2012: MEASRES 6283 Academic Assessment and Intervention (8 students) Ed.S. Students Fall 2011: MEASRES 6284 Advanced Psychodiagnostics (10 students) Practicum III (evaluation completed by supervisor; 10 students) Spring 2012: EDPSYCH 6289 Interventions in Natural Environments (10 students) Practicum IV (evaluation completed by field supervisor; 7 returned to university supervisor) Ed.S. (2nd year; internship)

MAE Students The average grade point in EDPSYCH 6280 was 3.91 (median= 4.0) and the average grade point in MEASRES 6283 was 3.56 (median=4.0). The average grade point in MEASRES 6282 was 3.84 (median=3.88). Ed.S. Students The average grade point in MEASRES 6284 was 3.95 (median=4.0) and the average grade point in EDPSYCH 6289 was 3.98 (median=4.0). Practicum III Evaluation: All students were rated as Competent or above in all three domains. The mean cohort domain scores were between Competent and High Competent for Data-Based Decision-Making and Accountability and Home/School/Community Collaboration. The average cohort score in the Consultation and Collaboration domain was between the High Competent range (4.15) Practicum IV Evaluation: All students were rated as Competent or above in the Consultation and Collaboration; Effective Instruction and Development of Cognitive/Academic Skills; and Home/School/Community Collaboration domains. All students were rated midway between Developing and Competent or above in the Socialization and Development of Life Skills domain. The average rating for this domain was between Competent and High Competent (3.74). All students were rated near the Competent range (2.87) or above in the Data-Based Decision-Making and Accountability domain. The average rating in this



Internship Evaluation completed by field supervisor (6 out of 8 evaluations returned during the fall semester; 8 out of 8 available for spring semester) Comprehensive Case Exam (evaluation completed by a minimum of two raters; evaluations available for 8 students) Praxis: 7 students

domain was between Competent and High Competent. Ed.S. Internship Fall Internship Evaluation: All interns were rated as Competent or Above in all five domains. The cohorts average domain scores ranged from 3.56 to 4.12. Spring Internship Evaluation: All interns were rated as Competent or above in all five domains. The cohort’s average domain scores ranged from 4.12 to 4.43 (between High Competent and Exceptional) for all five domains. Comprehensive Case Exams: All students received a domain rating of Developing or above in all five domains. Praxis: All students scored in the Average or Above Average range on Data-Based Decision Making and Accountability and Research Based Academic Practices categories of the Praxis. Approximately 86% of the students score in the Average or Above Average on the Applied Psychological Foundations category. Approximately 71% of the students scored in the Average or Above Average range on the Research-Based Behavioral and Mental Health Practices, Consultation and Collaboration, and Ethical/Legal and Professional Foundations categories.






MAE Students Fall 2011: EDPSYCH 6280 Psychological Consultation in the Schools (8 students) MEASRES 6282 Individual Intellectual Assessment (8 students) Spring 2012: MEASRES 6283 Academic Assessment and Intervention (8 students) SPED 5180 Interdisciplinary Study of Disability (8 students) Summer 2012: EDPSYCH 6232 Risk and Resilience (8 students) Ed.S. Students Fall 2011: MEASRES 6284 Advanced Psychodiagnostics (10 students) Practicum III (evaluation completed by supervisor; 10 students) Spring 2012: EDPSYCH 6289 Interventions in Natural Environments (10

MAE Students The average grade point in EDPSYCH 6232 was 3.94 (out of 4.0) and the average grade point in EDPSYCH 6280 was 3.91. The average grade point in MEASRES 6282 was 3.84 and the average grade point in MEASRES 6283 was 3.56 (median=4.0). All students earned an A in SPED 5180. Ed.S. Students The average grade point in MEASRES 6284 was 3.95 (median=4.0) and the average grade point in EDPSYCH 6289 was 3.98 (median=4.0). Practicum III: All students were rated as Competent or above in the Student Diversity in Development and Learning domain. The mean cohort score was 3.88 (median=4.00). Practicum IV: All students were rate as Competent or above in the Student Diversity in Development and Learning domain. The mean cohort score was 4.08 (median=4.33). Ed.S. (Internship) Fall Internship Evaluation: All students were rated as Competent or above in the two domains. The average cohort domain average for Socialization and Development of Life Skills was 3.71 (median= 3.75) and the average for Student Diversity in Development and Learning was 3.96 (mean= 3.90). Spring Internship Evaluation: All students were rated Competent or above in the Socialization and Development of Life Skills domain (mean=4.21,



students) Practicum IV (evaluation completed by field supervisor; 9 returned to university supervisor) Ed.S. (2nd year; internship) Internship Evaluation completed by field supervisor (6 out of 8 evaluations returned during the fall semester; 8 out of 8 available for spring semester) Comprehensive Case Exam (evaluation completed by a minimum of two raters; evaluations available for 8 students)

median=4.17). All students were rated as Competent or above in the Student Diversity in Development and Learning domain (mean=4.43, median= 4.73). Comprehensive Case Exam: All students were rated as Developing or above in both domains.






MAE Students Fall 2011: EDPSYCH 6240 Introduction to School Psychology (8 students) EDPSYCH 6290 Practicum I (8 students) Ed.S. Students Fall 2011: Practicum III (evaluation completed by supervisor; 10 students) Spring 2012: Practicum IV (evaluation completed by field supervisor; 9 returned to university supervisor) Ed.S. (2nd year; internship) Internship Evaluation completed by field supervisor (6 out of 8 evaluations returned during the fall semester; 8 out of 8 available for spring semester) Comprehensive Case Exam (evaluation completed by a minimum of two raters; 8 students)

MAE Students All students earned an A in EDPSYCH 6290. The average cohort grade point in EDPSYCH 6240 was 3.91 (median=4.0). Practicum I Evaluation: All students rated themselves between High Competent and Exceptional on the items related to school psychology practice and development. Ed.S. Students Practicum III Evaluation: All students were rated as Competent or above in the School Psychology Practice and Development domain. The average cohort rating was between High Competent and Exceptional (4.33). Practicum IV Evaluation: All students were rated as Developing or above in the School Psychology Practice and Development domain. The average and median ratings for this cohort were between High Competent and Exceptional. Ed.S. (Internship) Fall Internship Evaluation: All students were rated in the High Competent or above range on the School Psychology Practice and Development domain (mean=4.34, median=4.25). Spring Internship Evaluation: All students were rated in the Competent range or above in this domain. The mean rating was 4.58 (4= High Competent and 5= Exceptional).



Comprehensive Case Exam: All students were rated Competent or above in this domain. The average rating was 3.70.


Next Steps A review of several years of assessment data suggests that the domain ratings for student gradually increase over the 2 semesters of Ed.S. practicum and 2 semesters of Internship. Although the scores trend in the positive direction they typically only range from Competent to Exceptional. Three members of the School Psychology Committee are revising the current assessment system in an effort to develop more sensitive practicum and internship evaluations. The items will align with the new NASP Training Standards but will have a greater range of responses. The subgroup is also revising the Comprehensive Case rubric so it will align more closely with the expectations of the exam. It is expected that the assessments will be revised and presented to the full committee at the beginning of the Spring 2013 semester.

Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in Previous Year

Timeline: Fall 2011:

1. Continued review of NASP review data a. Exploration of areas of need (indicated above) b. Examination of course objectives as aligned with NASP Standards for the Graduate

Preparation of School Psychologists (2010) c. Examination of course sequence

1 a, b, and c were completed during the 2011-12 academic year. The School Psychology Committee is proposing several curriculum changes as a result of the review.

2. Committee decision made regarding thesis requirement a. Review of research competencies in current curriculum b. Prioritization of knowledge and skill development in curriculum

2 a and b were completed during the Fall 2011 semester. The School Psychology Committee is proposing a non-thesis option for the Ed.S. degree. Spring 2012:

1. Review of assessment procedures a. Alignment with new training standards b. Development of additional methods to measure “impact on student learning environment

and/or learning” 2. Development of curriculum proposals if changes in program needed

The School Psychology Committee decided reviewing curriculum would take considerable time during the 2011-12 academic year and delayed the review of assessment methods until the 2012-13 academic year. A subcommittee met in September 2012 to review assessment methods and is in the process of modifying the program’s assessment tools.

1

Student Outcome Assessment Undergraduate Report Division of Leisure, Youth, and Human Services

School of Health, Physical Education, and Leisure Services College of Education

The Division of Leisure, Youth and Human Services (LYHS) prepares students to deliver programs and manage facilities designed to meet human, community, and social needs in public, governmental, and nonprofit community agencies. Graduates may find employment in agencies that serve people of all ages from diverse backgrounds in areas such as municipal parks and recreation, commercial recreation, tourism, outdoor education and recreation, therapeutic recreation (clinical and community-based settings), the nonprofit and youth serving agencies, armed forces recreation, campus recreation, and other leisure and human service delivery sectors. The program focuses on direct service programming with an emphasis on supervisory and management skills. The Leisure, Youth and Human Services program is accredited by Council on Accreditation of Recreation, Park Resources and Leisure Services and is recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. The Council on Accreditation of Recreation, Park Resources and Leisure Services has developed a new student outcome assessment framework that will apply to the Division of Leisure, Youth, and Human Services during the next accreditation review in 2017.

As outlined in the current Student Outcome Assessment plan, the Division of LYHS undergraduate assessment procedures are below

1. Pre-post course evaluation of student learning 2. Quantitative student self-assessments 3. Qualitative student self-assessment

The results of these three assessment procedures are explained below:

Pre-Post Course Evaluation of Student Learning The pre-post course evaluation of student learning assessment procedure occurred in two specific classes: Leadership in LYHS (LYHS 2020) and Research and Evaluation in LYHS (LYHS 4070). LYHS 2020 is a beginning undergraduate class and the latter course is a senior level undergraduate class. Further, these two classes are core requirements related to the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) accreditation standards.

2

Leadership in LYHS (LYHS 2020)

Presented below is salient information based on the LYHS: 2020: Leadership in LYHS Student Learning Assessment Report prepared by Dr. Heather Olsen. The full report is available upon request.

Course Description– Leadership in LYHS provides students with the principals, theories, and techniques for effective leadership of programs, activities, employees, and volunteers.

Performance Measures and Performance Level Metrics

• Pre-post student assessment on learning gains (t-test illustrates a significant increase in specific learning gains)

• Exam test scores (80% of students receive a 70% or better on exam scores) • Evaluation report (80% of students receive a C grade or better)

Assessment Results

• Pre-post student assessment (measuring conceptual understanding, leadership skills, leadership attitudes, integration of learning, and professional practice) on learning gains (t-test illustrates a significant increase in specific learning gains)

o Student conceptual understanding of leadership (evaluating eight objectives) illustrated a significant increase in 100% of the objectives.

o Student leadership skills (evaluating six objectives) illustrated a significant increase in 83% of the objectives.

o Student attitudes towards leadership (evaluating seven objectives) illustrated a significant increase in 100% of the objectives.

o Student integration of learning (evaluating four objectives) illustrated a significant increase in 88% of the objectives.

• Exam test scores, Section 1, (93 % of students earned a passing grade of a C or better), Section 2 (93% of students earned a passing grade of a C or better)

• Final examination (traditional exam), Section 1, (100% of students earned a passing grade of a C or better)

• Final examination (reflective journal), Section 2, (96% of students earned a passing grade of a C or better)

• Final grade, Section 1, (93% of students earned a passing grade of a C or better), Section 2 (93% of students earned a passing grade of a C or better)

3

Research and Evaluation in LYHS (LYHS 4070) Presented below are salient information based on the LYHS: 4070: Research and Evaluation in LYHS Student Learning Assessment Report prepared by Dr. Kathy Scholl. The full report is available upon request. Course Description – Research and Evaluation in LYHS provides an overview of the processes of research and evaluation as encountered in leisure, youth, and human services.

Performance Measures and Performance Level Metrics

• Pre-post student assessment on learning gains (t-test illustrates a significant increase in specific learning gains)

• Exam test scores (80% of students receive a 70% or better on exam scores) • Evaluation report (80% of students receive a C grade or better)

Assessment Result Summary on Student Learning Gains for Research and Evaluation in LYHS

• Student conceptual understanding of research and evaluation significantly increased (p < .01).

• Student research and evaluation skills significantly increased (p < .01). • Student confidence in the topic and in conducting evaluative research significantly

increased. However, student enthusiasm and interested in taking additional research and evaluation courses did not increase over the course of the semester. Open-ended responses indicated that a number of students were apprehensive, nervous, or uninterested about the course topic while others showed interest.

• Although there was some indication that students’ increased their ability to connect course learning to other areas of their life (systematic reasoning and critical data analysis, p < .01), overall students did not indicate an increase in connecting course content to other situations. Open-ended responses confirmed that specific research skills were the primary student learning gain.

• Eighty percent of students received scores of 70% of better for tests and reports.

4

Quantitative Student Self-Assessments

In 2011 and 2012 every graduating student majoring in the Division of Leisure, Youth, and Human Services was asked to complete a survey indicating their perceptions related to professional knowledge and abilities gained. This invitation was voluntary and resulted in 117 surveys completed. The results to the question – which are aligned to NRPA accreditation standards – are below

University of Northern Iowa Undergraduate Exit Survey

Spring & Summer 2011/Spring & Summer 2012 Part I: Knowledge Base Using the following scale, please circle the number that best represents your understanding of the following concepts. 1= No Understanding 2=I have gained a little understanding 3=I have gained an average understanding 4=I have gained an above average understanding 5=I have gained an exceptional understanding Mean Score

1. I have an understanding of the historical origins of the Leisure, Youth and Human Services fields. 4.1

2. I have an understanding of why people participate in 4.7 Leisure and Recreation.

3. I understand contemporary issues that impact 4.2 Leisure, Youth and Human Services fields

4. I understand how societal norms impact participation 4.4 in the LYHS fields.

5. I understand what the major professional organizations 4.6 are inn the LYSH fields.

6. I understand how ethics impact my responsibilities as a 4.6 LYSH professional.

7. I understand how important it is to maintain professional 4.9 Competence.

8. I understand how various leadership styles influence the 4.6

5

operations of a LYHS agency.

9. I understand the basic concepts of legal liability in the delivery 4.2 of LYHS programs and services.

10. I understand how group behavior affects the delivery of 4.6 LYHS programs and services. 11. I understand how diversity affects the delivery of LYHS 4.7 programs and services. 12. I understand barriers to recreation and leisure participation. 4.6

13. I understand various programming formats. 4.5

14. I understand the elements of promotion of LYHS programs and services. 4.4 15.I understand marketing tools and techniques 4.2 16. I understand the legal foundations and responsibilities 4.0 of LYHS agencies. 17. I understand the importance of policy in LYHS agencies. 4.3 18. I understand the psychological significance of LYHS. 4.4

19. I understand the role of evaluation and research 4.5 in LYHS agencies

20. I understand what it means to be a LYHS professional. 4.8 PART II: Abilities

Please use the following scale to rate the abilities that you perceive you have gained as a result of your undergraduate education.

1 = no gain 2 = little gain 3 = average gain 4 = above average gain 5. = exceptional gain

As a result of my education, I have gained: 1. The ability to work with diverse groups. 4.5

6

2. The ability to articulate the importance of the LYHS professions. 4.5

3. The ability to use critical thinking skills. 4.5

4. The ability to plan and implement LYHS programs. 4.6

5. The ability to use assessment techniques. 4.3

6. The ability to formulate a budget. 4.0

7. The ability to lead programs and services 4.5

8. The ability to manage LYHS programs and services. 4.5

9. The ability to promote LYHS programs and services. 4.5

10. The ability to communicate effectively. 4.6

11. The ability to understand research in the LYHS field. 4.4

12. The ability to write professional reports and evaluations 4.3

13. The ability to use professional computer software programs. 4.3

14. The ability to speak before professional groups. 4.3

15. The ability to work effectively with others. 4.7

16. The ability to create a risk management plan. 4.2

17. The ability to make decisions. 4.6

18. The ability to organize a work schedule. 4.6

19. The ability to supervise others. 4.4

20. The abilities needed to be a competent professional. 4.5

7

Qualitative Student Self-Assessments In 2011 and 2012 every graduating student majoring in the Division of Leisure, Youth, and Human Services was asked (voluntary) to complete two open-ended questions based on a qualitative assessment framework. These two questions were: (1) What did you learn at UNI that was most beneficial to you during your internship? and (2) What do you wish you had learned that would have been beneficial to you during your internship? Rank Order: LYHS learning that were most beneficial during your internship (listing of answers that have a frequency count of two or more) Programming skills (29)

Leadership skills (19) Fundraising, budgeting, and grant writing (15) Professionalism (14) 500 hours of volunteer experience (12) Diversity (7) Communication skills (7) Networking (5) Management skills (4) Research and evaluation (4) Marketing (2) Outdoor knowledge (2)

What do you wish you learned that would have been beneficial before your internship? (listing of answers that have a frequency count of two or more) Fundraising, budgeting, and grant writing (33) Computer skills (17) Marketing skills (9) Leadership skills (5) Communication skills (4)

Programming (4) Management (4) Board of Directors Experiences (2) Professional writing (2) Customer Services (2) Professionalism (2) Advocacy (2)

8

Results and Recommendations Results

1 In the Leadership in LYHS class (LYHS 2020) students’ conceptual understanding of leadership significantly increased.

2 In the Leadership in LYHS class (LYHS 2020) students’ leadership skills significantly increased.

3 In the Leadership in LYHS class (LYHS 2020) students’ attitudes toward leadership significantly increased.

4 In the Leadership in LYHS class (LYHS 2020) students’ ingretation of learning significantly increased.

5 In the Leadership in LYHS class (LYHS 2020) over 80% of students received a 70% (C grade) or better exam score.

6 In the Research and Evaluation in LYHS class (LYHS 4070) students’ conceptual understanding of research and evaluation significantly increased.

7 In the Research and Evaluation in LYHS class (LYHS 4070) students’ leadership skills significantly increased.

8 In the Research and Evaluation in LYHS class (LYHS 4070) students’ confidence in conducting evaluative research increased significantly.

9 In the Research and Evaluation in LYHS class (LYHS 4070) students’ did not have a statistically significant increase in their ability to connect course learning to other life/career situations in a significant manner.

10 In the Research and Evaluation in LYHS class (LYHS 4070) over 80% of students received a 70% (C grade) or better exam score.

9

11 In regard to the quantitative student self-assessment procedure of graduating student completing a survey indicating their perceptions of professional knowledge and abilities gained, in all 40 questions asked (100%), students reported they had either gained an above average or an exceptional understanding in professional knowledge and abilities.

12 In regard to the qualitative student self-assessment measure asking graduating students’ what LYHS learning was most beneficial during their internship, the top seven answers were: programming skills, leadership skills, fundraising, budgeting, and grant writing, professionalism, 500 hours of volunteer experience, diversity, and communication skills (7)

13 In regard to the qualitative student self-assessment measure asking graduating students’ what they wished they would have learned that would have been beneficial before their internship , the top seven answers were: fundraising, budgeting, and grant writing, computer skills, marketing skills, leadership skills, communication skills, programming, and management.

Recommendations 1. Due to the rationale that (1) a two-year window is a short period of time to gain data on

student learning, and (2) the results suggest positive student learning, the chief recommendation is to continue to gain and analyses data through to the next NRPA accreditation review in 2017.

2. Faculty can develop additional direct and indirect measures (both qualitative and quantitate) related to student outcomes.

1

Student Outcome Assessment Graduate Report Division of Leisure, Youth, and Human Services


The Division of Leisure, Youth and Human Services (LYHS) prepares students to deliver programs and manage facilities designed to meet human, community, and social needs in public, governmental, and nonprofit community agencies. Graduates may find employment in agencies that serve people of all ages from diverse backgrounds in areas such as municipal parks and recreation, commercial recreation, tourism, outdoor education and recreation, therapeutic recreation (clinical and community-based settings), the nonprofit and youth serving agencies, armed forces recreation, campus recreation, and other leisure and human service delivery sectors. The program focuses on direct service programming with an emphasis on supervisory and management skills.

The Division of Leisure, Youth, and Human Services offers two programs at the Master’s level. The first is the Master’s Degree in Leisure, Youth, and Human Services. The second is a Master’s degree in Philanthropy and Nonprofit Development, which is offered in a two-year cohort model in cooperation with the Office of Continuing and Distance Education.

Master’s Degree in Leisure, Youth, and Human Services

Students who graduated from the Master’s degree in Leisure, Youth, and Human Services over the past three years (n=26) were asked to complete a survey indicating their perceptions related to professional knowledge and abilities gained. This invitation was voluntary and the results are presented below.

Part I: Knowledge Base Using the following scale, please circle the number that best represents your understanding of the following concepts. 1 = No Understanding 2 = I have gained a little understanding 3 = I have gained an average understanding 4 = I have gained an above average understanding 5 = I have gained an exceptional understanding

2

MEAN

1. I have an understanding of the historical origins of the Leisure, Youth and Human Services. 3.9

2. I have an understanding of why people participate in Leisure and Recreation. 3.9

3. I understand contemporary issues that impact the Leisure, Youth and Human Services. 4.2

4. I understand how societal norms impact participation in LYHS. 4.2 5. I understand what the major professional organizations are in

LYHS. 4.1 6. I understand how ethics impact my responsibilities as a LYHS

professional. 3.6 7. I understand how important it is to maintain professional

competence. 4.2 8. I understand how various leadership styles influence the

operations of a LYHS agency. 4.2 9. I understand the basic concepts of legal liability in the delivery

of LYHS programs and services. 3.8 10. I understand how group behavior affects the delivery of LYHS programs and services. 4.3 11. I understand how diversity affects the delivery of LYHS programs and services. 4.0 12. I understand barriers to recreation and leisure participation. 4.1

13. I understand various programming formats. 3.3 14. I understand the elements of promotion of LYHS programs and services. 3.8 15. I understand marketing tools and techniques. 4.0 16. I understand the legal foundations and responsibilities of LYHS agencies. 3.8 17. I understand the importance of policy in LYHS agencies. 4.3 18. I understand the psychological significance of LYHS. 4.6 19. I understand the role of evaluation and research in LYHS agencies. 4.0

20. I understand what it means to be a LYHS professional. 4.3 PART II: Abilities

Please use the following scale to rate the abilities that you perceive you have gained as a result of your undergraduate education.

1 = no gain 2 = little gain 3 = average gain 4 = above average gain 5 = exceptional gain

3

As a result of my education, I have gained MEAN

1. The ability to work with diverse groups. 4.1 2. The ability to articulate the importance of the LYHS professions. 4.3 3. The ability to use critical thinking skills. 4.0 4. The ability to plan and implement LYHS programs. 3.8 5. The ability to use assessment techniques. 3.4 6. The ability to formulate a budget. 4.6 7. The ability to lead programs and services. 4.7 8. The ability to manage LYHS programs and services. 4.0 9. The ability to promote LYHS programs and services. 3.4 10. The ability to communicate effectively. 3.9 11. The ability to understand research in LYHS. 4.1 12. The ability to write professional reports and evaluations. 4.1 13. The ability to use professional computer software programs. 3.9 14. The ability to speak before professional groups. 3.9 15. The ability to work effectively with others. 4.1 16. The ability to create a risk management plan. 3.5 17. The ability to make decisions. 4.1 18. The ability to organize a work schedule. 3.9 19. The ability to supervise others. 4.2 20. The abilities needed to be a competent professional. 4.1

Results 1. Thirty seven percent of students reported they had gained an average understanding of

professional knowledge and abilities. 2. Sixty three percent of students reported they had gained an above average to exceptional

understanding of professional knowledge and abilities. Recommendation 1. Due to the rationale that (1) a two-year window is a short period of time to gain data on

student learning, and (2) the results suggest positive student learning, the chief and sole recommendation is to continue to gain and analyses data for another two year cycle.

1

Student Outcome Assessment Graduate Report Division of Leisure, Youth, and Human Services


The Division of Leisure, Youth and Human Services (LYHS) prepares students to deliver programs and manage facilities designed to meet human, community, and social needs in public, governmental, and nonprofit community agencies. Graduates may find employment in agencies that serve people of all ages from diverse backgrounds in areas such as municipal parks and recreation, commercial recreation, tourism, outdoor education and recreation, therapeutic recreation (clinical and community-based settings), the nonprofit and youth serving agencies, armed forces recreation, campus recreation, and other leisure and human service delivery sectors. The program focuses on direct service programming with an emphasis on supervisory and management skills.

The Division of Leisure, Youth, and Human Services offers two programs at the Master’s level. The first is the Master’s Degree in Leisure, Youth, and Human Services. The second is a Master’s degree in Philanthropy and Nonprofit Development, which is offered in a two-year cohort model in cooperation with the Office of Continuing and Distance Education.

Master’s Degree in Philanthropy and Nonprofit Development (PND)

For this graduate programs, graduating students were asked to complete a survey indicating their perceptions related to professional knowledge gained and were asked a single qualitative evaluative question, which was: Provide feedback indicating your perceptions about the knowledge you gained during graduate studies in the philanthropy and nonprofit development program at the University of Northern Iowa. All eight graduating students (from the cohort group ending in the summer of 211) completed both the survey and qualitative question. These two measurements were voluntary and the results are presented below. Quantitative Measure Using the following scale, please circle the number that best represents your understanding of the following concepts. Please note that the acronym PND stands for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Development. 1= I have gained no understanding 2=I have gained a little understanding 3=I have gained an average understanding 4=I have gained an above average understanding 5=I have gained an exceptional understanding

1. I understand the historical conceptual foundations of PND. 4.5 2. I understand how to think critically regarding current trends

and issues in the fields of PND. 5.0

2

3. I understand the concept of organizational behavior in PND. 4.2 4. I understand the concept of management in PND. 4.5 5. I understand the concept of evaluation in PND. 4.7 6. I understand how to develop an evaluative report related to PND. 4.5 7. I understand the concept of accountability in PND. 4.5 8. I understand the concept of interpersonal relations in PND. 4.5 9. I understand the concept of decision making in PND. 4.5 10. I understand the concept of volunteerism in PND. 4.3 11. I understand the concept of leadership in PND. 4.6 12. I understand public relations tools in PND. 3.3 13. I understand computer technology in PND. 4.0 14. I understand written communication in PND. 4.6 15. I understand oral communication in PND. 4.8 16. I understand financial decision making in PND. 4.5 17. I understand fundraising in PND. 4.8 18. I understand how to design a proposal related to PND. 3.8 19. I understand underlying psychological factors of giving. 4.1 20. I understand underlying sociological factors of giving. 4.2 21. I understand legal issues related to PND. 3.6 22. I understand ethical issues related to PND. 4.3 23. I understand research methodologies related to PND. 4.5 24. I understand how to search academic data bases related to PND. 4.6 25. I understand the linkage between theoretical knowledge

and professional practice. 4.6 26. I understand how to synthesize knowledge related to PND. 4.6 27. I understand public policy related to PND. 3.6 28. Through my research paper I believe I gained expert

knowledge about a specific area related to PND. 4.8 Qualitative Measure Students were asked to answer the following question: Provide feedback indicating your perceptions about the knowledge you gained during graduate studies in the philanthropy and nonprofit development program at the University of Northern Iowa. Using a basic two-step constant comparison method (code analysis) was used to analyze responses in order to find theses/codes. The five most common themes were (1) learning/enjoying the cohort experience, (2) increased knowledge in specific nonprofit areas (e.g., financial decision-making, research and evaluation), (3) ICN difficulties as problematic, (4) interdisciplinary structures, and (5) applied professional insights. Results

1. Fourteen percent of students reported they had gained an average understanding of professional knowledge.

2. Eight-five percent of students reported they had gained an above average to exceptional understanding of professional knowledge.

3

Recommendations

1 Due to the many ICN difficulties noted by students in the qualitative measure, coupled with other factors (e.g., cost), the delivery of the class moved to an adobe connect framework that started with the fall 2011 cohort group.

2 Due to the rationale that (1) a two-year window is a short period of time to gain data on student learning, and (2) the results suggest positive student learning, the chief and sole recommendation is to continue to gain and analyses data for another two year cycle.

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT TEMPLATE For Assessment Conducted During 20xx-20yy

Name of College:

College Of Education

Name of Department/Unit:

Curriculum And Instruction

Program:

Early Childhood Undergraduate Major Program

Department/Unit Mission:

The mission of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction faculty is to (a) communicate knowledge, skills, and attitudes underlying effective educative processes, (b) assume leadership specialties, and (c) add to the knowledge base of the academic profession and specialties.

Program Learning Goals: The Early Childhood Education Undergraduate Major program is designed to meet the Iowa Unified Licensure for Endorsement ED100, Early Childhood Teacher, Pre-K to 3rd Grade, with Special Education. The Early Childhood Education Division has developed a cross-walk with the Initial Teacher Licensure standards, INTASC.

See Appendix INTASC Standards


Gloria Kirkland Holmes [email protected]

Date submitted:

Annual Assessment Report, 20xx-20yy, page 1 of 13

Next Steps: Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year

Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps Recommended Program Changes Due to changes in the law, UNI’s early

childhood faculty, Dept. Head and Director of Teacher Ed had to quickly follow through with the implementation of a background check program and now a fingerprinting program. There is an articulation agreement between the University of Northern Iowa and the Iowa Dept. of Human Services and Dept. of Education. We have developed an articulation document, which is evidenced in the course syllabi as indicated by instructors. These include critical performances the instructors have identified. These are assessed in each individual course. The data is used to assess our program and make recommendations for improvements. Director of Teacher Ed continues to monitor local and statewide changes in regards to background checks, fingerprinting, etc. to assure applicable and appropriate for our early childhood students.

Limited faculty for large number of students in the major has caused some programmatic changes, and thus assessment changes in individual courses. Restructure the entire program for future plans of programmatic additions and changes. Continuation of review of staffing to make sure qualified and recommended faculty are teaching courses. Efforts to attain a written agreement identifying qualified and recommended faculty for courses. Action still in progress. An early childhood position has been approved to hire one additional early childhood faculty member. This will help alleviate some of the limited faculty resources that do not correspond with the number of early childhood students. Two early childhood faculty who are currently in administrative positions will rejoin the teaching faculty, Fall 2013.

Revisions to Student learning Outcomes NA SOA Plan Revisions We have developed an Articulation

Document overviewing the entire program as represented in each course syllabi, serving as a document inclusive of critical

To support the SOA plan, we need data sets corresponding to each of the critical performances found in each of the syllabi. The high number of transfer students does


performances. We use data-based instructional decision-making in the program. Level II evaluations used to guide in program needs and changes. Some instructors are revising assignments to meet the demands and rapid changes in early childhood education. We have graded sets of teacher work samples as a group to help guide the program with incorporating more early childhood into the work samples. Students are encouraged to do their second student teaching in a level above preschool with the teacher work sample.

make collecting the data more challenging than if they were not transfers. Level I Field Experience Praxis I Level II Field Experiences Level III Field Experience Praxis II Student Teaching Evaluation Teacher Work Sample




Assessment Procedures (Include methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,

person responsible, etc.)




Iowa Unified Endorsement ED100 Teacher – Prekindergarten through Grade Three (See Program Goals above)

Assessment procedures are followed. The ultimate learning outcome is licensure by the State of Iowa. Performance-based assessment and authentic assessment techniques are used. However, at this time formal assessment procedures are in the developmental stage. The outline for the SOA Plan has not been fully implemented. Historically, we have used multiple strategies to improve the program. The following assessment activities have informed program improvement: Early Childhood Division Meetings Department Meetings Individual Faculty consultations Intradepartmental consultations Feedback from school district personnel and employers, child care centers/programs (locally and statewide) Annual reviews of Teacher Work Samples (TWS) completed during the student teaching semester Activities related to the Council on Teacher Education Curriculum Mapping

Critical performances-Level III, beginning physics learning centers designed and implemented by each teacher-candidate; Level IV- Student Teaching, critical performance-Teacher work samples are used to assess the program.

This information has been shared in the following contexts: Department meetings Division meetings Meetings with faculty from the division and other related area faculty, educators. Closer ties with early childhood special education faculty developed to assess ECE program goals.


(Outcome)

(Outcome)

The Seven Year Academic Program Review Process (ongoing) The State Program Approval Site Visit Input from COE Advising Center Staff The Regent’s Center for Early Developmental Education (and many other colleagues) See chart of early childhood program And outreach developed by Dr. Jill Uhlenberg

Next Steps:

Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year Focus for Follow-Up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps Recommended Program Changes Due to changes in the law, UNI’s early

childhood faculty, Dept. Head and Director of Teacher Ed had to quickly follow through with the implementation of a background check program and now a fingerprinting program. There is an articulation agreement between the University of Northern Iowa and the Iowa Dept. of Human Services and Dept. of Education. We have developed an articulation document, which is evidenced in the course syllabi as indicated by instructors. These include critical performances the instructors have identified. These are assessed in each individual course. The data is used to assess our program and make recommendations for improvements. Director of Teacher Ed continues to monitor local and

Limited faculty for large number of students in the major has caused some programmatic changes, and thus assessment changes in individual courses. Restructure the entire program for future plans of programmatic additions and changes. Continuation of review of staffing to make sure qualified and recommended faculty are teaching courses. Efforts to attain a written agreement identifying qualified and recommended faculty for courses. Action still in progress. An early childhood position has been approved to hire one additional early childhood faculty member. This will help alleviate some of the limited faculty resources that do not correspond with the number of


statewide changes in regards to background checks, fingerprinting, etc. to assure applicable and appropriate for our early childhood students.

early childhood students. Two early childhood faculty who are currently in administrative positions will rejoin the teaching faculty, Fall 2013.

Revisions to Student learning Outcomes NA SOA Plan Revisions We have developed an Articulation Document

overviewing the entire program as represented in each course syllabi, serving as a document inclusive of critical performances. We use data-based instructional decision-making in the program. Level II evaluations used to guide in program needs and changes. Some instructors are revising assignments to meet the demands and rapid changes in early childhood education. We have graded sets of teacher work samples as a group to help guide the program with incorporating more early childhood into the work samples. Students are encouraged to do their second student teaching in a level above preschool with the teacher work sample.

To support the SOA plan, we need data sets corresponding to each of the critical performances found in each of the syllabi. The high number of transfer students does make collecting the data more challenging than if they were not transfers. Level I Field Experience Praxis I Level II Field Experiences Level III Field Experience Praxis II Student Teaching Evaluation Teacher Work Sample

Appendix

Crosswalk of ED100 Standards and INTASC Standards

ED 100 Standards: INTASC Standards:

I. Child growth and development

1. Understand the nature of child growth and development for infants and toddlers (birth - age 2), preprimary (ages 3 - 5) and primary school children (ages 6 - 8), both typical and atypical, in

Principle #2, Student Learning: The candidate understands how children learn and develop, and can provide learning opportunities that support their intellectual, social and personal development.


areas of cognition, language development, physical motor, social-emotional, aesthetics, and adaptive behavior.

2. Understand individual differences in

development and learning including risk factors, developmental variations and developmental patterns of specific disabilities and special abilities.

3. Recognize that children are best understood in the

contexts of family, culture and society and that cultural and linguistic diversity influences development and learning.

Principle #3, Diverse Learners: The candidate understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners.

Principle #2, Student Learning: The candidate understands how children learn and develop, and can provide learning opportunities that support their intellectual, social and personal development. Principle #3, Diverse Learners: The candidate understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners.

Principle #3, Diverse Learners: The candidate understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners. Principle #7, Instructional Planning: The candidate plans instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals. Principle #10, Collaboration, Ethics, and Relationships: The candidate fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents, and agencies in the larger community to support students' learning and well-being.

II. Developmentally appropriate learning


environment and curriculum implementation

1. Establish learning environments with social support, from the teacher and from other students, for all children to meet their optimal potential, with a climate characterized by mutual respect, encouraging and valuing the efforts of all regardless of proficiency.

2. Appropriately use informal and formal assessment to monitor development of children and to plan and evaluate curriculum and teaching practices to meet individual needs of children and families.

3. Plan, implement and continuously evaluate

developmentally and individually appropriate curriculum goals, content and teaching practices for infants, toddlers, preprimary and primary children based on the needs and interests if individual children, their families and community.

4. Use both child-initiated and teacher-directed

Principle #2, Student Learning: The candidate understands how children learn and develop, and can provide learning opportunities that support their intellectual, social and personal development. Principle #3, Diverse Learners: The candidate understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners. Principle #5, Learning Environment/Classroom Management: The candidate uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.

Principle #10, Collaboration, Ethics, and Relationships: The candidate fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents, and agencies in the larger community to support students' learning and well-being.

Principle #8, Assessment: The candidate understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social and physical development of the learner.


instructional methods, including strategies such as small and large group projects, unstructured and structured play, systematic instruction, and group discussion and cooperative decision-making.

5. Develop and implement integrated learning

experiences for home-center and school-based environments for infants, toddlers, and preprimary and primary children.

• Develop and implement integrated learning experiences that facilitate cognition, communication social and physical development of infants and toddlers within the context of parent-child and caregiver-child relationships.

• Develop and implement learning experiences for preprimary and primary children with focus on multicultural and nonsexist content that includes development of responsibility, aesthetic and artistic development, physical development and well being, cognitive development, and emotional and social development.

• Develop and implement learning experiences for infants, toddlers, preprimary, and primary children with a focus on language, mathematics, science, social studies, visual and expressive arts, social skills, higher-thinking skills, and developmentally appropriate methodology.

Principle #4, Instructional Strategies: The candidate understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students' development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills.

Principle #4, Instructional Strategies: The candidate understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students' development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills.


• Develop adaptations and accommodations for infants, toddlers, preprimary, and primary aged children to meet their individual needs.

6. Adapt materials, equipment, the environment,

programs and use of human resources to meet social, cognitive, physical motor, communication, and medical needs of children and diverse learning needs.

III. Health, safety and nutrition

1. Design and implement physically and psychologically safe and healthy indoor and outdoor environments to promote development and learning.

2. Promote nutritional practices that support cognitive, social, cultural and physical development of young children.

3. Implement appropriate appraisal and management of health concerns of young children including procedures for children with special health care needs.

4. Recognize signs of emotional distress, physical and mental abuse and neglect in young children and understand mandatory reporting procedures.

5. Demonstrate proficiency in infant-child cardiopulmonary resuscitation, emergency procedures and first aid.


IV. Family and community collaboration

1. Apply theories and knowledge of dynamic roles and relationships within and between families, schools, and communities.

2. Assist families in identifying resources, priorities, and concerns in relation to the child’s development.

3. Link families, based on identified needs, priorities and concerns, with a variety of resources.

4. Use communication, problem-solving and help-giving skills in collaboration with families and other professional to support the development, learning and well being of young children.

5. Participate as an effective member of a team with other professionals and families to develop and implement learning plans and environments for young children.

Principle #7, Instructional Planning: The candidate plans instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals.

V. Professionalism

1. Understand legislation and public policy that affect all young children, with and without disabilities, and their families.

2. Understand legal aspects, historical, philosophical, and social foundations of early childhood education and special education.

Principle #9, Reflective Practice: The candidate is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning community) and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally.


3. Understand principles of administration

4. Organization and operation of programs for

children aged birth to 8 and their families, including staff and program development supervision and evaluation of staff, and continuing improvement of programs and services.

5. Identify current trends and issues of the profession to inform and improve practices and advocate for quality programs for young children and their families.

6. Adhere to professional and ethical codes.

7. Engage in reflective inquiry and demonstration of professional self-knowledge.

Pre-student teaching field experiences

• Complete 100 clock hours of pre-student teaching field experience with three age levels in infant and toddler, preprimary and primary programs and in different settings, such as rural and urban, encompassing differing socio-economic status, ability levels, cultural and linguistic diversity and program types and sponsorship.

Student teaching • Complete a supervised student teaching experience

of at least 12 weeks total in at least two different settings in two of three age levels: infant and toddler,


Additional Comments: E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.

preprimary, primary and with children with and without disabilities. There are some pending recommendations on the length of student teaching that the Director of Teacher Ed is monitoring closely and keeping early childhood faculty updated.


University of Northern Iowa: Division of Health Promotion and Education Student Outcomes Assessment Plan Bachelor’s of Arts 2012-2013

Educational and Professional Competencies

In conjunction with the Society for Public Health Education, SOPHE and the American Association for Health Education, AAHE the National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, NCHEC, developed a national competency based examination for health educators-- the Certified Health Educator Specialist, (C.H.E.S.) which became available to the profession in the late 1980s. SOPHE and AAHE, through national collaborative strategic planning, delineated seven major areas of responsibilities common to all health educators in the United States. Each of these major responsibility areas were further delineated into competencies and sub-competencies. The faculty in the Division of Health Promotion and Education at the University of Northern Iowa has consistently used these national standards to define and develop their curriculum. Further, the Health Division offers a science intensive experience designed around the NCHEC competencies and the competencies required by the Association of Environmental Health Academic Programs, AEHAP for students seeking employment in the environmental health area and wishing to be credentialed through the National Environmental Health Association’s, Certified Environmental Health Specialist, (C.E.H.S.) The seven core areas are described as “responsibility” areas and include:

Responsibilities Framework:

1. Assess individual and community needs for health education

2. Plan effective health education programs

3. Implement health education programs

4. Evaluate and research the effectiveness of health education programs

5. Administer and manage the provision of health education services

6. Act as a resource person in health education

7. Communicate and advocate for health education needs, concerns and resources

In addition to competency based core coursework, there are opportunities through advising to focus student skills in the areas of worksite health promotion, health disparities and environmental health. This is achieved through appropriate advising. The “capstone” experience for undergraduate students is a 6-12 hour (depending on credentialing area) field experience in the professional setting.

How are knowledge and skills obtained and competencies addressed?

Knowledge, skills and abilities in the competency areas are obtained through the successful completion of the curriculum which is designed to integrate the responsibility framework, competencies, and sub-competencies required of students who will eventually

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA SCHOOL OF HPELS DIVISION OF HEALTH PROMOTION AND EDUCATION

UPDATED 11/13

1

sit for the CHES and CEHS examinations, offered through their respective professional societies. The culminating experience is the field experience or internship.

Assessments

The following qualitative measures will be used yearly to generate Student Outcomes Assessment data for faculty review and discussion.

1. Course specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3. Student Quantitative and Qualitative Pre-assessment (Intro to Health Promotion) 4. Quantitative Student self-assessment (field experience) 5. Qualitative Student self-assessment (field experience) 6. Intern supervisor Quantitative assessment (field experience) 7. Intern supervisor Qualitative assessment (field experience) As each student is required to complete an internship experience, (6-12 hours depending on the credentialing sought) the opportunity arises in the undergraduate degree program to perform summative evaluation measures (see attached questionnaire) of both the student pre- and post internship experience and of the internship supervisor in the professional setting. This offers an unparallel opportunity to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of the curriculum in addressing the KSAs needed as identified by the professional societies in the field.

Findings

See the Student Outcomes Report filed for respective years.

Actions Planned

Yearly the SOA will be completed using a questionnaire based on professional competencies. Outcomes of program effectiveness will be evaluated and conveyed to the faculty. Faculty meetings will be devoted to discussing the outcomes data analysis and the effectiveness of current program offerings with changes being made as the data and changing circumstances may require. As appropriate, grade distributions in core courses will be reviewed and discussed. An abbreviated report of current SOA averages will be provided to the University Office of SOA each year with a detailed report every 4-5 years. The last detailed report was 11/2012.

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA SCHOOL OF HPELS DIVISION OF HEALTH PROMOTION AND EDUCATION

UPDATED 11/13

2


Name of College



Curriculum and Instruction Doctoral Intensive Study Area (bigger than one department; less than college)

Program

Curriculum and Instruction Doctoral Intensive Study Area



Learning goals are in the final stages of a multi-year revision process. Tomorrow the EdD curriculum change package goes to the Graduate College Curriculum Committee.

Person(s) submitting this report (name and e-mail)

Linda May Fitzgerald, Ph. D. / [email protected]

Date submitted

31 October 2013



Over 50 faculty are on the mailing list for the C&I Doctoral ISA and trying to get them to meet is futile. I hold votes for admission electronically and I engage in email exchanges triggered by responses to my email to the list. I work one-on-one with advisor-advisee pairs as requested. As a member of the C&I Departmental coordinators, I report as those monthly meetings. As a member of the COE Doctoral Coordinators, I report at those monthly meetings. When warranted, I share and invite responses from the C&I ISA faculty mailing list.


Students continue to complete their doctoral programs within the 7-year recency, with a few exceptions (see graduation programs each term).

Dissertations continue to be good enough to recommend for dissertation of the year award, and C&I ISA dissertations continue to win on a regular basis.

1

Students continue to get jobs in higher education, or to make progress toward tenure and promotion if already employed in higher education during the doctoral program.

The publication option that is an alternative to the comprehensive exam continues to be chosen (no comps exam option taken in the past year). Some papers submitted for publication are accepted and published; some are invited to resubmit after revision; some are presented at professional conferences before being submitted for publication.


Not all are graduating within the 7-year recency limit, but we just got that changed to 10 years.

Not all are finding the predissertation research requirement and the comps alternative publication options to be easily met, but one of the major revisions to the EdD core (a 3-course sequence to begin the program) is designed to address this challenge.


The new Student Learning Outcomes for the proposed revised COE EdD program, with particular attention to the new EdD Core, if/when approved, will need to be set up with signature assignments in a reportable format for all 3 ISAs to access with reference to their SOA reporting. That model will then be applied to the C&I ISA core courses as well.



If/when the proposed curriculum changes make it through the curriculum change process this coming spring term, we will start to implement the changes for fall 2014.


A new set of student learning outcomes accompany the proposed curriculum changes.


Get the new curriculum passed. Get the proposed new syllabi implemented as courses come on line in sequence. Work out a process for sharing the signature assignment outcomes for the EdD core with ISAs to which the various students belong.

Additional Comments


Once the curriculum changes pass, getting the new program up and running, including institutional support for the proposed interdisciplinary team teaching.

2

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT TEMPLATE For Assessment Conducted During 2013-2014

Name of College:

College Of Education


Curriculum and Instruction

Program:

Early Childhood Master’s Degree Program


The mission of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction faculty is to (a) communicate knowledge, skills, and attitudes underlying effective educative processes, (b) assume leadership specialties, and (c) add to the knowledge base of the academic profession and specialties.


Program Learning Goals: The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards has organized the standards for accomplished Early Standards. The standards have been ordered to facilitate understanding.

Standard # 1- Understanding Young Children

Accomplished early childhood teachers use their knowledge of child development and their relationships with children and families to understand children as individuals and to plan in response to their unique needs and potential.

Standard #2- Equality, Fairness, and Diversity

Accomplished early childhood teachers model and teach behaviors appropriate in a diverse society by creating a safe, secure learning environment for all children; by showing appreciation of and respect for the individual differences and unique needs of each member of the learning community; and by empowering children to treat others with, and to expect from others, equity, fairness, and dignity.

Standard #3- Assessment

Accomplished early childhood teachers recognize the strengths and weaknesses of multiple


assessment methodologies and know how to use them effectively. Employing a variety of methods, they systematically observe, monitor, and document children’s activities and behavior, analyzing, communicating and using the information they glean to improve their work with children, parents, and others.

Standard #4-

Accomplished early childhood teachers promote children’s cognitive, social, emotional, physical, and linguistic development by organizing and orchestrating the environment in ways that best facilitate the development and learning of young children.

Standard #5- Knowledge of Integrated Curriculum

On the basis of their knowledge of how young children learn, academic subjects, and of assessment, accomplished early childhood teachers design and implement developmentally


appropriate learning experiences that integrate within and across the disciplines.

Standard #6- Multiple Teaching Strategies for Meaningful Learning

Accomplished early childhood teachers use a variety of practices and resources to promote individual development, meaningful learning, and social cooperation.

Standard #7- Family and Community Partnerships

Accomplished early childhood teachers work with and through families and communities to support children’s learning and development.

Standard # 8- Professional Partnerships

Accomplished early childhood teachers work as leaders and collaborators in the professional community to improve programs and practices for young children and their families.


Standard# 9- Reflective Practice

Accomplished early childhood teachers regularly analyze, evaluate, and synthesize to strengthen the quality and effectiveness of their work.


Gloria Kirkland Holmes e-mail: [email protected]

Date submitted:

11/1/2013






Two new Early Childhood Master’s Cohort courses were developed and taught, Summer, 2010 and Fall 2010. These were developed to better meet the growing needs and challenges of Master’s students, many of them in teacher leader positions in their respective educational environments.

These courses were: ELEMECML 6236. Assessment in Early Childhood (Fall 2010), and ELEMECML 6210 Diversity in Early Childhood

It is now being reviewed to see if there might be a possibility to have an undergraduate course Studies in Diversity (similar to the Master’s Course) become a requirement for undergraduates, but how? Most undergraduates have no room for electives in their current course of study. This continues to be a goal that is being worked on. Undergraduate and graduate students are being offered two courses in diversity related to the Annual Conference on


Education: Theory and Practice (Summer 2010). These course changes were submitted to the Curriculum Committee for permanent course changes and were approved in October 2011.

The Early Childhood Division reviewed an Instructional Technology course, listed in the Master’s Cohort Program of study to determine the feasibility and appropriateness to programmatic needs of the Early Childhood Teacher Leaders. As a result of this review, students in the last Masters Cohort were able to take the course Early Childhood Technology that

African American Children and Families ELEMECML 5133 Workshop: Family and Children's Issues in Understanding Racial and Cultural Differences

ELEMECML5133 Building Positive Relationships with African American Children and Families

The Early Childhood Division is meeting to review the overall Early Childhood Master’s Program.

To support the SOA plan, we need additional data sets corresponding to each of the National Board Professional Teaching Standards. These are still in need of being developed and then assessed.

There is a continued need to


https://bb9.uni.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_37765_1%26url%3D




was taught in summer, 2012. This course was especially planned and implemented for the students in the early childhood Master’s Cohort. This course was designed to meet some of the new, innovative and current trends in technology and early childhood education rather than technology for all of the disciplines and their Masters Cohorts. Students in the Early Childhood Master’s Program are evaluated in a variety of ways during their course of study. Early childhood faculty use a variety of informal and formal assessments in each course. Some faculty use

develop an assessment of course and out-of-class work for each of the students enrolled in the Master’s program.

There needs to be a continued review of the research requirement and completion of this requirement by enrolled students. This is being done in some of the bi- monthly Early Childhood Division Meetings.

There needs to be a more formal development of procedures to be used as a part of the post-graduate survey instrument to be administered as data-informed decisions are being


eLearning for the posting of course information and assessment of each student’s success with the critical performances as they relate to The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards for accomplished Early Standards. Some faculty may use the discussions and assignment tools for individual postings of completed assignments. Other faculty engages students through personal and faculty-student privately shared journals. This allows faculty to communicate with and assess individual student needs and strengths. Students are also assessed by their performance on

made. Established assessment purposes for various surveys and instruments continue to be an area of focus. Finding the most appropriate ways of gathering data from graduates is an area of continual concern.

The Early Childhood Division, along with the Doctoral Coordinator, needs to review more possibilities for recruiting more diverse populations of students to the graduate programs. As Iowa’s demographics are rapidly changing, we also should be preparing more teacher leaders to meet this challenge.


research and current issue papers. They are assessed in use of a professional format such as APA style. Students are also assessed on special projects and/or thesis or employment related assignments. Students are also assessed in data collection and demographic data analysis in preparing for diverse populations of students, especially with Iowa’s thriving and challenging population. Other assignments assessed are:

Master’s thesis

Major project

Major paper/research paper


Oral presentation-online

Video-audio recordings

Site visits by faculty

Indirect assessments

Graduate student program evaluations are administered by Continuing Ed. However, there is no way of knowing how many students will participate in the voluntary evaluations.

Student satisfaction surveys are also used for program assessments. These are used to help determine course content that meets the needs and interests of students. Students engage in reflections of content,


experiences and about readings.

Alumni surveys are administered to students as they graduate and complete their Master’s Cohort coursework.

Emails and other evaluative communications are used to allow students the freedom to express viewpoints on content and needed changes or recommendations for program changes.

Each student must engage in a scholarly procession, which demonstrates the ability to apply and synthesize knowledge and


skills during program of study.

Data are collected for all student-learning outcomes. There is a specified cycle according to the course sequence for collecting data.

Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes

NA

SOA Plan Revisions



Student Learning

Outcomes Assessed

Assessment Procedures

(Include methods used,

when and where

implemented, number

assessed, person

responsible, etc.)

Summary of Findings (Tables, graphs, and more detailed reports are kept at

the department level.)

Methods Used for Sharing

Assessment Information

National Board Professional Teachers

Post-graduation assessments conducted by graduate faculty and by Continuing Education; complete a

There is a need for continued and further review of the Early Childhood Master’s Program. Emails, inquiries, requests for information and communicative expressions of program needs are data collected to assess program

Assessment information is shared across faculty within the Early Childhood Education division, and is reported to the department


program outcomes survey.

Informal assessment to determine students’ perceptions of effectiveness of the program.

More formal assessment procedures are in the development of an outline for the SOA Plan, which has not been full implemented at this time. A

decisions.

A new Early Childhood Master’s cohort was temporarily on hold due to lack of graduate faculty to teach the courses. Since that time, the Early Childhood Division in consultation with Department Head and the Dean decided to reinstate the Master’s Cohort starting fall, 2013. As the last cohort was coming to near completion, the requests for the new cohort doubled.

No new students are allowed to join the cohort once classes have started. So one or two additional students are enrolled to allow for attrition rates. Due to personal and

office.

Places where the information is shared:

Elementary Division Meetings

Department Meetings

Individual faculty consultations Interdepartmental consultations Intradepartmental consultations


variety of strategies has been and continues to be implemented.

Master’s students are expected to be assessed in the following areas:

Leadership Scholarship Understanding of Theory

and Research Application of Knowledge

and

often familial conditions, a student may have to withdraw from the program.

We do not have a sufficient number of faculty to operate more than one cohort at the same time. The current cohort will be completing their studies in 2015.

There is a major shortage of faculty in the early childhood division due to early retirements and changes to administrative positions. Overall, there has been a loss of eight faculty positions. One additional early childhood faculty was hired and started in fall, 2013. This is an ongoing issue that continues to be monitored because even with

Feedback from school district personnel and employers Annual reviews of Teacher Work Samples (TWS) and newly implemented EdTPA completed during the student teaching semester (used to guide future post graduate programming) Activities related to the Elementary Senate and Teacher Education (used to guide future information for post graduate students)


Understandings

one additional faculty this does not allow for sufficient number of early childhood faculty to do some of the expansion activities that could meet some of the additional programmatic needs.

The Dean of the College of Education continues to work with hopes of gaining additional faculty. The Department Head (Curriculum and Instruction) is an integral part of the early childhood division and is involved in leadership roles for the success of the program. While she is the department head, she works diligently as a faculty member, helping to fill in some of the program and

Curriculum Mapping- used to review cross-sections of course content

The Seven Year Academic Program Review Process – a time to take a closer look at program needs and strengths

The State Program


faculty gaps.

There continues to be numerous requests for Distance Ed Service and Delivery Models in Early Childhood Education.

More experienced teachers are in need of early childhood degrees in order to qualify for the State’s Voluntary Preschool Programs. There has been an increase in the number of school districts that received funding to implement these programs. Also, teachers in jobs requiring the early childhood master’s degree enroll in UNI’s early childhood master’s cohort because of the high quality expectations. It remains a challenge to gather


large scale data on perceptions of the Early Childhood Master’s Program due to the Alumni Office’s privacy, confidentiality regulations

It has been a challenge to gather some of the necessary data on perceptions of the Early Childhood Master’s program due to the Alumni Office respecting confidentiality

Approval Site Visit Input from COE Advising Center Staff, Registrar’s Office, Graduate

College, Alumni Office


of graduates. Because more students do not have landline phones, it is more difficult to make contact by phone to initiate interviews or gather telephonic data. More students have cell phones, but do to privacy rights, and cellular phone plans, this is


not a feasible format for gathering data. Therefore, the sample of students who were surveyed is very small, due to protective and restrictive informational procedures. Early childhood faculty must decide among themselves who is best to take the leadership


role in setting up graduate surveys to gather data. With the current early childhood faculty teaching, a decision must be made to be responsible for the process of gathering the data from alumni. Continuing and Distance Education Office does request that


students complete surveys when they finish the Master’s cohort classes. However, the instrument is very limiting in nature. Many of the students respond to issues related to the various distance education sites around the state in the past; however changes have


been made where more students are able to engage is courses through programs like adobe connect. Additional Master’s cohort classes have been offered online during the past year. Much of the information on the Master’s Cohort is on the Office of


Continuing Education website, which has assisted with the decrease in the number of individual requests for answers to questions. There is a section on FAQ. (Frequently asked questions) Some of the information gathered from these assessments


are very interesting, More students are now requesting more online courses, which is different from previous cohorts.

As family needs, lifestyles, schedules and employment

needs continue to change; the Early Childhood Division continues to review the Master’s Program needs as requests are being made. The


meanings of the assessment data can be confusing especially when there is inadequate numbers of faculty to meet the programmatic needs, even when possible. The Early Childhood Master’s Program is data- informed and based on the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards- Generalist, Early Childhood

Generalist, Early Childhood Standards #1-9

Next Steps:


Indicate changes to be made, e.g., to program, curriculum, assessment strategies, learning outcomes, etc., along with timelines for action. If no changes are needed, use this space to indicate that. To see a list of potential action steps, see http://www.uni.edu/assessment/documents/closingtheloop.pdf, “On Using Assessment Information and Closing the Loop.”

Additional Comments: E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc. Early Childhood Master’s students are enrolled in a Master’s Cohort, which extends over a three-year period. This takes dedication and commitment in order to complete the coursework. The limitation of not being able to begin new cohorts on a staggering basis is among considerations to be reviewed in the future. A more realistic look at the actual implementation of a full SOA plan can be done in a more focused manner, once our shortage of tenured faculty has been resolved. An early childhood faculty who retired


http://www.uni.edu/assessment/documents/closingtheloop.pdf

about a year ago has not been replaced.


Undergraduate Health Promotion Major Student Outcomes Assessment Report Summary

University of Northern Iowa School of HPELS/Division of Health Promotion and Education 2013/2014

RESPONSIBILITY I: ASSESSING INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITY NEEDS FOR HEALTH EDUCATION

Competencies How are knowledge/skills

obtained?

Assessments used

Findings [mean scores based on 4 pt.

scale 4 hi ability] SA* n=27 IA** n=28

Change from last report

Actions planned

Comments

Comp. A. Obtain health-related data about social and cultural environments, growth and development factors, needs and interests.

1. Select valid sources of information about health needs and interests.

2. Utilize computerized sources of health-related information.

3. Employ or develop appropriate data-gathering instruments.

4. Apply survey techniques to acquire health data.

4256 Implementing Health Promotion Programs

3160 Community & Public Health

4663 Human Diseases

4768 Field Experience

4378 Advocacy, Social Action, & Policy Dev.

1. course specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3. Quantitative Student self-assessment 4. Qualitative Student self-assessment 5. Intern supervisor Quantitative assessment 6. Intern supervisor Qualitative assessment

SA* Mean=3.02, (se***=0.31)

IA** =3.64, (se***= 0.097)

SA (3.12, down)

IA (3.24, up)

Review/Discuss with Faculty

Continue monitoring as new curricular

structure is implemented.

Comp. B. Distinguish between behaviors that foster and those that hinder well-being.

1. Investigate physical, social, emotional and intellectual factors influencing health behaviors.

2. Identify behaviors that tend to promote or compromise health.

3. Recognize the role of learning and affective experience in shaping patterns of health behavior.


4663 Human Diseases

4376 Planning Health Promotion Programs


1.Ccourse specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3. Quantitative Student self-assessment 4. Qualitative Student self-assessment 5. Intern supervisor Quantitative assessment 6. Intern supervisor Qualitative assessment

SA* Mean=3.42, (se***=0.22)

IA** =3.8, (se***=0.13)

SA (3.04, up)

IA (3.26, up)




Comp. C: Infer needs for health education on the basis of obtained data.

1. Analyze needs assessment data. 2. Determine priority areas of need for




1. Course specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3. Quantitative Student self-assessment 4. Qualitative Student self-assessment

SA* Mean=3.1, (se***=0.27)

IA** =3.64, (se***=0.29)

SA (2.96, up)

IA (3.17, up)




- 1 -


obtained?

Assessments used




Actions planned

Comments

health education.

5. Intern supervisor Quantitative assessment 6. Intern supervisor Qualitative assessment

- 2 -

RESPONSIBILITY II: PLANNING EFFECTIVE HEALTH EDUCATION PROGRAMS


obtained?

Assessments used




Actions planned

Comments

Comp. A: Recruit community organizations, resource people and potential participants for support and assistance in program planning.

1. Communicate need for the program to those who will be involved.

2. Obtain commitments form personnel and decision makers who will be involved in the program.

3. Seek ideas and opinions of those who will affect, or be affected by the program.

4. Incorporate feasible ideas and recommendations into the planning process.

4376 Planning Health Promotion Programs (#1 &4)



4378 Advocacy, Action, & Policy

1. Course specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3. Quantitative Student self-assessment 4. Qualitative Student self-assessment 5. Intern supervisor Quantitative assessment 6. Intern supervisor Qualitative assessment

SA* Mean=3.26, (se***=0.24)

IA** =3.39, (se***=0.16)

SA (2.99, up)

IA (3.05, up)




Comp. B: Develop a logical scope and sequence plan for a health education program.

1. Determine the range of health information requisite to a given program of instruction.

2. Organize the subject areas comprising the scope of a program in logical sequence.





1.Course specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3. Quantitative Student self-assessment 4. Qualitative Student self-assessment 5. Intern supervisor Quantitative assessment 6. Intern supervisor Qualitative assessment

SA* Mean=2.81, (se***=0.29)

IA** =3.47, (se***=0.15)

SA (3.07, down)

IA (3.19, up)




Comp. C: Formulate appropriate and measurable program objectives.

1. Infer educational objectives that facilitate achievement of specified competencies.

2. Develop a framework of broadly stated, operational objectives relevant to proposed health education program.

4485 Health Promotion Evaluation






SA* Mean=3.04, (se***=0.23)

IA** =3.15, (se***=0.18)

SA (2.85, up)

IA (3.19, down)




- 3 -


obtained?

Assessments used




Actions planned

Comments

Competency D: Design educational programs consistent with specified program objectives.

1. Match proposed learning activities with those implicit in the stated objectives.

2. Formulate a wide variety of the alternative educational methods.

3. Select strategies best suited to implementation of educational objectives in a given setting.

4. Plan a sequence of learning opportunities building upon, and reinforcing mastery of preceding objectives.







SA* Mean=2.74, (se***=0.31)

IA** =3.36, (se***=0.15)

SA (3.07, down)

IA (3.1, up)




- 4 -

RESPONSIBILITY III: IMPLEMENTING HEALTH EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Competencies How are knowledge/skills obtained?

Assessments used



Change from last

report

Actions planned

Comments

Comp. A: Exhibit competence in carrying out planned educational programs.

1. Employ a wide range of educational methods and techniques.

2. Apply individual or group process methods as appropriate to given learning situations.

3. Utilize instructional equipment and other instructional media.

4. Select methods that best facilitate the practice of program objectives.

4353 Theoretical Foundations

4256 Implementing Health Promotion



SA* Mean=3.63, (se***=0.11)

IA** =3.50, (se***=0.16)

SA (3.15, up)

IA (3.25, up)


Continue monitoring as new curricular structure

is implemented.

Comp. B: Infer enabling objectives as needed to implement instructional programs in specified settings.

1. Pretest learners to ascertain present abilities and knowledge relative to proposed program objectives.

2. Develop subordinate measurable objectives as needed for instruction.


Programs



1. Curse specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3. Quantitative Student self-assessment 4. Qualitative Student self-assessment 5. Intern supervisor Quantitative assessment 6. Intern supervisor Qualitative assessment

SA* Mean=3.63, (se***=0.11)

IA** =3.50, (se***0.16)

SA (3.12, up)

IA (3.17, up)



is implemented.

Comp. C : Select methods and media best suited to implement program plans for specific learners.

1. Analyze learner characteristics, legal aspects, feasibility and other considerations influencing choices among methods.

2. Evaluate the efficacy of alternative methods and techniques capable of facilitating program objectives.

3. Determine the availability of information, personnel, time and equipment needed to implement the program for a given audience.



Programs





SA* Mean=3.30, (se***=0.19)

IA** =3.39, (se***=0.17)

SA (3.08, up)

IA (3.16, up)



is implemented.

- 5 -

Competencies How are

knowledge/skills obtained?

Assessments used

Findings

[mean scores based on 4 pt.



Actions planned Comments

Comp. D: Monitor educational programs, adjusting objectives and activities as necessary.

1. Compare actual program activities with the stated objectives.

2. Assess the relevance of existing program objectives to current needs.

3. Revise program activities and objectives as necessitated by changes in learner needs.

4. Appraise applicability of resources and materials relative to given educational objectives.



Programs




SA* Mean=3.30, (se***=0.21)

IA** =3.50, (se***=0.15)

SA (3.10, up)

IA (3.17, up)



is implemented.

- 6 -

RESPONSIBILITY IV: EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS OF HEALTH EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Competencies How are


Assessments used


scale 4 hi ability]

SA* n=27 IA** n=28



Comp. A: Develop plans to assess achievement of programs objectives.

1. Determine standards of performance to be applied as criteria of effectiveness.

2. Establish a realistic scope of evaluation efforts. 3. Develop an inventory of existing valid and reliable

tests and instruments. 4. Select appropriate methods for evaluating program

effectiveness.


4663 Human Diseases

4376 Planning H.P. Programs



SA* Mean=2.20, (se***=0.30)

IA** =3.31, (se***=0.14)

SA (2.47, down)

IA (2.87, up)


Continue monitoring as

new curricular


Comp. B: Carry out evaluation plans.

1. Facilitate administration of the tests and activities specified in the plan.

2. Utilize data-collecting methods appropriate to the objectives.

3. Analyze resulting evaluation data.


4663 Human Diseases


1. Course specific evaluations 2.Ccourse specific grades 3. Quantitative Student self-assessment 4. Qualitative Student self-assessment 5. Intern supervisor Quantitative assessment 6. Intern supervisor Qualitative assessment

SA* Mean=2.96, (se***=0.25)

IA** =3.54, (se***=0.12)

SA (2.63, up)

IA (2.95, up)



new curricular


Comp. C: Interpret results of program evaluation.

1. Apply criteria of effectiveness to obtained results of a program.

2. Translate evaluation results into terms easily understood by others.

3. Report effectiveness of educational programs in achieving proposed objectives.


4663 Human Diseases



SA* Mean=2.52, (se***=0.30)

IA** =3.61, (se***=0.14)

SA (2.64, down)

IA (3.05, up)



new curricular


Comp. D: Infer implication from findings for future program planning.

1. Explore possible explanations for important evaluation findings.

2. Strategies for implementing results of evaluation.


4663 Human Diseases


1. course specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3. Quant. Student self-assessment 4. Qual. Student self-assessment 5. Intern supervisor Quant assessment 6. Intern supervisor Qual. assessment

SA* Mean=2.52, (se***=0.27)

IA** =3.39, (se***=0.15)

SA (2.64, down)

IA (3.05, up)



new curricular


- 7 -

RESPONSIBILITY V: COORDINATING PROVISION OF HEALTH EDUCATION SERVICES

Competencies How are knowledge/

skills obtained?

Assessments used




Actions planned

Comments

Comp. A: Develop a plan for coordinating health education services.

1. Determine the extent of available health education services.

2. Match health education services to proposed program activities.

3. Identify gaps and overlaps in the provision of collaborative health services.

4256 Implementing

Health Promotion Programs


4378 Advocacy, Social Action, &

Policy Dev.


SA* Mean=3.07, (se***=0.24)

IA** =3.43, (se***=0.17)

SA (2.55, up)

IA (3.0, up)




Comp. B: Facilitate cooperation between and among levels of program personnel.

1. Promote cooperation and feedback among personnel related to the program.

2. Apply various methods of conflict reduction as needed.

3. Analyze the role of health educator as liaison between program staff and outside groups and organizations.

4256 Implementing




1. course-specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3. Quantitative Student self-assessment 4. Qualitative Student self-assessment 5. Intern supervisor Quantitative assessment 6. Intern supervisor Qualitative assessment

SA* Mean=1.85, (se***=0.33)

IA** =2.89, (se***=0.23)

SA (2.15, down)

IA (2.75, up)




Comp. C: Formulate practical modes of collaboration among health agencies and organizations.

1. Stimulate development of cooperation among personnel responsible for community health education programs.

2. Suggest approaches for integrating health education within existing health programs.

3. Develop plans for promoting collaborative efforts among health agencies and organizations with mutual interests.

4256 Implementing


4378 Advocacy, Action, & Policy]



SA* Mean=1.85, (se***=0.33)

IA** =2.89, (se***=0.23)

SA (2.95, down)

IA (3.21, down)




- 8 -

Competencies

How are knowledge/

skills obtained?

Assessments used



Change from last report.

Actions planned

Comments

Comp. D: Organize in-service training programs for teachers, volunteers, and other interested personnel.

1. Plan an operational, competency-oriented training program.

2. Utilize instructional resources that meet a variety of in-service training needs.

3. Demonstrate a wide range of strategies for conducting in-service training programs.

4256 Implementing




SA* Mean=3.07, (se***=0.24)

IA** =3.43, (se***=0.17)

SA (2.55, up)

IA (3.0, up)




- 9 -

RESPONSIBILITY VI: ACTING AS A RESOURCE PERSON IN HEALTH EDUCATION

Undergraduate Competencies How are knowledge/skills

obtained?

Assessments used


scale 4 hi ability]

SA* n=27 IA** n=28

Change from last

report

Actions planned

Comments

Comp. A: Utilize computerized health information retrieval system effectively.

1. Match an information need with the appropriate retrieval system.

2. Access principal online and other database health information resources.


4663 Human Diseases

4164 Health Care & Consumer


4376 Planning H.P. Programs


SA* Mean=3.74, (se***=0.13)

IA** =3.71, (se***=0.15)

SA (3.31, up)

IA (3.32, up)




Comp. B: Establish effective consultative relationships with those requesting assistance in solving health-related problems.

1. Analyze parameters of effective consultative relationships.

2. Describe special skills and abilities needed by health educators for consultation activities.

3. Formulate a plan for providing consultation to other health professionals.

4. Explain the process of marketing health education consultative services.





SA* Mean=3.22, (se***=0.22)

IA** =3.64, (se***=0.16)

SA (3.29, down)

IA, (3.22, up)




Comp. C: Interpret and respond to requests for health information.

1. Analyze general processes for identifying the information needed to satisfy a request.

2. Employ a wide range of approaches in referring requests to valid sources of health information



4663 Human Diseases 4378 Advocacy, Action, & Policy



SA* Mean=3.48, (se***=0.19)

IA** =3.75, (se***=0.15)

SA (3.21, up)

IA (3.22, up)




- 10 -


obtained?

Assessments used


scale 4 hi ability]

SA* n=170 IA** n=167

Change from last

report

Actions planned

Comments

Comp. D: Select effective educational resource materials for dissemination.

1. Assemble educational material of value to the health of individuals and community groups.

2. Evaluate the worth and applicability of resource materials for given audiences.

3. Apply various processes in the acquisition of resource materials.

4. Compare different methods for distributing educational materials.


4663 Human Diseases

4256 Implementing H. P. Programs




SA* Mean=3.41, (se***=0.19)

IA** =3.57, (se***=0.16)

SA (3.15, up)

IA (3.07)




- 11 -

RESPONSIBILITY VII: COMMUNICATING HEALTH AND HEALTH EDUCATION NEEDS, CONCERNS, AND RESOURCES.

Undergraduate Competencies

How are knowledge/skills

obtained?

Assessments used



Change from last

report

Actions planned

Comments

Comp. A: Interpret concepts, purposes and theories of health education.

1. Evaluate the state-of-the-art of health education.

2. Analyze the foundations of the discipline of health education.

3. Describe major responsibilities of the health educator in the practice of health education.

1101 Orientation to Health Promotion




1.Ccourse specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3. Quantitative Student self-assessment (IA) 4. Qualitative Student self-assessment 5. Intern supervisor Quantitative assessment(SA) 6. Intern supervisor Qualitative assessment

SA* Mean=3.33, (se***=0.21)

IA** =3.64, (se***=0.16)

SA (3.05, up)

IA (3.17, up)


Continue monitoring

as new curricular structure

is implement

ed.

Comp. B: Predict the impact of societal value systems on health education programs.

1. Investigate social forces causing opposing viewpoints regarding health education needs and concerns.

2. Employ a wide range of strategies for dealing with controversial health issues.






SA* Mean=3.56, (se***=0.17)

IA** =3.79, (se***=0.15)

SA (2.6, up)

IA (3.03, up)



is implemented.

Comp. C: Select a variety of communication methods and techniques in providing health information.

1. Utilize a wide range of techniques for communicating health and health education information.

2. Demonstrate proficiency in communicating health information and health education needs.



4663 Human Diseases



1. Course specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3. Quantitative Student

self-assessment 4. Qualitative Student self-

assessment 5. Intern supervisor

Quantitative assessment 6. Intern supervisor

Qualitative assessment

SA* Mean=3.52, (se***=0.12)

IA** =3.68, (se***=0.15)

SA (3.21, up)

IA (3.19, up)



is implemented.

- 12 -


obtained?

Assessments used Findings [mean scores based on 4 pt.



Actions planned

Comments

Comp. D: Foster communication between health care providers and consumers.

1. Interpret the significance and implications of health care providers' messages to consumers.

2. Act as liaison between consumer groups and individuals and health care provider organizations.

4663 Human Diseases





SA* Mean=2.67, (se***=0.30)

IA** =3.57, (se***=0.14)

SA (3.04, down)

IA (3.25, up)




*SA= Intern Supervisor Quantitative Assessment **IA= Intern (student) Quantitative Self-Assessment ***se= Standard Error of the Mean

See attached survey for specific instruments items corresponding to Responsibility Areas and using the following scale:

1 no ability - Low end of Likert 2 minimal ability 3 adequate ability 4 high level of ability – High end of Likert 0 I am unable to assess my ability at this time Means and Standard Errors of the Mean were color coded for easy identification of substandard (red, <2.5), acceptable (blue, 2.5-3.5), and strength (green, >3.5) areas The Supervisor and Student surveys are identical. See attached SOA Plan BA for methods.

- 13 -

01234

4 point Likert scale (1=no ability 4=high

ability)

I II III IV V VI VII

NCHEC Responsibility Areas

Supervisor/Student SOA 2012-2013

Supervisor, SA (n=27)Student, IA (n=28)

SOA Discussion: The current report contains mixed findings. While overall the Supervisor’s evaluations of student performance across the seven NCHEC responsibility levels has increased, which is good news from an outcomes perspective, our students own post-internship self-perceptions have continued to increase also and significantly outpace the evaluations of their internship supervisors. The only category wherein which student self-evaluation and supervisor evaluation match overall is category III, Implementing Health Education Programs. So again, overall program goals continue to be met. But it is worthwhile to discuss the areas where supervisor ratings have decreased on either the supervisor’s part (the majority of decreases) or the students (rare). These include responsibility areas: I A; II B, C, D; IV A, C, D; V B, C; VI B; VII D. Also as these are reviewed one should keep in mind that the shifts are fractions of a point due to averaging and may not be very meaningful from a practical perspective. However, some shifts do standout such as items dealing with student perceived ability to foster collaboration of many constituencies during the internship experience and student ability to evaluate program effectiveness. It could be that the synthesized approach to the planning, implementing, and evaluation sequence will help to ameliorate this as time goes on and the curriculum impacts are felt in the internship experience. Finally, the samples are much smaller than the previous yeas report as they were aggregated over the preceding 3-4 year period and thus standard error of the mean is higher overall for the smaller sample sizes.

- 14 -

Graduate Student Outcomes Assessment Summary 2013/2014

School of HPELS/Division of Health Promotion and Education

Based on the Seven Responsibility Areas and Advanced Level-1 CUPSub competencies

Required for Accreditation

Through NCHEC

RESPONSIBILITY AREA I: Areas of Knowledge Basic to Public Health Responsibilities Framework How are


Assessments used

Findings, % of sample grades

A to B-

Actions taken

Actions planned

Comments


a) identifying and engaging stakeholders to participate in assessment

b) identify, gather, and analyze data relevant to needs assessment

c) synthesize and report needs assessment findings

6393 Epidemiology

5180 Statistical Methods in

Education

6290 Research Methods for HPELS

6205 Educational Research

1. Course-specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3.Comprehensive examination 4. Independent research effort

6393 Epidemiology,

89%

*5180 Statistical Methods in Education

*6290 Research

Methods for HPELS

*6205 Educational Research

Grade

distributions analyzed

Success in completing

degree

Calculated graduation rate 2013-2014, (6

graduates in report period

67% in 2 years, 1 took 3

years, and 1 returned after

8 years)

Implement new G-SOA approach

Interdepartmental courses

cannot be accurately reflected in analysis.



All students

must pass with B or better graduate courses

All students must defend independent

research effort; calculated

graduation rate poses

challenges in regard to data cut-off points.


a) use assessment data to develop goals and plan attainable and measurable objectives

b) organize and develop services delivery according to a logical timeline

6393 Epidemiology



6393 Epidemiology,

89%

5376 Planning Health Promotion Programs,

50% (henceforth combined with

evaluation)

Grade


Discuss

planning class distribution with faculty

All students


All students must pass

comprehensive examination


research effort

Responsibilities Framework How are knowledge/skills

obtained?

Assessments used


A to B-

Actions taken

Actions planned

Comments


a) Institute the training of individuals satisfactory to assure successful implementation of health education programs to include the recognition of training needs, the development of training objectives and the evaluation of training programs used in future efforts

5665 Environmental Health

Science



5665 Environmental Health Science, 98%

5256 Implementing Health Promotion Programs, 85%

(henceforth combined with advocacy)

Grade






8 years)

All students





research effort; calculated

graduation rate poses

challenges in regard to data cut-off points.

4. Evaluate and research the effectiveness of health education programs

a) Develop logic models for evaluation purposes and to guide data collection.

b) Develop data collection instruments, collect, analyze, and synthesize evaluation data


a) Exhibit the skills necessary to advocate for and obtain funding through grants and other means for the provision of health education services

b) Manage budgets and allocate resources adequate to deliver health education services

c) Exhibit managerial skills appropriate to the successful delivery of services including conflict resolution strategies and team building skills

d) Identify and solicit support from potential

*5930 Training: Design and

Delivery

5431 Worksite Health Promotion

5666 Environmental and

Occupational Health Regulations

6390 Philosophy and Ethics

5378 Health Advocacy Social Action and Policy

Development

1. Course-specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3.Comprehensive examination 4. Independent research effort 1. Course-specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3.Comprehensive examination 4. Independent research effort

5431 Worksite Health Promotion, 80%

5666 Environmental and Occupational

Health Regulations, 50%

6390 Philosophy and Ethics, (not offered Fall 2012/Spring

2013)


Development, 85% (henceforth combined

with implementing)

Grade


Grade distributions

analyzed

Training:

Design and Delivery

cannot be accurately reflected in analysis.


All students





research effort

All students must pass with

B or better graduate courses





obtained?

Assessments used


A to B-

Actions taken

Actions planned

Comments

project partners outside of the agency or organization of primary employment

research effort


a) Understand and apply learning theory to the development of and delivery of training programs for health educators

b) Provide expert assistance to external c) Evaluate the effectiveness of both

internal training programs and expert assistance


a) Identify advocacy needs and serve as a leader for advocacy efforts

b) Provide information that will aid in health policy development

c) Evaluate the effectiveness of advocacy efforts


6220 Determinants of Health


Development


6390 Philosophy and Ethics, (not offered Fall 2012/Spring

2013)

6220 Determinants of Health, (not offered in

Fall 2012/Spring 2013)


Development, 85% (henceforth combined

with implementing)

Grade distributions

analyzed





8 years)


All students must pass with

B or better graduate courses




research effort

RESPONSIBILITY AREA II: Basic Community Health Education Concepts and Knowledge Responsibilities Framework How are


Assessments used Finding,% of sample grades A

to B-s,

Actions taken




b) identify, gather, and analyze data relevant to needs assessment




b) organize and develop services delivery according to a logical timeline


6220 Determinants of

Health


5378 Health Advocacy

Social Action and Policy Development



6390 Philosophy and

Ethics, (not offered Fall 2012/Spring 2013)

6220 Determinants of Health, (not offered in Fall 2012/Spring 2013)

5431 Worksite Health

Promotion, 80%

5378 Health Advocacy Social Action and

Policy Development, 85% (henceforth combined with implementing)



evaluation)

Grade


Calculated graduation rate 2013-2014, (6 graduates in report period

67% in 2 years, 1 took 3 years,

and 1 returned after 8 years)

Grade



All students must

pass with B or better graduate

courses



All students must

defend independent research effort


a) Institute the training of individuals satisfactory to assure successful implementation of health education programs to include the recognition of training needs, the development of training objectives and the evaluation of training programs used in future effort


6220 Determinants of

Health



Social Action and Policy Development




6220 Determinants of Health, (not offered in Fall 2012/Spring 2013)


Promotion, 80%

5378 Health Advocacy Social Action and

Policy Development, 85% (henceforth combined with implementing)

Calculated graduation rate 2013-2014, (6 graduates in report period



Grade distributions

analyzed


4. Evaluate and research the effectiveness of health 5376 Planning Health



obtained?


to B-s,

Actions taken


education programs a) Develop logic models for evaluation

purposes and to guide data collection. b) Develop data collection instruments, collect,

analyze, and synthesize evaluation data 5. Administer and manage the provision of health education services

a) Exhibit the skills necessary to advocate for and obtain funding through grants and other means for the provision of health education services

b) Manage budgets and allocate resources adequate to deliver health education services

c) Exhibit managerial skills appropriate to the successful delivery of services including conflict resolution strategies and team building skills

D) Identify and solicit support from potential project partners outside of the agency or organization of primary employment

Promotion Programs (#1 &4)

5256 Implementing Health

Promotion Programs



Development



evaluation)



5431 Worksite Health Promotion, 80%


Social Action and Policy Development,

85% (henceforth combined with implementing)



evaluation)



b) Provide expert assistance to external c) Evaluate the effectiveness of both internal

training programs and expert assistance


(#1 &4)


5485 Health Promotion

Evaluation





Evaluation, 50% (henceforth combined

with planning)

Calculated

graduation rate 2013-2014, (6 graduates in report period



Grade



All students must pass with B or better graduate

courses



All students must

defend independent research effort



b) Provide information that will aid in health policy development

c) Evaluate the effectiveness of advocacy

*5930 Training: Design and Delivery


Promotion

5666 Environmental and Occupational Health

1. Course-specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3.Comprehensive examination

5930 Training: Design and Delivery


Promotion, 80%

5666 Environmental and Occupational

Training: Design and Delivery cannot be

accurately reflected in analysis.



obtained?


to B-s,

Actions taken


efforts

Regulations



Development

4. Independent research effort

Health Regulations, 50%

6390 Philosophy and

Ethics, (not offered Fall 2012/Spring 2013)


Social Action and Policy Development,

85% (henceforth combined with implementing)

Discuss classes at

extremes of distribution with

faculty

RESPONSIBILITY AREA III: Research Responsibilities Framework How are


Assessments used

Findings,% of sample grades

A to B-s,

Actions taken Actions planned

Comments



b) identify, gather, and analyze data relevant

to needs assessment




b) organize and develop services delivery

according to a logical timeline 3. Implement health education programs

a) Institute the training of individuals satisfactory to assure successful implementation of health education programs to include the recognition of training needs, the development of training objectives and the evaluation of

6393 Epidemiology

5180 Statistical Methods in Education

6290 Research Methods for

HPELS

6205 Educational Research 6299 HP Research


(#1 &4)


1. Course-specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3.Comprehensive examination 4. Independent research effort 5. Successful completion of thesis or research paper

6393 Epidemiology,

89%


*6290 Research

Methods for HPELS

*6205 Educational Research

5376 Planning Health Promotion Programs, 50%

(henceforth combined with

evaluation)


(henceforth combined with

Grade distributions

analyzed


graduates in report period 67% in 2 years, 1 took 3

years, and 1 returned after 8

years)


Discuss classes at extremes of

distribution with faculty


with B or better graduate courses

All students must pass comprehensive

examination


research effort

Interdepartmental courses cannot be

accurately reflected in analysis. Discuss alternative G-SOA

approach

training programs used in future effort 4. Evaluate and research the effectiveness of health education programs

a) Develop logic models for evaluation purposes and to guide data collection.

b) Develop data collection instruments, collect, analyze, and synthesize evaluation data


advocacy)


Evaluation, 77%


a) Exhibit the skills necessary to advocate b) for and obtain funding through grants and

other means for the provision of health education services

c) Manage budgets and allocate resources adequate to deliver health education services

d) Exhibit managerial skills appropriate to the successful delivery of services including conflict resolution strategies and team building skills

e) Identify and solicit support from potential project partners outside of the agency or organization of primary employment



b) Provide expert assistance to external c) Evaluate the effectiveness of both internal

training programs and expert assistance 7. Communicate and advocate for health education needs, concerns and resources


b) Provide information that will aid in health

6299 HP Research

6393 Epidemiology


5665 Environmental Health Science


1.Comprehensive examination 2. Independent research effort 3. Successful completion of thesis or research paper 1. Course-specific evaluations 2. Course specific grades 3.Comprehensive examination 4. Independent research effort

6393 Epidemiology, 89%


5665 Environmental Health Science,

98%

5431 Worksite

Grade distributions

analyzed


graduates in report period 67% in 2 years, 1 took 3

years, and 1 returned after 8

years)

Grade distributions analyzed



All students must pass with B or better

graduate courses

All students must pass comprehensive

examination


research effort

Interdepartmental courses cannot be

accurately reflected in analysis. Discuss alternative G-SOA

approach

policy development c) Evaluate the effectiveness of advocacy

efforts

Promotion

Health Promotion, 80%

*Grade distributions in non-departmental and inter-departmental classes not calculated due to mixed student population. This year it was possible to obtain only upper level data in the case of graduate/upper-level undergraduate courses. A new approach to Graduate level SOA has been developed and implemented but data from the before/after self-report survey will not be available for several semesters (at least one year, possibly two depending on completion rates).

Summary: The graduation rate in the program was roughly calculated at 67% success over a 2 year period, and that lends confidence to the information provided by the grade distributions, which illustrated that on average the percentage of A to B- grades in graduate level courses ranged from 98%-50% depending on the course. It should be kept in mind that this was a much truncated sample in comparison to last year’s report that spanned the prior three year versus one year period. The implementation of a hybrid skills evaluation and self-assesment instrument tied to the N-CHECH CUP competencies has occurred data from this could take up to two years to compile initially. For that reason it is suggested that henceforth, detailed reports only be filed every three years in order to meaningfully evaluate trends in the data.

Annual Assessment Activities Report – Literacy Education MAE 2012-2013 1

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT For 2012--2013

Name of College:

Education


Curriculum & Instruction

Program:

Literacy Education MAE



Program Learning Goals: See below


Deborah Tidwell/Sarah Vander Zanden ([email protected])

Date submitted:

November 1 2013

Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, page 1 of 17


The following information provides the Literacy Education program learning goals for the graduate program, focusing on the Master’s of Arts in Education program of study. These goals are an outgrowth of the collaboration across master’s focus areas within the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and reflect the standards for the literacy field as determined by the International Reading Association in conjunction with the National Council of Teachers of English. APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE: Developing a growing body of understandings that informs professional decisions. Standard 2: Curriculum and Instruction - Candidates use instructional approaches, and an integrated, comprehensive, balanced

curriculum to support student learning to reading and writing.

2.1 Candidates use foundational knowledge to design or implement an integrated, comprehensive, and balanced curriculum. 2.2 Candidates use appropriate and varied instructional approaches, including those that develop word recognition, language

comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading–writing connections. 2.3 Candidates use a wide range of texts (e.g., narrative, expository, and poetry) from traditional print, digital, and online resources.

Standard 3: Assessment and Evaluation - The candidates use a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan and evaluate effective

reading and writing instruction.

3.1 Candidates understand types of assessments and their purposes, strengths, and limitations. 3.2 Candidates select, develop, administer, and interpret assessments, both traditional print and electronic, for specific purposes. 3.3 Candidates use assessment information to plan and evaluate instruction. 3.4 Candidates communicate assessment results and implications to a variety of audiences.



UNDERSTANDING THEORY AND PRACTICE: Connecting foundational theoretical understandings with practice. Standard 1: Foundational Knowledge - The candidates understand the theoretical and evidence-based foundations of reading and writing

processes and instruction.

1.1 Candidates understand major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing development, processes, and components, including word recognition, language comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading–writing connections..

1.2 Candidates understand the historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in the perceptions of reading and writing

development, processes, and components.

1.3 Candidates understand the role of professional judgment and practical knowledge for improving all students’ reading development and achievement.

Standard 4: Diversity - The candidates create and engage their students in literacy practices that develop awareness, understanding,

respect and a valuing of differences in our society.

4.1 Candidates recognize, understand, and value the forms of diversity that exist in society and their importance in learning to read and write.

4.2 Candidates use a literacy curriculum and engage in instructional practices that positively impact students’ knowledge, beliefs, and engagement with the features of diversity.

4.3 Candidates develop and implement strategies to advocate for equity.



LEADERSHIP: Demonstrating the ability to apply effective practices and to articulate the meaning of such practices across diverse audiences for unique and specific purposes. Standard 6: Professional Learning and Leadership – Candidates recognize the importance of, demonstrate, and facilitate professional

learning and leadership as a career-long effort and responsibility. 6.1 Candidates demonstrate foundational knowledge of adult learning theories and related research about organizational change,

professional development, and school culture. 6.2 Candidates display positive dispositions related to their own reading and writing and the teaching of reading and writing, and

pursue the development of individual professional knowledge and behaviors. 6.3 Candidates participate in, design, facilitate, lead, and evaluate effective and differentiated professional development programs. 6.4 Candidates understand and influence local, state, or national policy decisions.

SCHOLARSHIP: Applying the scholarly methods and disciplines that demonstrate knowledge of the field. Standard 5: Literate Environment - Candidates create a literate environment that fosters reading and writing by integrating foundational

knowledge, use of instructional practices, approaches and methods, curriculum materials, and the appropriate use of assessments.

5.1 Candidates design the physical environment to optimize students’ use of traditional print, digital, and online resources in reading

and writing instruction.

5.2 Candidates design a social environment that is low risk and includes choice, motivation, and scaffolded support to optimize students’ opportunities for learning to read and write.

5.3 Candidates use routines to support reading and writing instruction (e.g., time allocation, transitions from one activity to another,

discussions, and peer feedback). 5.4 Candidates use a variety of classroom configurations (i.e., whole class, small group, and individual) to differentiate instruction.



Assessment Measurement Conducted During the Current Year

Student Learning Outcome Assessed

Assessment Procedures (include methods used, when and where

implemented, number assesses, person responsibility, etc.)

Summary of Findings (tables, graphs, etc., may be attached in

appendices or retained at the department/program level)


APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE: Developing a growing body of understanding that informs professional decisions.

Methods Used: Following the updated program assessment procedures (see attached) each indicator is evaluated as a single group. The indicator is assessed across the four program goals using the specific IRA standards as objectives within these goals. The indicators examined by the faculty from the Fall 2011 and Spring 2012 semesters are assessed as demonstrating Strong Evidence, Some Evidence, or Little Evidence for the criteria listed. When Assessed: Cohorts are assessed using the updated plan for assessment that includes two indicators analyzed each fall with a final indicator analyzed during the fall of the final year of the cohort’s program of study. The current Cohort 5 has been assessed this Fall 2012 for two indicators from semesters 4 (Fall 2011) and 5 (Spring 2012) in the program of study. The order of the indicators has been modified to reflect the change in semester order in which those indicators were offered, with LITED 6245 offered in Fall 2011 and LITED 6238 offered in Spring 2012. Person Responsible: Division Coordinator (Deborah Tidwell)

This report for 2011-2012 incorporates the critical performances from the second year of the three-year program review plan as described in the Higher Learning Commission Report (see Appendix A for information on the artifacts for critical performance to be reviewed through this process). Fall 2011 and Spring 2012 the following indicators were used: Cohort 5: This is the second year of Cohort #5. Two indicators were gathered in Fall 2011 and Spring 2012. Indicator 1 involved a critical performance from LITED 6245 Ideological, Cultural, and Socio Political Issues in Children’s Literature, represented in the Key Issues paper (See Appendix B for summary information on the two analyses of students’ projects). LITED 6245 is the fifth course in the program of study offered in the fall of 2011. General Reflections: 1. Overall, the Key Issues paper allows students

to pursue their individual goals within the context of multicultural literacy and issues of diversity.

2. Taken as a whole, the key issues papers display strong depth within the context of multicultural literature, and some breadth as several students focused on the specific dynamics of engaging students with multicultural literature and embedding such

Assessment information is shared across faculty within the Literacy Education program, and is reported to the department office.

UNDERSTANDING THEORY AND PRACTICE: Connecting foundational theoretical understandings with practice. LEADERSHIP: Demonstrating the ability to apply effective practices and to articulate the meaning of such practices across diverse audiences for unique and specific purposes. SCHOLARSHIP: Applying the scholarly methods and disciplines that demonstrate knowledge of the field.



literature within the curriculum. 3. Cited research reflected a breadth of literature,

including theoretical, research, and practice-oriented.

4. 80% of the papers reviewed provided more than one point of view on a specific topic, using the dichotomy within the literature to develop an argument for or against a particular point of view

5. Overall, the course gives students an in depth understanding of the complex issues within children’s literature through a critical analysis of multicultural representation, examining diverse ideologies, cultures, and sociopolitical contexts. The course provides students with experiences in critical analysis of both professional and children’s literatures addressing literacy instruction through the lens of a multicultural perspective, through which the intended goal of the course is realized.

Indicator 2 involved a critical performance from LITED 6238. Advanced Assessment and Evaluation of Literacy Development. This was the 6th course in the program of study, offered during the spring of 2012. Students’ Reports of Assessment and Instruction included summary writing of literacy assessments in reading, writing, interests, attitude toward literacy, and phonics, and summary writing of instructional strategies chosen in response to results from assessment. Assessment of the reports was conducted using a rubric with the following indicators: Format and Organization of Data, Clarity of Summary Writing, Understanding of Assessment Purposes, Interpretation of Assessment Results, and Assessment Data Connected to Instructional Choices. Scores for each indicator potentially could range from 1 to 3, representing little, some, or



strong evidence for each indicator. Results of this analysis reveal that 100% of the students developed reports with clear organization of data that helped audiences understand the assessments administered. The following percentages represent Strong Evidence of Performance. 70% of students were able to create clear summary writing that was cohesive and represented the data in a clear and thoughtful manner. 80% of the students were able to clearly present an understanding of the purposes of the assessment used through their summary writing. 90% of the students demonstrated a clear understanding of how to interpret the assessment data correctly. 70% of the students were able to clearly relate the assessment data to instructional choices that reflected the needs of the student. The remaining percentages in each of the above indicators discussed represented students demonstrating some evidence within each indicator. Across all five indicators, there were no students who fell within the little to no evidence of the indicator represented. Appendix D provides an overview of the critical performances related to the Program Goals and Outcomes.

Next Steps: Continue the analysis of critical indicators for year three (Research LITED 6299).


Focus for Follow-up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps Recommended Program Changes: 1. Increase diverse viewpoints experience.

1. LITED 6245 provided experience in working

with diverse view points and critical analysis



of view points Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes: 1. Order of critical indicators reversed for LITED 6245

offered in fall instead of spring, LITED 6238 offered in spring instead of fall

1. The original assessment plans were followed, within

the revised timeline

1. The change of the course offering reflected the

phased retirement of faculty with expertise in multicultural children’s literature. Program need for additional faculty lines as faculty retire will need to be addressed as reorganization of course timelines will not facilitate the long-term needs of the program due to loss of faculty to full retirement.

SOA Plan Revisions 1. None at this time.

1. Not Applicable

Additional Comments: (e.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) At this time in the program review, the third year indicators combined with the information gained from the first and second year indicators suggest that students are demonstrating high achievement in Goal 1 Application of Knowledge, Goal 2 Understanding Theory and Practice, and Goal 4 Scholarship. This year’s indicators showed an increase in high performance in Diversity. However, the four critical performances addressed the three-year program review process does not address all areas of Competency 3 addressing leadership. Analysis of critical indicators for year three confirms insights into student performance in this area raised in the previous annual review. Analysis from year three indicates a need for revision of our SOA to better address indicators that represent the leadership aspects of our graduate program.



Appendix A Critical Performances

CRITICAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM SEMESTER ASSOCIATED COURSE

Critical Performance 1: Exploration Project [this critical performance revised from the original Critical Performance Discussion Board Responses]

FIRST LITED 6212 Methods and Materials in Literacy Education

Critical Performance 2: Professional Development Workshop OR Stump Speech

THIRD LITED 6240 Language Development and Variability

Critical Performance 4: Key Issues Paper FOURTH LITED 6245 Ideological, Cultural, and Sociopolitical Issues in Children’s Literature

Critical Performance 3: Summary Report of Assessment & Instruction

FIFTH LITED 6238 Advanced Assessment & Evaluation of Literacy Development

Critical Performance 5: Research Paper END OF PROGRAM LITED 6299 Research


http://www.uni.edu/icss/maeeled/cp2-plan243.html

http://www.uni.edu/icss/maeeled/cp4-research299.html


APPENDIX B

Summary of Analysis of Critical Performance for LITED 6245

Key Issues Paper The Key Issues paper was selected as representative of both specific content and summary knowledge of students enrolled in the Literacy Education master’s program. Process: Randomly selected 5 key issues papers for review Examined Key Issues in four ways:

• Content focus • Context for practice • Comments • Outcomes addressed

Summary of 5 Key Issues Papers Reviewed for Critical Performance

Student Key Issue Focus Context Comments/Reflections Lit Ed MAE Outcomes & IRA

Standards Addressed Student 1

Teaching about race to young learners through multicultural literature

Early literacy within a racially diverse classroom

Literature review provides critical analysis of differing viewpoints within the literature Impact of children’s beliefs about the world highlighted Connections from literature to classroom practices Focus on early literacy impact using multicultural literature Controversy of race instruction within an early literacy classroom Used a range of types of professional literature (reviews, practice-oriented, research, theoretical)

IRA 1.1, 2.1, 2.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.2 STRONG EVIDENCE

Student 2

Portrayal of individuals with disabilities in multicultural children’s literature

Secondary (high school) English within an alternative high school setting

Student chose multicultural topic of disability which was not addressed in course – went beyond course content for key issues Connected course criteria for evaluating literature

IRA 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.2 STRONG EVIDENCE



Rich literature review on the analysis of characters with disabilities within children’s & adolescent literature Effective use of varied views from the literature involving critical analysis Used a range of types of professional literature (reviews, practice-oriented, research, theoretical)

Student 3

Using multicultural literature in the classroom: Impact on students’ learning

General education classroom at the elementary school level

Review of literature provides descriptions of key issues in using multicultural literature in the classroom Critical analysis of different viewpoints not present in the literature review Provided clear classroom application of multicultural literature in literacy instruction Used a range of types of professional literature (reviews, practice-oriented, research, theoretical)

IRA 1.1, 2.1., 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.2, 5.3, 6.2 SOME EVIDENCE

Student 4

Empowering students to take action through the use of multicultural literature

K-12 overview – teachers across grade levels using social action focus in their instruction (no specific grade level presented)

Social action focus is clearly presented in the literature review Effective use of varied views within the literature Connected course criteria for critical analysis to the issues within social justice in the community Used a range of types of professional literature (reviews, practice-oriented, research, theoretical)

IRA 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.2, 5.3, 6.2 STRONG EVIDENCE

Student 5

Incorporating books about race and racism in the classroom

General Education classroom at the elementary intermediate grades level

Focus on racism as a multicultural topic is critical analyzed within the literature Effective use of varied views within the literature Instructional design through literature choices Belief change within self as teacher addressed through literature review Used a range of types of professional literature (reviews, practice-oriented, research, theoretical)

IRA 1.1, 1.3, 2.1., 2.2, 2.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.2 STRONG EVIDENCE



General Reflections: • Overall, the key issues paper allows students to pursue their individual goals. • Taken as a whole, the key issues papers display strong depth within critical analysis of multicultural children’s literature across field of literacy education, but less breadth

across diverse topics within multicultural literature. • Cited research and reflections included theoretical articles, research reports, and practice-oriented articles • Key Issues papers for the most part addressed diverse points of view and provided critical analysis of these points of view • Overall, the course gives students an in depth understanding of the complex issues within children’s literature through a critical analysis of multicultural representation,

examining diverse ideologies, cultures, and sociopolitical contexts. The course provides students with experiences in critical analysis of both professional and children’s literatures addressing literacy instruction through the lens of a multicultural perspective, through which the intended goal of the course is realized.

Summary Comments • Range of topics supports choice in scholarly pursuits • Conformation toward APA format/reference choices reflects area for growth in that regard • Course content seems directed addressed in students’ papers and shows a depth of understanding of the complexity of multicultural issues within children’s literature • Alternative viewpoints or controversies embedded in all papers with clear use of critical analysis of points of view to argue a rationale for a particular point of view, clearly

presented with 4 of 5 papers. • Leadership somewhat addressed in the manner in which Key Issues papers addressed ways in which to make a difference in the educational community through the

embedding of multicultural instruction as a social justice issue for all learners, as represented at varying degrees within the five target papers.



APPENDIX C Summary of Analysis of Critical Performance for LITED 6238

Summary Report of Assessment & Instruction Ten reports out of fourteen were analyzed for this critical performance. Examined Summary Reports in five ways:

• Format and Organization of Data • Clear Summary Writing • Understanding of Assessment Purposes • Interpretation of Assessment Results • Assessment Data Connected to Instructional Choices

LITED 6238 Assessment and Evaluation of Literacy Development is a graduate course in the Literacy Education master’s program and also offered as an endorsement requirement course for graduate students in a non-degree program of study toward a Literacy K-8 or Literacy 5-12 endorsement. This spring 2012 course was taught both on campus through an ICN classroom and at a distance through ICN sites across the state. There were 14 graduate students enrolled in the course. Ten of the students were randomly chosen for analysis of their summary reports as a critical indicator for this course. This was the 6th course in the program of the graduate student cohort. Students over the semester had engaged in one-to-one field tutoring experiences with a child, applying specific assessments studied in the course to these field tutoring experiences, and summarizing data information to make instructional decisions regarding literacy strategies that would meet the instructional needs of the child. These tutoring experiences culminated in a summary report of assessments and instruction. Assessment of the Summary Report of Assessments and Instruction was conducted using a rubric with the following indicators: Clear Summary Writing, Understanding of Assessment Purposes, Interpretation of Assessment Results, and Assessment Data Connected to Instructional Choices. Scores for each indicator potentially could be scored as 3 (strong evidence), 2 (some evidence) and 1 (little to no evidence). Summary Comments:

• Clear evidence this course provides students with overall strong understanding of the purposes for assessment, interpreting assessment results, and connecting assessment results to instructional choices.

• Evidence of leadership in assessment not clear – may need to have additional information gathered to address the leadership aspect of assessment choices and instructional planning.

• Being able to select and develop assessments and evaluation of those assessments was not applicable in this course, students were only provided opportunities to administer and interpret data.

Criteria 1 - Little to No Evidence 2 - Some Evidence 3 - Strong Evidence Format & Organization of data 10 students Clarity of Summary Writing 3 students 7 students Understanding of Assessment Purposes 2 students 8 students Interpretation of Assessment Results 1 student 9 students Assessment Data Connected to Instructional Choices 3 students 7 students



Appendix D Summary of Analysis of Critical Performance for LITED 6299 Research

Summary Report of Assessment & Instruction Of the fourteen students in the cohort eight students have completed their requirements. 7 completed research papers 1 completed thesis. Six students in the cohort are continuing to work on the research component. 2 theses in progress 4 papers in progress A sample of 8 completed research papers or theses were analyzed for this critical performance. Scholarship: Applying the scholarly methods and disciplines that demonstrate knowledge of the field.

Criteria 1-Little to No evidence 2- Some Evidence 3-Strong Evidence

Understanding of Theory and Practice Content knowledge 1 7 Diversity addressed relevant to topic 2 6 Leadership Demonstrates professional development design or potential to disseminate information 3 5 Demonstrates understanding of and/or potentially influences local, state, or national policy 1 4 3 Scholarship Demonstrates competency in academic genre (style/format) 1 7 Contributes new knowledge or examines existing research from new perspectives or in new context

2 6

LITED 6299 Research is the culminating student research paper or thesis in the program. Students have the choice to write either a research paper or research thesis. The focus of the research area develops from individual interests as the student progresses through the program of study. LITED 6299 Research is conducted throughout the student’s program of study and typically is completed during the final three semesters of the program. An advisor and second reader for the paper guide students. A thesis committee guides students who write a thesis. The collaborative review of student work is phase one in our performance assessment; students may only complete a paper or thesis with approval of at least two graduate faculty members and the department chair. Additionally, research papers and theses must meet the graduate college’s requirements. The criteria above are used to determine potential areas to develop course work to support improved student outcomes. Summary Comments:

• Student papers demonstrated strong evidence of understanding theory and practice. • Student papers demonstrated strong evidence of academic competency, new contributions or new perspectives in the field, • Student showed some evidence in leadership, with approximately half of the artifacts demonstrating strong evidence of potential to design professional develop

or impact policy.



APPENDIX E Student Outcomes & Professional Competencies Rubric

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES BASED UPON

International Reading Association Standards of the Reading Professional

Strong Evidence of High Student Achievement

Some Evidence of

Student Achievement

Little Evidence of

Student Achievement

Professional Competency One APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE: Developing a growing body of understanding that informs professional decisions. Curriculum and Instruction - Candidates use instructional approaches, and an integrated, comprehensive, balanced curriculum to support student learning to reading and writing.

2.1 Candidates use foundational knowledge to design or implement an integrated, comprehensive, and balanced curriculum.

2.2 Candidates use appropriate and varied instructional approaches, including those that develop word recognition,

language comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading–writing connections. 2.3 Candidates use a wide range of texts (e.g., narrative, expository, and poetry) from traditional print, digital, and online

resources. Assessment and Evaluation - The candidates use a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan and evaluate effective reading and writing instruction.

3.1 Candidates understand types of assessments and their purposes, strengths, and limitations. 3.2 Candidates select, develop, administer, and interpret assessments, both traditional print and electronic, for specific

purposes. 3.3 Candidates use assessment information to plan and evaluate instruction. 3.4 Candidates communicate assessment results and implications to a variety of audiences.

2.1

2.2

2.3

3.1

3.3

3.4

3.2

Professional Competency Two UNDERSTANDING THEORY AND PRACTICE: Connecting foundational theoretical understandings with practice.




Foundational Knowledge - The candidates understand the theoretical and evidence-based foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction.

1.1 Candidates understand major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing development, processes, and components, including word recognition, language comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading–writing connections.

1.2 Candidates understand the historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in the perceptions of

reading and writing development, processes, and components.


Diversity - The candidates create and engage their students in literacy practices that develop awareness, understanding, respect and a valuing of differences in our society.




1.1

1.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

1.2

Professional Competency Three LEADERSHIP: Demonstrating the ability to apply effective practices and to articulate the meaning of such practices across diverse audiences for unique and specific purposes. Professional Learning and Leadership: Candidates recognize the importance of, demonstrate, and facilitate professional learning and leadership as a career-long effort and responsibility.

6.1 Candidates demonstrate foundational knowledge of adult learning theories and related research about organizational change, professional development, and school culture.

6.2 Candidates display positive dispositions related to their own reading and writing and the teaching of reading and writing,

and pursue the development of individual professional knowledge and behaviors. 6.3 Candidates participate in, design, facilitate, lead, and evaluate effective and differentiated professional development

programs. 6.4 Candidates understand and influence local, state, or national policy decisions.

6.2

6.4



Professional Competency Four SCHOLARSHIP: Applying the scholarly methods and disciplines that demonstrate knowledge of the field. Literate Environment - Candidates create a literate environment that fosters reading and writing by integrating foundational knowledge, use of instructional practices, approaches and methods, curriculum materials, and the appropriate use of assessments.

5.1 Candidates design the physical environment to optimize students’ use of traditional print, digital, and online resources in reading and writing instruction.

5.2 Candidates design a social environment that is low risk and includes choice, motivation, and scaffolded support to

optimize students’ opportunities for learning to read and write. 5.3 Candidates use routines to support reading and writing instruction (e.g., time allocation, transitions from one activity to

another, discussions, and peer feedback). 5.4 Candidates use a variety of classroom configurations (i.e., whole class, small group, and individual) to differentiate

instruction.

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4



ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT For 2012--2013

Name of College:

Education



Program:

Literacy Education MAE



Program Learning Goals: See below


Deborah Tidwell/Sarah Vander Zanden ([email protected])

Date submitted:

November 1 2013



The following information provides the Literacy Education program learning goals for the graduate program, focusing on the Master’s of Arts in Education program of study. These goals are an outgrowth of the collaboration across master’s focus areas within the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and reflect the standards for the literacy field as determined by the International Reading Association in conjunction with the National Council of Teachers of English. APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE: Developing a growing body of understandings that informs professional decisions. Standard 2: Curriculum and Instruction - Candidates use instructional approaches, and an integrated, comprehensive, balanced

curriculum to support student learning to reading and writing.

2.1 Candidates use foundational knowledge to design or implement an integrated, comprehensive, and balanced curriculum. 2.2 Candidates use appropriate and varied instructional approaches, including those that develop word recognition, language

comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading–writing connections. 2.3 Candidates use a wide range of texts (e.g., narrative, expository, and poetry) from traditional print, digital, and online resources.

Standard 3: Assessment and Evaluation - The candidates use a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan and evaluate effective

reading and writing instruction.

3.1 Candidates understand types of assessments and their purposes, strengths, and limitations. 3.2 Candidates select, develop, administer, and interpret assessments, both traditional print and electronic, for specific purposes. 3.3 Candidates use assessment information to plan and evaluate instruction. 3.4 Candidates communicate assessment results and implications to a variety of audiences.



UNDERSTANDING THEORY AND PRACTICE: Connecting foundational theoretical understandings with practice. Standard 1: Foundational Knowledge - The candidates understand the theoretical and evidence-based foundations of reading and writing

processes and instruction.

1.1 Candidates understand major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing development, processes, and components, including word recognition, language comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading–writing connections..

1.2 Candidates understand the historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in the perceptions of reading and writing

development, processes, and components.


Standard 4: Diversity - The candidates create and engage their students in literacy practices that develop awareness, understanding,

respect and a valuing of differences in our society.






LEADERSHIP: Demonstrating the ability to apply effective practices and to articulate the meaning of such practices across diverse audiences for unique and specific purposes. Standard 6: Professional Learning and Leadership – Candidates recognize the importance of, demonstrate, and facilitate professional

learning and leadership as a career-long effort and responsibility. 6.1 Candidates demonstrate foundational knowledge of adult learning theories and related research about organizational change,

professional development, and school culture. 6.2 Candidates display positive dispositions related to their own reading and writing and the teaching of reading and writing, and

pursue the development of individual professional knowledge and behaviors. 6.3 Candidates participate in, design, facilitate, lead, and evaluate effective and differentiated professional development programs. 6.4 Candidates understand and influence local, state, or national policy decisions.

SCHOLARSHIP: Applying the scholarly methods and disciplines that demonstrate knowledge of the field. Standard 5: Literate Environment - Candidates create a literate environment that fosters reading and writing by integrating foundational

knowledge, use of instructional practices, approaches and methods, curriculum materials, and the appropriate use of assessments.

5.1 Candidates design the physical environment to optimize students’ use of traditional print, digital, and online resources in reading

and writing instruction.

5.2 Candidates design a social environment that is low risk and includes choice, motivation, and scaffolded support to optimize students’ opportunities for learning to read and write.

5.3 Candidates use routines to support reading and writing instruction (e.g., time allocation, transitions from one activity to another,

discussions, and peer feedback). 5.4 Candidates use a variety of classroom configurations (i.e., whole class, small group, and individual) to differentiate instruction.



Assessment Measurement Conducted During the Current Year

Student Learning Outcome Assessed

Assessment Procedures (include methods used, when and where

implemented, number assesses, person responsibility, etc.)

Summary of Findings (tables, graphs, etc., may be attached in

appendices or retained at the department/program level)


APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE: Developing a growing body of understanding that informs professional decisions.

Methods Used: Following the updated program assessment procedures (see attached) each indicator is evaluated as a single group. The indicator is assessed across the four program goals using the specific IRA standards as objectives within these goals. The indicators examined by the faculty from the Fall 2011 and Spring 2012 semesters are assessed as demonstrating Strong Evidence, Some Evidence, or Little Evidence for the criteria listed. When Assessed: Cohorts are assessed using the updated plan for assessment that includes two indicators analyzed each fall with a final indicator analyzed during the fall of the final year of the cohort’s program of study. The current Cohort 5 has been assessed this Fall 2012 for two indicators from semesters 4 (Fall 2011) and 5 (Spring 2012) in the program of study. The order of the indicators has been modified to reflect the change in semester order in which those indicators were offered, with LITED 6245 offered in Fall 2011 and LITED 6238 offered in Spring 2012. Person Responsible: Division Coordinator (Deborah Tidwell)

This report for 2011-2012 incorporates the critical performances from the second year of the three-year program review plan as described in the Higher Learning Commission Report (see Appendix A for information on the artifacts for critical performance to be reviewed through this process). Fall 2011 and Spring 2012 the following indicators were used: Cohort 5: This is the second year of Cohort #5. Two indicators were gathered in Fall 2011 and Spring 2012. Indicator 1 involved a critical performance from LITED 6245 Ideological, Cultural, and Socio Political Issues in Children’s Literature, represented in the Key Issues paper (See Appendix B for summary information on the two analyses of students’ projects). LITED 6245 is the fifth course in the program of study offered in the fall of 2011. General Reflections: 1. Overall, the Key Issues paper allows students

to pursue their individual goals within the context of multicultural literacy and issues of diversity.

2. Taken as a whole, the key issues papers display strong depth within the context of multicultural literature, and some breadth as several students focused on the specific dynamics of engaging students with multicultural literature and embedding such

Assessment information is shared across faculty within the Literacy Education program, and is reported to the department office.

UNDERSTANDING THEORY AND PRACTICE: Connecting foundational theoretical understandings with practice. LEADERSHIP: Demonstrating the ability to apply effective practices and to articulate the meaning of such practices across diverse audiences for unique and specific purposes. SCHOLARSHIP: Applying the scholarly methods and disciplines that demonstrate knowledge of the field.



literature within the curriculum. 3. Cited research reflected a breadth of literature,

including theoretical, research, and practice-oriented.

4. 80% of the papers reviewed provided more than one point of view on a specific topic, using the dichotomy within the literature to develop an argument for or against a particular point of view

5. Overall, the course gives students an in depth understanding of the complex issues within children’s literature through a critical analysis of multicultural representation, examining diverse ideologies, cultures, and sociopolitical contexts. The course provides students with experiences in critical analysis of both professional and children’s literatures addressing literacy instruction through the lens of a multicultural perspective, through which the intended goal of the course is realized.

Indicator 2 involved a critical performance from LITED 6238. Advanced Assessment and Evaluation of Literacy Development. This was the 6th course in the program of study, offered during the spring of 2012. Students’ Reports of Assessment and Instruction included summary writing of literacy assessments in reading, writing, interests, attitude toward literacy, and phonics, and summary writing of instructional strategies chosen in response to results from assessment. Assessment of the reports was conducted using a rubric with the following indicators: Format and Organization of Data, Clarity of Summary Writing, Understanding of Assessment Purposes, Interpretation of Assessment Results, and Assessment Data Connected to Instructional Choices. Scores for each indicator potentially could range from 1 to 3, representing little, some, or



strong evidence for each indicator. Results of this analysis reveal that 100% of the students developed reports with clear organization of data that helped audiences understand the assessments administered. The following percentages represent Strong Evidence of Performance. 70% of students were able to create clear summary writing that was cohesive and represented the data in a clear and thoughtful manner. 80% of the students were able to clearly present an understanding of the purposes of the assessment used through their summary writing. 90% of the students demonstrated a clear understanding of how to interpret the assessment data correctly. 70% of the students were able to clearly relate the assessment data to instructional choices that reflected the needs of the student. The remaining percentages in each of the above indicators discussed represented students demonstrating some evidence within each indicator. Across all five indicators, there were no students who fell within the little to no evidence of the indicator represented. Appendix D provides an overview of the critical performances related to the Program Goals and Outcomes.

Next Steps: Continue the analysis of critical indicators for year three (Research LITED 6299).


Focus for Follow-up Actions Taken Comments/Further Action Steps Recommended Program Changes: 1. Increase diverse viewpoints experience.

1. LITED 6245 provided experience in working

with diverse view points and critical analysis



of view points Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes: 1. Order of critical indicators reversed for LITED 6245

offered in fall instead of spring, LITED 6238 offered in spring instead of fall

1. The original assessment plans were followed, within

the revised timeline

1. The change of the course offering reflected the

phased retirement of faculty with expertise in multicultural children’s literature. Program need for additional faculty lines as faculty retire will need to be addressed as reorganization of course timelines will not facilitate the long-term needs of the program due to loss of faculty to full retirement.

SOA Plan Revisions 1. None at this time.

1. Not Applicable

Additional Comments: (e.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) At this time in the program review, the third year indicators combined with the information gained from the first and second year indicators suggest that students are demonstrating high achievement in Goal 1 Application of Knowledge, Goal 2 Understanding Theory and Practice, and Goal 4 Scholarship. This year’s indicators showed an increase in high performance in Diversity. However, the four critical performances addressed the three-year program review process does not address all areas of Competency 3 addressing leadership. Analysis of critical indicators for year three confirms insights into student performance in this area raised in the previous annual review. Analysis from year three indicates a need for revision of our SOA to better address indicators that represent the leadership aspects of our graduate program.



Appendix A Critical Performances

CRITICAL PERFORMANCE PROGRAM SEMESTER ASSOCIATED COURSE

Critical Performance 1: Exploration Project [this critical performance revised from the original Critical Performance Discussion Board Responses]

FIRST LITED 6212 Methods and Materials in Literacy Education

Critical Performance 2: Professional Development Workshop OR Stump Speech

THIRD LITED 6240 Language Development and Variability

Critical Performance 4: Key Issues Paper FOURTH LITED 6245 Ideological, Cultural, and Sociopolitical Issues in Children’s Literature

Critical Performance 3: Summary Report of Assessment & Instruction

FIFTH LITED 6238 Advanced Assessment & Evaluation of Literacy Development

Critical Performance 5: Research Paper END OF PROGRAM LITED 6299 Research


http://www.uni.edu/icss/maeeled/cp2-plan243.html

http://www.uni.edu/icss/maeeled/cp4-research299.html


APPENDIX B

Summary of Analysis of Critical Performance for LITED 6245

Key Issues Paper The Key Issues paper was selected as representative of both specific content and summary knowledge of students enrolled in the Literacy Education master’s program. Process: Randomly selected 5 key issues papers for review Examined Key Issues in four ways:

• Content focus • Context for practice • Comments • Outcomes addressed

Summary of 5 Key Issues Papers Reviewed for Critical Performance

Student Key Issue Focus Context Comments/Reflections Lit Ed MAE Outcomes & IRA

Standards Addressed Student 1

Teaching about race to young learners through multicultural literature

Early literacy within a racially diverse classroom

Literature review provides critical analysis of differing viewpoints within the literature Impact of children’s beliefs about the world highlighted Connections from literature to classroom practices Focus on early literacy impact using multicultural literature Controversy of race instruction within an early literacy classroom Used a range of types of professional literature (reviews, practice-oriented, research, theoretical)

IRA 1.1, 2.1, 2.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.2 STRONG EVIDENCE

Student 2

Portrayal of individuals with disabilities in multicultural children’s literature

Secondary (high school) English within an alternative high school setting

Student chose multicultural topic of disability which was not addressed in course – went beyond course content for key issues Connected course criteria for evaluating literature

IRA 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.2 STRONG EVIDENCE



Rich literature review on the analysis of characters with disabilities within children’s & adolescent literature Effective use of varied views from the literature involving critical analysis Used a range of types of professional literature (reviews, practice-oriented, research, theoretical)

Student 3

Using multicultural literature in the classroom: Impact on students’ learning

General education classroom at the elementary school level

Review of literature provides descriptions of key issues in using multicultural literature in the classroom Critical analysis of different viewpoints not present in the literature review Provided clear classroom application of multicultural literature in literacy instruction Used a range of types of professional literature (reviews, practice-oriented, research, theoretical)

IRA 1.1, 2.1., 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.2, 5.3, 6.2 SOME EVIDENCE

Student 4

Empowering students to take action through the use of multicultural literature

K-12 overview – teachers across grade levels using social action focus in their instruction (no specific grade level presented)

Social action focus is clearly presented in the literature review Effective use of varied views within the literature Connected course criteria for critical analysis to the issues within social justice in the community Used a range of types of professional literature (reviews, practice-oriented, research, theoretical)

IRA 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.2, 5.3, 6.2 STRONG EVIDENCE

Student 5

Incorporating books about race and racism in the classroom

General Education classroom at the elementary intermediate grades level

Focus on racism as a multicultural topic is critical analyzed within the literature Effective use of varied views within the literature Instructional design through literature choices Belief change within self as teacher addressed through literature review Used a range of types of professional literature (reviews, practice-oriented, research, theoretical)

IRA 1.1, 1.3, 2.1., 2.2, 2.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.2 STRONG EVIDENCE



General Reflections: • Overall, the key issues paper allows students to pursue their individual goals. • Taken as a whole, the key issues papers display strong depth within critical analysis of multicultural children’s literature across field of literacy education, but less breadth

across diverse topics within multicultural literature. • Cited research and reflections included theoretical articles, research reports, and practice-oriented articles • Key Issues papers for the most part addressed diverse points of view and provided critical analysis of these points of view • Overall, the course gives students an in depth understanding of the complex issues within children’s literature through a critical analysis of multicultural representation,

examining diverse ideologies, cultures, and sociopolitical contexts. The course provides students with experiences in critical analysis of both professional and children’s literatures addressing literacy instruction through the lens of a multicultural perspective, through which the intended goal of the course is realized.

Summary Comments • Range of topics supports choice in scholarly pursuits • Conformation toward APA format/reference choices reflects area for growth in that regard • Course content seems directed addressed in students’ papers and shows a depth of understanding of the complexity of multicultural issues within children’s literature • Alternative viewpoints or controversies embedded in all papers with clear use of critical analysis of points of view to argue a rationale for a particular point of view, clearly

presented with 4 of 5 papers. • Leadership somewhat addressed in the manner in which Key Issues papers addressed ways in which to make a difference in the educational community through the

embedding of multicultural instruction as a social justice issue for all learners, as represented at varying degrees within the five target papers.



APPENDIX C Summary of Analysis of Critical Performance for LITED 6238

Summary Report of Assessment & Instruction Ten reports out of fourteen were analyzed for this critical performance. Examined Summary Reports in five ways:

• Format and Organization of Data • Clear Summary Writing • Understanding of Assessment Purposes • Interpretation of Assessment Results • Assessment Data Connected to Instructional Choices

LITED 6238 Assessment and Evaluation of Literacy Development is a graduate course in the Literacy Education master’s program and also offered as an endorsement requirement course for graduate students in a non-degree program of study toward a Literacy K-8 or Literacy 5-12 endorsement. This spring 2012 course was taught both on campus through an ICN classroom and at a distance through ICN sites across the state. There were 14 graduate students enrolled in the course. Ten of the students were randomly chosen for analysis of their summary reports as a critical indicator for this course. This was the 6th course in the program of the graduate student cohort. Students over the semester had engaged in one-to-one field tutoring experiences with a child, applying specific assessments studied in the course to these field tutoring experiences, and summarizing data information to make instructional decisions regarding literacy strategies that would meet the instructional needs of the child. These tutoring experiences culminated in a summary report of assessments and instruction. Assessment of the Summary Report of Assessments and Instruction was conducted using a rubric with the following indicators: Clear Summary Writing, Understanding of Assessment Purposes, Interpretation of Assessment Results, and Assessment Data Connected to Instructional Choices. Scores for each indicator potentially could be scored as 3 (strong evidence), 2 (some evidence) and 1 (little to no evidence). Summary Comments:

• Clear evidence this course provides students with overall strong understanding of the purposes for assessment, interpreting assessment results, and connecting assessment results to instructional choices.

• Evidence of leadership in assessment not clear – may need to have additional information gathered to address the leadership aspect of assessment choices and instructional planning.

• Being able to select and develop assessments and evaluation of those assessments was not applicable in this course, students were only provided opportunities to administer and interpret data.

Criteria 1 - Little to No Evidence 2 - Some Evidence 3 - Strong Evidence Format & Organization of data 10 students Clarity of Summary Writing 3 students 7 students Understanding of Assessment Purposes 2 students 8 students Interpretation of Assessment Results 1 student 9 students Assessment Data Connected to Instructional Choices 3 students 7 students



Appendix D Summary of Analysis of Critical Performance for LITED 6299 Research

Summary Report of Assessment & Instruction Of the fourteen students in the cohort eight students have completed their requirements. 7 completed research papers 1 completed thesis. Six students in the cohort are continuing to work on the research component. 2 theses in progress 4 papers in progress A sample of 8 completed research papers or theses were analyzed for this critical performance. Scholarship: Applying the scholarly methods and disciplines that demonstrate knowledge of the field.

Criteria 1-Little to No evidence 2- Some Evidence 3-Strong Evidence

Understanding of Theory and Practice Content knowledge 1 7 Diversity addressed relevant to topic 2 6 Leadership Demonstrates professional development design or potential to disseminate information 3 5 Demonstrates understanding of and/or potentially influences local, state, or national policy 1 4 3 Scholarship Demonstrates competency in academic genre (style/format) 1 7 Contributes new knowledge or examines existing research from new perspectives or in new context

2 6

LITED 6299 Research is the culminating student research paper or thesis in the program. Students have the choice to write either a research paper or research thesis. The focus of the research area develops from individual interests as the student progresses through the program of study. LITED 6299 Research is conducted throughout the student’s program of study and typically is completed during the final three semesters of the program. An advisor and second reader for the paper guide students. A thesis committee guides students who write a thesis. The collaborative review of student work is phase one in our performance assessment; students may only complete a paper or thesis with approval of at least two graduate faculty members and the department chair. Additionally, research papers and theses must meet the graduate college’s requirements. The criteria above are used to determine potential areas to develop course work to support improved student outcomes. Summary Comments:

• Student papers demonstrated strong evidence of understanding theory and practice. • Student papers demonstrated strong evidence of academic competency, new contributions or new perspectives in the field, • Student showed some evidence in leadership, with approximately half of the artifacts demonstrating strong evidence of potential to design professional develop

or impact policy.



APPENDIX E Student Outcomes & Professional Competencies Rubric

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES BASED UPON

International Reading Association Standards of the Reading Professional

Strong Evidence of High Student Achievement

Some Evidence of

Student Achievement

Little Evidence of

Student Achievement

Professional Competency One APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE: Developing a growing body of understanding that informs professional decisions. Curriculum and Instruction - Candidates use instructional approaches, and an integrated, comprehensive, balanced curriculum to support student learning to reading and writing.

2.1 Candidates use foundational knowledge to design or implement an integrated, comprehensive, and balanced curriculum.

2.2 Candidates use appropriate and varied instructional approaches, including those that develop word recognition,

language comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading–writing connections. 2.3 Candidates use a wide range of texts (e.g., narrative, expository, and poetry) from traditional print, digital, and online

resources. Assessment and Evaluation - The candidates use a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan and evaluate effective reading and writing instruction.

3.1 Candidates understand types of assessments and their purposes, strengths, and limitations. 3.2 Candidates select, develop, administer, and interpret assessments, both traditional print and electronic, for specific

purposes. 3.3 Candidates use assessment information to plan and evaluate instruction. 3.4 Candidates communicate assessment results and implications to a variety of audiences.

2.1

2.2

2.3

3.1

3.3

3.4

3.2

Professional Competency Two UNDERSTANDING THEORY AND PRACTICE: Connecting foundational theoretical understandings with practice.




Foundational Knowledge - The candidates understand the theoretical and evidence-based foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction.

1.1 Candidates understand major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing development, processes, and components, including word recognition, language comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading–writing connections.

1.2 Candidates understand the historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in the perceptions of

reading and writing development, processes, and components.


Diversity - The candidates create and engage their students in literacy practices that develop awareness, understanding, respect and a valuing of differences in our society.




1.1

1.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

1.2

Professional Competency Three LEADERSHIP: Demonstrating the ability to apply effective practices and to articulate the meaning of such practices across diverse audiences for unique and specific purposes. Professional Learning and Leadership: Candidates recognize the importance of, demonstrate, and facilitate professional learning and leadership as a career-long effort and responsibility.

6.1 Candidates demonstrate foundational knowledge of adult learning theories and related research about organizational change, professional development, and school culture.

6.2 Candidates display positive dispositions related to their own reading and writing and the teaching of reading and writing,

and pursue the development of individual professional knowledge and behaviors. 6.3 Candidates participate in, design, facilitate, lead, and evaluate effective and differentiated professional development

programs. 6.4 Candidates understand and influence local, state, or national policy decisions.

6.2

6.4



Professional Competency Four SCHOLARSHIP: Applying the scholarly methods and disciplines that demonstrate knowledge of the field. Literate Environment - Candidates create a literate environment that fosters reading and writing by integrating foundational knowledge, use of instructional practices, approaches and methods, curriculum materials, and the appropriate use of assessments.

5.1 Candidates design the physical environment to optimize students’ use of traditional print, digital, and online resources in reading and writing instruction.

5.2 Candidates design a social environment that is low risk and includes choice, motivation, and scaffolded support to

optimize students’ opportunities for learning to read and write. 5.3 Candidates use routines to support reading and writing instruction (e.g., time allocation, transitions from one activity to

another, discussions, and peer feedback). 5.4 Candidates use a variety of classroom configurations (i.e., whole class, small group, and individual) to differentiate

instruction.

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4



Name of College



School of Health, Physical Education and Leisure Services

Program

Movement and Exercise Science


The mission of the Physical Education Division is to create, interpret, apply, and disseminate scientific knowledge and artistic expression in order to help students become responsible professionals, be life-long learners, and establish successful careers as teachers, scholars, leaders, performers, and promoters of physically active, healthy lifestyles in a multicultural society. We pursue this mission by addressing the biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors that influence movement in the pursuit of long-term health and/or athletic achievement.


Goal 1. Understand and apply fundamental concepts in the discipline. Outcome 1.1. Graduates shall understand the underlying anatomical, physiological and

biomechanical concepts and principles relating to Human Movement for both the enhancement of long-term health and wellbeing and for enhancing performance in the competitive athlete

Outcome 1.2. . Graduates shall be able to explain and implement psychological and sociological concepts and principles relating to human movement.

Outcome 1.3. Graduates shall be able to demonstrate basic concepts and principles relating to motor behavior in order to know how humans best learn motor skills and how to teach motor skills to others.

Outcome 1.4. Graduates shall be able to develop, implement and evaluate programs for developing physical fitness.

Goal 2. Communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, in both one-on-one and group

settings. Outcome 2.1. Graduates shall demonstrate proficiency in communicating in an

exercise environment by instructing an exercise class. Outcome 2.2. Graduates shall demonstrate proficiency in communicating by writing

laboratory and topical reports. . Outcome 2.3. Graduates shall demonstrate proficiency in communicating by making

presentations in a classroom environment.

1

Goal 3. Address issues critically and reflectively. Outcome 3.1. Graduates shall be able to demonstrate proficiency in a culminating

experience/project which will reflect their specific area of interest and is consistent with the student’s long-term career goals.

Outcome 3.2. Graduates shall be able to modify and adapt exercise programming to meet the needs of diverse clients.

Outcome 3.3. Graduates shall be able to modify and adapt physical training to maximize performance in diverse athletic environments.

Goal 4. Work well with others. Outcome 4.1. Graduates shall demonstrate the ability to work in groups when

completing laboratory assignments. Goal 5. Respect persons from diverse cultures and backgrounds. Outcome 5.1. Graduates shall demonstrate the ability to work effectively with

individuals from diverse cultures and backgrounds. . Goal 6. Commitment to open-minded inquiry and lifelong learning to maintain best practice

in the profession. Outcome 6.1. Graduates shall demonstrate an adequate level of personal physical

fitness Outcome 6.2. Graduates shall understand the importance of becoming members in professional organizations and when possible attend meetings and conferences.

`

Forrest Dolgener [email protected]

Date submitted

Nov. 19, 2013



Meeting was held on 11-13-13 and was attended by the following faculty in the PE Division: Dr. Forrest Dolgener, Dr. Ripley Marston, Dr. Fabio Fontana, Dr. Travis Ficklin, Dr. Robin Lund, Dr. Oksana Matvienko, Dr. Jennifer Waldron, Jane Toerner, Paul Waack, Heidi Seegers, Michelle Holland. The meeting lasted 1 hour.

2


The vast majority of the majors in Movement and Exercise Science do a 6 hour internship in their last semester before graduation. In the internship the students demonstrate the skills and knowledge they acquired in their major courses. All the reports from the internship on-site supervisors indicate that the students are well prepared and meet their expectations for entry level staff. There has been no indication from site supervisors that indicated any significant deficiencies in the student’s preparation. In the classes identified in our assessment plan in which the various competencies are assessed, 93% of our majors received acceptable or higher performance ratings based on the grades received. Pre-clinical students (PT, Chiropractic, medicine) do well across the board. These students have high GPAs and they have a high acceptance rate into PT, chiropractic and medical school. The number of pre-clinical majors is increasing and we now have approximately 50 in the program. Faculty report that students enrolled in Research Experiences do well in literature review, data gathering and data analysis. We have had numerous students present papers at state and national conferences which is reflective of their work in Research Experiences. Lastly, several of our upper division courses have labs and the students are doing 5-10 lab each semester which include data collection, data analysis and data interpretation. Faculty report that, overall, students do well in these labs.


Since we did not address the area of poor writing skills in some students noted on last year’s report, it is not unexpected that the same weakness would appear on this report. One course that had a significant writing component (PEMES 3162) is being dropped from the curriculum and replace with a course that will have more impact on the student’s marketability. Roughly 10-15% of students in PEMES 3156 ( taken by seniors) demonstrate poor writing skill. Although they can be classified as borderline to unacceptable according to our norm, this skill does not seem to significantly impact their ability perform the other types of skills required in this major. Although our Goal 2 does include adequate writing skills, we do feel it is not our primary focus to develop writing skills. This should come primarily from the LAC. With the large number of majors we have coupled with low staffing producing large class sizes, it become an overwhelming task to do a lot of writing in our courses. Another area where some students struggle is in courses that require a significant amount of math (PEMES 3151 and PEMES 3156). Both of these courses require the ability to solve algebraic equations and basic trigonometry. The poor math skills of some students is reflective of inadequate preparation in high school. Because of the breadth of activities in both courses, students with poor math skills can still complete the course successfully.


How the students are doing in their career 5 years post-graduation would be an excellent indication of how well they were prepared. We do not have this data but discussed the possibility of trying to obtain it in the future. With current staffing levels it would be a real burden to obtain this data on a regular basis but we will continue the discussion.

3



We have made two curriculum changes for the 2014-2016 catalog. We have dropped PEMES 3162, currently a required course in both the PE Teaching major and the MES major and have added a new course for PE Teaching and a new course for MES. The new courses focus on helping the students in the area of job applications and career paths. The new courses are much more specific to each major so we expect our majors will be better able to access the job market when they graduate. We are also actively searching for a new faculty person in Sport Management in hopes of creating a Sport Management major at UNI.


We will meet again as a division and reassess our current learning outcomes in the spring semester in order to add, delete or change outcomes for the next school year.


We have invited Donna Vinton to our December division meeting so she can help us take a hard look at our assessment plan and perhaps develop a better one.

Additional Comments


Like last year, we feel our biggest challenge is the large classes we have due to high student numbers and low staffing. If the college and university are truly interested in providing an optimal experience for the students they should address this issue and redirect resources where the students are.

4

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES FOR 2012-2013

Name of College



School of HPELS

Program

Physical Education Division Master’s degrees in Teaching/Coaching Department/Unit Mission

The Physical Education Division at the University Of Northern Iowa creates, interprets, applies, and disseminates scientific knowledge and artistic expression in order to help students become responsible professionals, be life-long learners, and establish successful careers as teachers, scholars, leaders, performers, and promoters of physically active, healthy lifestyles in a multicultural society. We pursue this mission by addressing the biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors that influence movement. Program Learning Goals

1) Students should have a fundamental understanding of the scientific method and be capable of critical

thinking 2) Students should have in-depth knowledge and mastery of content in teaching/coaching. 3) Students should have strong communication and applied skills. 4) Students should have a fundamental demonstrate the ability to do independent research. Person submitting this report (name and e-mail)

Jennifer Waldron, [email protected]

Date submitted

October 25, 2013

1


Background or Introductory Comments

The Master’s degree in Teaching/Coaching is delivered online to professionals who are currently teaching in elementary and secondary physical education. Students take one course at a time for 8 weeks.

Outcome

Students should have a fundamental understanding of the scientific method and be capable of critical thinking


PEMES 6231: reading articles and reflecting upon the implications to their own program; Analysis assignment regarding comparing and contrasting the Highly qualified verses the highly effective teaching; Reflection paper on Classroom management theories.

PEMES 6222: discussion board

PEMES 6255: article assessment assignment

Summary of Findings

Thirty-five points were gathered over the 2012-2013 year. Of the students, 9% were at the novice level, 46% were at the proficient level, and 46% were at the advanced level.

Of the culminating projects completed, students were novice to advance in their ability to analyze and integrate the literature.

Outcome

Students should have in-depth knowledge and mastery of content in teaching/coaching.


PEMES 6231: program evaluation assignment; power point presentation on class management theories; assignment on teaching styles

PEMES 6222: 12-step forms PEMES 6255: specific open-ended essay questions from final exam

Summary of Findings

Thirty-five data points were gathered over the 2012-2013 year. Of the students, 6% were at the novice level, 43% were at the proficient level, and 51% were at the advanced level.

2

Outcome

Students should have strong communication and applied skills.


PEMES 6222: facilitation of scholarly article via adobe connect PEMES 6231: discussion board postings; writing assignments. PEMES 6299: completed research project

Summary of Findings

Twenty-three data points were gathered over the 2012-2013 year. Of the students, 13% were at the novice level, 57% were at the proficient level, and 30%were at the advanced level. Of the culminating projects completed, 40% of students were novice, 20% of students were proficient, and 40% of students were advance in their writing skills and presentation skills.

Outcome

Students should have a fundamental demonstrate the ability to do independent research.


PEMES 6299: completed research project

Summary of Findings

Five literature reviews were completed during the 2012-2013 academic year, which means that approximately 41% of the cohort graduated in two years. Overall, 40% of students were novice, 20% of students were proficient, and 40% of students were advance in their ability to do independent research. The majority of the culminating projects were written for professionals in the field. One of the projects will be submitted to a journal.

Methods for Sharing Assessment Information

The assessment report was shared both in writing and orally with the division at a faculty meeting. A discussion of the report occurred allowing for dialogue about the assessment plan, report, and future steps.

Next Steps

E.g., Anticipated changes to courses, curriculum, assessment plan, learning outcomes or other actions to be taken as a result of assessment findings or statement indicating that no changes are anticipated and why

Because this is a new assessment plan, we did not have students complete the exit-survey nor were students who have not completed the degree contacted about the follow-up survey. We anticipate completing these steps this academic year (2013-2014). This was the first cohort of students who completed the Master’s program in teaching/coaching online. There are some shortcomings to the current assessment plan. For example, the oral communication is limited in an online program. Although some instructors have discussions via adobe connect, it is, for example, impossible to assess eye contact. Therefore, there is a need to update aspects of the assessment plan. It was surprising that no classes assessed outcome four, ability to do independent research. This will be examined in the coming year and discusses will occur about potential ways to incorporate more opportunities for students in engage in independent research. Additionally, the novice writing ability of some students during the culminating project is a concern. Discussion occurred about how to better prepare students in this process.

3

Follow-Up Report on Changes Recommended in the Previous Year This section should include follow-up on Next Steps indicated in the previous year’s annual report, along with any other actions taken in the past academic year that are appropriate to the categories below.

Actions Taken Related to Recommended Course, Curriculum, or Other Program Changes (Summary report or NA)

We did make some minor changes in the Teaching/Coaching program. We reduced the entry requirements so individuals without a teaching degree could enter the program. The total hours for the Practicum course was reduced from 3 to 2.. Actions Taken Related to Recommended Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes (Summary report or NA) We did not accomplish this goal from the previous report. It is on the agenda for this Spring and our intent is to write specific outcomes for this program. Actions Taken Related Recommended Revisions to SOA Plan, Including Changes in Assessment Strategies (Summary report or NA) NA

Additional Comments

E.g., lessons learned; current challenges, anticipated future changes/challenges,

thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc. We think we have a system in place allowing for easy recording of data throughout the year. Finding contact information for students who have not completed their degree will be challenging this coming spring.

4

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT (SOA)


Name of Department/Unit: Educational Leadership & Postsecondary Education

Program: Principalship Program (MAE & ASC)

Department/Unit Mission: The Educational Leadership faculty at UNI develop and nurture reflective leaders of learning, service and change who positively impact student achievement and school improvement.

Program Learning Goals: Preparation for licensure as PK-12 principals/supervisors of special education in Iowa

Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Nick Pace: Nick. [email protected]

Date submitted: October 2013

Assessments Conducted During the Current Year

Student Learning

Outcomes Assessed Assessment Procedures (Include

methods used, when and where implemented, number assessed,




Methods Used for Sharing & Deliberating on the Assessment

Information

(Outcome) 1 - Candidates will articulate an understanding of how to serve as School Leaders of Learning, Service & Change

• Rubric for papers in use by all advisors. Students specify how they have served in these capacities at portfolio presentation.

• Program held a mandatory orientation for newly admitted students in the summer prior to the start of classes.

• Formerly referred to as Critical Element Papers, the required papers are now termed “Core Values Papers/Projects to better reflect alignment in particular courses. This allows students to utilize learning from the courses in preparing the papers/projects, whereas before this change they were asked to write the paper before having taken the course: • Leader of Change paper

has become a part of EDLEAD 6282 rather than a stand alone paper requirement.

Discussed and decision made by faculty consensus following student portfolio feedback (specifically related to placement of Core Values Papers/Projects in the program). Students and faculty felt the Core Values of Learning, Service and Change were more visible in the program with the papers/projects being affiliated with particular courses, rather than stand alone assignments. Decision to hold mandatory summer orientation was based on student feedback and faculty desire to emphasize Core Values and save

COE CofA 5-22-2013

• The Leader of Learning Core Values Paper has been integrated into EDLEAD 6284 – Evaluator Approval for Student Learning

• The Leader of Service Core Values Paper has been integrated into EDLEAD 6289 – Seminar in School Leadership

• Though rare, faculty continues to refer students, when necessary, to UNI Writing Center for writing assistance so Ed Leadership faculty can focus on Ed Leadership content in papers

• Fewer papers requiring extensive revision & faculty assistance with writing issues

• Program handbook has been updated with specific guidance for paper development in program handbook.

• Summer orientation allows program to put greater emphasis on UNI Ed Leadership Core Values of Learning, Service & Change and emphasize that these will be present across the program. The orientation session also saves class time once the term begins in August.

class time in the fall semester.

(Outcome)2 – Identify areas of professional growth & develop individualized Professional Growth Plan

Template used by all students during Seminar in School Leadership course on campus with faculty guidance and referring to students’ individual results from their LifeStyles Inventory 1 & 2.

PGP’ continue to be viewed to be of higher quality since they are developed during Seminar in School Leadership with faculty oversight.

Discussed per UNI Ed Lead Student Outcomes Assessment Calendar (September & July)

COE CofA 5-22-2013

(Outcome) 3- Identify and present artifacts and experiences that serve as evidence of their competence as school leaders as measured by ISSL

Rubric for portfolio presentations in use. Ongoing streamlining of program handbook based on student feedback, faculty observation & input from field based faculty supervisors provides specific guidance for assembling and presenting portfolio. Optional portfolio preparation presentation offered online to students at any time.

No students have been asked to re-present the portfolio.

Discussed per UNI Ed Lead Student Outcomes Assessment Calendar (January) Faculty will examine end of program student feedback per UNI Ed Lead Student Outcomes Assessment Calendar (April/May) Faculty consensus is that portfolio presentations have increased in depth and quality because students are not merely restating what is contained in the portfolio, but rather describing experiences and essential learnings. • Discussed per UNI Ed Lead

Student Outcomes Assessment Calendar (November)

(Outcome) 4 – Demonstrate competence as Reflective Writers and Thinkers

• Writing and Reflective thinking

rubrics are now in place in streamlined handbook.

• Pre/Post Writing sample under consideration. No decision made.

Faculty believes reflective writing and thinking has improved with presence of specific rubrics for assignments in syllabi. Student portfolio feedback shows UNI Educational Leadership Framework specified in syllabi & all course assignment is clear.

• Discussed periodically and as needed by faculty and also per the Student Outcomes Assessment Calendar (November)

COE CofA 5-22-2013

(Outcome) 5 – Demonstrate skills identified by ISSL and 35 criteria through successful performance on the internship

• Satisfactory progress on internship monitored by field supervisor and Ed Lead Staff.

• Student Management System (SMS) shows explicitly aligned with 35 ISSL criteria.

• Students have access to sample logs of internship experiences and reflections in program handbook.

• Semester/Final Formative/Summative Evaluation instrument explicitly aligned with ISSL criteria & UNI Ed Lead Conceptual Framework (Learning, Service & Change)

• Ed Lead staff monitors each internship experience logged on SMS

Notations made for particularly intriguing, unusual, or notable experiences to department faculty and passed along to students as potential internship experiences.

Discussed PRN and per UNI Ed Lead Student Outcomes Assessment Calendar (January)

(Outcome) 6 – Express confidence in practice as school leaders, as defined by ISSL

• Students complete electronic Continuous Improvement Survey.

• Students complete revised Capstone ISSL course experience at end of the program, drawing upon all internship and course experiences to synthesize learning. This course was redesigned by three recent program graduates under faculty supervision. Student feedback has been positive.

• New elective courses focused on Activities Administration and Community Connections and common syllabus for Seminar in School Leadership allow students from UEN and All-Iowa Cohorts to experience courses together, whereas previously the two separate cohorts had only informal or

Faculty began developing in-house, self-developed surveys to be used with program graduates. However, as a result of Drs. Pace and Gilson attending the 2012 UCEA Conference, we are now exploring the use of UCEA-developed national surveys with colleagues at the University of Iowa. Faculty have been assigned to call graduates /first year principals twice during the year to check in and assess progress and preparation.

Discussed per UNI Ed Lead Student Outcomes Assessment Calendar (March) and PRN (September) & as a result of UCEA Conference attendance. Plans to explore UCEA membership and subsequent use of graduate surveys was discussed in October 2013 faculty meeting.

COE CofA 5-22-2013

no interaction. • Community Connections

and Activities Administration have been condensed into one elective course each, based on student feedback and faculty consensus that two courses were unnecessary.

• Technology for School Leaders course was developed by faculty and PK-12 practitioners to fill void in curricula related to the expansion of technology in PK-12 schools and the principal’s need to facilitate the effective use of technology.

Next Steps Based on the Findings and Deliberations

Recommended Actions Evidence for Action Timeline & Responsibility

Recommended Program Changes (if any) Condensing of elective Activities Administration I & II/Community Connections I & II into single courses, thereby freeing up two units for required Technology for School Leaders course. Proposed curricular change to allow principalship students to take EDLEAD 62XX – Leading Instruction in Schools course taught by Educational Leadership faculty represents a substitution to the MAE Core course EDPSYCH 6214.

Activities Administration/Community Connections were revised and condensed by program faculty. Technology for School Leaders was collaboratively developed by program faculty and PK-12 practitioners. These changes are making their way through the UNI curriculum process. This change was submitted to the COE and Graduate College Curriculum Committees and is moving through the UNI curriculum process.

Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes (if any)

N/A

SOA Plan Revisions (if any) N/A

Changes to Instrumentation (if any) N/A

COE CofA 5-22-2013




Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes

SOA Plan Revisions

Additional Comments (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) 1. The program experienced record enrollment in the fall of 2012 and nearly doubled that figure for the fall of 2013. This coincides with a decision to move away from the ICN as a delivery system of courses to Adobe Connect, which is a distance education, computer based videoconferencing system. Maintenance and consistency problems with the ICN prompted program faculty to heed the advice of Continuing and Distance Education staff and move to Adobe Connect. However, rather than requiring existing cohorts to switch to Adobe midway through their programs, we offered students the choice of continuing to use the ICN or switch to Adobe. Both existing groups chose to continue using the ICN. Beginning in the fall of 2013, all new cohorts will utilize Adobe Connect. 2. UNI Educational Leadership is entering a period of transition, with two faculty members retiring 2013 & 2014. (Decker & Jones). A third, (Else) continues to work on phased retirement. The department is conducting a search and hopes to attract a wide variety of well qualified applicants so that faculty skill and expertise can be appropriately spread across the principal, superintendency and new global teacher leader program, which is co-cordinated by Dr. Gilson. These retirements, coupled with unprecedented growth in the principalship program and the high potential for expansion of the international teacher leader program are exciting opportunities, but also come at a cost. Program faculty are working hard to prioritize, ensure that students continue to experience the relevant, rigorous, relationship-based program that has contributed to its recent growth. To that end, faculty will meet with Provost Gloria Gibson in November 2013 to highlight its transitional situation and continued potential. 3.

COE CofA 5-22-2013


Name of College



Educational Leadership and Postsecondary Education

Program

MA, Postsecondary Education: Student Affairs (PSE)


The Master's Degree in Postsecondary Education: Student Affairs prepares individuals who currently serve as student affairs professionals or who aspire to careers in the field of student affairs in postsecondary education. Our program is built around the following beliefs and values.

• We believe that a body of knowledge forms the basis for effective practice in the field of student affairs. This body of knowledge includes student development theory, organization and governance of postsecondary education, history and philosophy of higher education, ethics, law, leadership functional areas and language of the student affairs profession, and the college effects literature.

• In addition to content knowledge related to the field of student affairs, we believe that student affairs practitioners need the intellectual skills required of most other professionals including conceptualizing, analyzing, and problem solving and that success in the field is a product of the context in which practitioners work and the personal and professional qualities and skills they possess.

• We support the values of the student affairs profession as formally articulated in such documents produced by the Council on Academic Standards (CAS), A Statement for Ethical Principles and Standards by the American College Personnel Association (ACPA), and Ethical Standards of Professional Practice by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA).

Based on program information at http://www.uni.edu/coe/departments/educational-leadership-counseling-postsecondary-education/postsecondary-education/progr-1.


In 2011-2012, faculty in the program of Postsecondary Education: Student Affairs adopted the statement of student affairs competencies jointly created and endorsed by the American College Student Personnel Association and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). These goals form the basis for curriculum decisions and the framework for the required student portfolio for the program:

Advising and Helping: The Advising and Helping competency area addresses the knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to providing counseling and advising support, direction, feedback, critique, referral, and guidance to individuals and groups.

Assessment, Evaluation and Research: The Assessment, Evaluation, and Research competency area (AER) focuses on the ability to use, design, conduct, and critique qualitative and quantitative AER analyses; to manage organizations using AER processes and the results obtained from them; and to shape the political and ethical climate surrounding AER processes and uses on campus.

1

http://www.uni.edu/coe/departments/educational-leadership-counseling-postsecondary-education/postsecondary-education/progr-1

http://www.uni.edu/coe/departments/educational-leadership-counseling-postsecondary-education/postsecondary-education/progr-1

Equity, Diversity and Inclusion: The Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) competency area includes the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to create learning environments that are enriched with diverse views and people. It is also designed to create an institutional ethos that accepts and celebrates differences among people, helping to free them of any misconceptions and prejudices.

Ethical Professional Practice: The Ethical Professional Practice competency area pertains to the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to understand and apply ethical standards to one’s work. While ethics is an integral component of all the competency areas, this competency area focuses specifically on the integration of ethics into all aspects of self and professional practice.

History, Philosophy, and Values: The History, Philosophy, and Values competency area involves knowledge, skills, and attitudes that connect the history, philosophy, and values of the profession to one’s current professional practice. This competency area embodies the foundations of the profession from which current and future research and practice will grow. The commitment to demonstrating this competency area ensures that our present and future practices are informed by an understanding of our history, philosophy, and values.

Human and Organizational Resources: The Human and Organizational Resources competency area includes knowledge, skills, and attitudes used in the selection, supervision, motivation, and formal evaluation of staff; conflict resolution; management of the politics of organizational discourse; and the effective application of strategies and techniques associated with financial resources, facilities management, fundraising, technology use, crisis management, risk management, and sustainable resources.

Law, Policy, and Governance: The Law, Policy, and Governance competency area includes the knowledge, skills, and attitudes relating to policy development processes used in various contexts, the application of legal constructs, and the understanding of governance structures and their impact on one’s professional practice.

Leadership: The Leadership competency area addresses the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required of a leader, whether it be a positional leader or a member of the staff, in both an individual capacity and within a process of how individuals work together effectively to envision, plan, effect change in organizations, and respond to internal and external constituencies and issues.

Personal Foundations: The Personal Foundations competency area involves the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to maintain emotional, physical, social, environmental, relational, spiritual, and intellectual wellness; be self-directed and self-reflective; maintain excellence and integrity in work; be comfortable with ambiguity; be aware of one’s own areas of strength and growth; have a passion for work; and remain curious.

Student Learning and Development: The Student Learning and Development competency area addresses the concepts and principles of student development and learning theory. This includes the ability to apply theory to improve and inform student affairs practice, as well as understanding teaching and training theory and practice.

The electronic portfolio required of students in the program provides students with descriptions of the competency areas and behavioral descriptions for the competencies at the basic level appropriate for professionals entering the field. Behavioral descriptions for these competencies at basic, intermediate, and advanced levels of practice 2010 publication ACPA and NASPA Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs Practitioners available online at

http://www.naspa.org/regions/regioniii/Professional%20Competency.pdf.

2

http://www.naspa.org/regions/regioniii/Professional%20Competency.pdf

Two additional areas for competency continued from the earlier set of program outcomes and based on CAS standards are competencies in communication and use of technology, taken from the Practical Competence domain of the General Standards for programs, found at http://www.cas.edu/getpdf.cfm?PDF=E868395C-F784-2293-129ED7842334B22A.

Person submitting this report (name and e-mail)

Donna Vinton, [email protected] and [name/email]

Date submitted

November 1, 2013



• Hired new full-time faculty member to begin in January 2014 • Added a second student cohort to begin in January 2014 • Invited current UNI employees who completed doctoral degrees in 2013 to consider teaching in the

program • An end-of-program oral presentation was added as a program requirement and a rubric developed for

evaluating student performance in their presentation and for use in evaluating summarizing reflections for the twelve competency areas represented in the ifolio.

• Graduate college has made improvements to the student request process • New courses being added in helping skills and legal issues • Web page was updated during summer 2013 to reflect current program outcomes, practices, etc. • The mentoring program was implemented and evaluated during the assessment process for 2012-2013. • The ifolio was required by all graduating students and was evaluated during the 2012-2013 assessment

process. Actions Taken Related to Recommended Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes (Summary report or NA) NA. ACPA/NASPA performance competencies were adopted for the PSE program last year and will continue in place as the standard for the profession. Actions Taken Related Recommended Revisions to SOA Plan, Including Changes in Assessment Strategies (Summary report or NA) • The graduating student survey piloted in 2011-2012 was revised for 2012-2013.



Program assessments this year included the following 1 ) a survey of graduating students that gathered information on graduates’ perceptions of their learning gains related to program learning outcome and

3

http://www.cas.edu/getpdf.cfm?PDF=E868395C-F784-2293-129ED7842334B22A


questions related to the program portfolio (ifolio) and experiences that contributed to their growth during the program; 2) a written program evaluation from each graduating student; 3) a review of graduating student portfolios using rubrics created for this purpose; 4) a final oral presentation by each graduating student along with opportunity for the graduate to provide feedback on the program.

Eleven of fourteen graduating students completed the survey for a response rate of 79%; all graduating students completed the written evaluation of the program and the final oral presentation; all graduating student portfolios were reviewed.

Outcome—Program Learning Competencies

This section will focus on information gained related to program learning outcomes.


• A survey administered through SurveyMonkey was e-mailed to graduating students in May 2013. The survey, based on the model offered by the Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG), remained open through August to allow August graduates from the cohort to respond as well. Student evaluation of their learning related to their perceived gains with respect to the competencies was on a six-point scale—great gain, good gain, moderate gain, a little gain, no gains, and not applicable. For each competency, students were asked to evaluate their gains with respect to understanding of the competency and their skills for making use of the competency in their career.

• Program faculty examined ifolios focusing on 1) completion of required sections of the ifolio, 2) quality of artifacts presented for each learning outcome, and 3) quality of summarizing reflections for each learning outcome. The program head, Mike Waggoner, read all ifolios; the remaining faculty members each read a portion of the ifolios.

Summary of Findings

The following information is taken from the learning outcomes portion of the graduating student survey. The percentages below indicate the percent of graduating students indicating good or great gains for each listed area:

Learning Outcome Gains in

Understanding

Gains for

Using the Skill

Advising and Helping 91% 54.5%

Assessment, Evaluation & Research 100% 81.9%

Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion 72.8% 45.5%

Ethical Professional Practice 72.8% 45.5%

History, Philosophy, & Values 72.8% 54.6%

Human & Organizational Resources 81.9% 70.8%

Law, Policy & Governance 72.8% 72.8%

Leadership 72.7% 54.6%

Personal Foundations 91% 81.8%

Student Learning & Development 100% 54.6%

4

http://www.salgsite.org/

Communication 72.8% 54.6%

Technical Competence 27.3% 54.6%

Program faculty discussed survey results and reviews of ifolios at a meeting on October 17, 2013. The following points came from the discussion:

• Student evaluations of learning gains are affected by the varied experiences that students bring into the program. Some students are full- or part-time working professionals; others have come into the program directly from their undergraduate degrees. Overall, faculty members were satisfied with students’ reported gains in understanding, given the complexity of topics and issues included for some of the competencies that have lower gain scores. Similarly, that students’ evaluations of their readiness to use skills related to the outcomes was not unexpected, given the natural difference between acquisition of content knowledge and application of knowledge. It is important to note, however, the planned addition of courses in legal issues in higher education and a course in helping skills.

• With respect to students’ summarizing reflections for the learning outcomes, faculty viewed the majority of students (11 of 14) to be reflecting at 4 or 5 on a five-point scale with 5 as the highest (reflective practitioner; see attached rubric for reflection). At the same time, faculty agreed that continued work on helping students with the reflection process would be valuable, to increase students’ focus on how they developed with respect to each competency through the program and what aspects of their learning led to that growth.

Outcome—Program Portfolio

The electronic program portfolio, ifolio, was first made available on an optional basis in the 2011-2012 school year, with graduating students having the options of completing their program portfolio in printed or electronic form. All students graduating in the 2012-2013 school year were required to complete their portfolio electronically. Since the ifolio is still in early development stages, one focus of program assessment for this year was on students experiences with ifolio.


Questions about ifolio were included in the survey that went to all program graduates in May 2013; students could also provide comments about ifolio, if they wished, in their written evaluation of the program and in the exit interview portion of their final oral presentation for the program. Faculty members discussed these survey results in their meeting on October 17, 2013.

Summary of Findings

The first set of questions on the survey related to how well expectations and activities for ifolio were explained. Responses were on a five-point scale as follows:

1 Not very well explained 2 3 Somewhat clearly explained 4 5 Very clearly explained

5

Percentages below indicate the percent of students responding with a 4 or 5.

Purposes for completing the ifolio 63.6%

Artifacts to be included for the competencies 54.6%

The parts of the ifolio that were required and the parts that were optional 45.5%

When reflections were to be included within the competency tab 45.4%

How to go about writing reflections 45.5%

Responses that were not in the top two categories (4 or 5) tended to be spread across the remainder of the scale.

The second set of questions on the survey related to how much completing the portfolio helped students in the following area. Responses were on a five-point scale as follows:

1 Not at all 2 3 Somewhat 4 5 Very much

Percentages below indicate the percent of students responding with a 4 or 5.

Recognizing the skills you will take into your career 63.7%

Being able to explain your skills to others 72.7%

Having specific examples of your skills to share with others 63.7%

Preparing to apply for jobs (writing cover letters & resumes, interviewing) 36.4%

Identifying areas for future professional development 45.5%

In general, faculty members believed the ifolio was making progress in helping students be able to identify and articulate the learning competencies they gained from the PSE program. It was suggested that SAPA, the Student Affairs Professional Association, could offer workshops and/or speakers to provide students with strategies for pulling their skills and ifolio into their job and career searches.

Overall conclusions from the October 17, 2013, concerning ifolio was that while the ifolio was off to a good start, work should continue to be done in 2013-2014 and beyond to additionally strengthen the contribution of the ifolio to learning in the program.

Outcome—Impact of Out-of-the-Classroom Activities and Experiences.

The Postsecondary Education program is a practitioner-based educational program that emphasizes both knowledge and practice. This section of the annual assessment report deals with student perceptions of these experiences.


Questions about out-of-class experiences were included in the survey that went to all program graduates in May 2013; students also included comments about these experiences in the open-ended questions that were part of the survey and, if they wished, in their written evaluation of the program and in the exit interview portion of their final oral presentation for the program. Faculty members discussed these survey results in their meeting on October 17, 2013.

Summary of Findings

Not all students in the program are involved in the experiences below. Responses below are for the portion of the 11 program graduates responding to the survey who indicated the value of their involvement in the listed activities (no help, a little help, moderate help, much help, great help).

6

Description of Experience Great or Much Help

%

Completing PSE on-campus practicum(s)/internships 7 of 8 88%

Completing off-campus or summer PSE practicum(s)/internships 7 of 8 88%

Participation in on-campus assistantships in student affairs office/department 6 of 8 75%

Completing a study abroad experience while a graduate student at UNI 4 of 4 100%

Holding a full-time or part-time position in student affairs at UNI or elsewhere while a PSE grad student

8 of 8 100%

Making connections with your assigned PSE program mentor 4 of 8 50%

Making connections with a PSE faculty member that was not your assigned mentor

3 of 10 33%

Involvement in the on-campus student affairs association (SAPA) 3 of 6 50%

Opportunities to attend state, regional, or national student affairs conferences 4 of 9 44%

Opportunities to attend webinars, workshops, or other professional development sessions at UNI

3 of 9 33%

The value of practicums, internships, and assistantships is one that consistently appears in students’ written evaluations of the program and appears here as well. Student support for the practical experiences provided by the program is clear.

A mentoring program was piloted this year. Each graduate student was assigned to a faculty mentor, with whom s/he was to meet several times per semester for processing and planning program experiences. A variety of factors kept the program from operating as intended—student priorities for advising information over general career planning advice and conversation, busy schedules of faculty who are also full-time professionals, students’ busy schedules, etc. The mentoring program and perhaps alternative ways of delivering its intended outcomes will need to be explored in the 2013-2014 school year.

Faculty agreed on the value of the support that has been provided to allow students to attend conferences and had were encouraged by the renewed energy that has already been shown by SAPA leadership during the 2013-2014 school year.


As noted above, the assessment survey was shared with program faculty during a faculty meeting on October 17, 2013. Faculty also participated in evaluating student ifolios and discussed their findings at the same meeting. Selected information from the assessments will be shared with incoming students at orientation meetings at the beginning of January and at the beginning of Fall 2014.

Next Steps


• Need to create formal written assessment plan • Adding a new full-time faculty member and preparing new part-time faculty members to serve the coming

second cohort • Need to determine how to create systems for on-going comments for student portfolio work

7

• Developing new courses in helping skills and legal issues

• Continuing to develop materials, etc., to support student use of ifolio

• Consider completing a review or curriculum map of the types of writing we are asking students to do in our courses to make sure we are giving students experience with and instruction in the various types of writing that will be expected of them as practicing professionals.

• Consider creating a list of electives from departments across the university that could be taken by students in the Postsecondary Education program.

• Build diversity issues and materials into current classes through discussions and readings.

• Work with SAPA to bring in speakers on topics related to professional behavior and job search.

Additional Comments

E.g., lessons learned; current challenges, anticipated future changes/challenges, thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.

While the evaluation of student artifacts in the ifolio is crucial to understanding strengths and areas for improvement in student performance, methods for doing so in ways that work for faculty and benefit students will need continued exploration. We will also need to evaluate our assessment methods in light of the demands of having two cohorts of students in continuous operation beginning in Spring 2014.

8

College of Education Department of Educational Psychology & Foundations School Psychology Program Report for 2012-13 academic year Goals, Objectives, and Supporting Data Program Goals and Objectives Goal 1: To train specialist-level school psychologists who practice data-based decision making. Objectives:



A. Students have a strong foundation of knowledge in psychology (including, but not limited to, human development, biological bases of behavior, and social psychology) and are able to apply these principles to their work with students, families and school personnel. B. Students have a strong foundation of knowledge in education (including learning, cognition, and effective instruction) and are able to apply these principles to their work with students, families, and school personnel.

Goal 3: To train specialist-level school psychologists who are ethical decision-makers. Objectives:

A. Students will demonstrate an understanding of NASP’s Principles for Professional Ethics. B. Students will be able to apply a problem-solving model in making ethical decisions. C. Students will be familiar with the benefits and challenges of practicing school psychology in rural areas. D. Students will develop the necessary skills to work in a rural environment (e.g. students will have the skills to access resources using technology).


A. Students will demonstrate the knowledge and skills associated with effective psychoeducational assessment.

School Psychology Program (2012-2013 academic year) Addendum 2

B. Students will demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to develop, implement, and evaluate empirically supported interventions. C. Students will demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to work with school personnel to identify and solve individual, group, and systems level problems D. Students will demonstrate the skills and knowledge necessary to work with families to increase a student’s success.






Table 1. UNI School Psychology Program Goals and NASP Domains of School Psychology Training and Practice Goal 1: To train specialist-level school psychologists who practice data-based decision-making. NASP Domains: 2.1 Data-Based Decision Making and Accountability; 2.3 Effective Instruction and Development of Cognitive/Academic Skills; 2.4 Socialization and Development of Life Skills; 2.9 Research and Program Evaluation

MAE Fall

MAE Spring

MAE Summer

EdS 1 Fall

EdS 1 Spring

EdS 2 Fall (Internship)

EdS 2 Spring (Internship)

MEASRES 6205 and MEASRES

6282 grades

MEASRES 6283 grades

MEASRES 6281 grades

MEASRES 6284 grades and

Practicum III Evaluation

EDPSYCH 6289 grades and

Practicum IV Evaluation

Internship Evaluation

Internship Evaluation,

Comprehensive Case Exam, and

Praxis II

Goal 2: To train specialist-level school psychologists who have a foundation of knowledge in both education and psychology. NASP Domains: 2.2 Consultation and Collaboration; 2.3 Effective Instruction and Development of Cognitive/Academic Skills; 2.4 Socialization and Development of Life Skills; 2.5 Prevention, Crisis Intervention, and Mental Health

MAE Fall

MAE Spring

MAE Summer

EdS 1 Fall

EdS 1 Spring EdS 2 Fall

(Internship) EdS 2 Spring (Internship)

MEASRES 6205 grades

MEASRES 6214 and EDPSYCH 5176 (or SPED 5180) grades

MEASRES 6281 and EDPSYCH

6232 grades




Comprehensive Exam, and Praxis II


Goal 3: To train specialist-level school psychologists who are ethical decision-makers. NASP Domain: 2.10 School Psychology Practice and Development

MAE Fall

MAE Spring

MAE Summer

EdS 1 Fall









Comprehensive Case Exam, and

Praxis II Goal 4: To train school psychologists who have expert skills as indicated by the school psychology literature and the standards established by the professional organizations that represent the field. NASP Domains: 2.1 Data-Based Decision Making and Accountability; 2.2 Consultation and Collaboration; 2.3 Effective Instruction and Development of Cognitive/Academic Skills; 2.4 Socialization and Development of Life Skills; 2.8 Home/School/Community Collaboration

MAE Fall

MAE Spring

MAE Summer

EdS 1 Fall



MEASRES 6282 and EDPSYCH

6280 grades

MEASRES 6283 grades



Practicum IV Evaluation and

EDPSYCH 6289



Comprehensive Case Exam and

Praxis II


Goal 5: To train specialist-level school psychologists who understand, consider, and respect differences in gender, culture, ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation and who will promote a safe and respectful school environment for all individuals. NASP Domains: 2.4 Socialization and Development of Life Skills; 2.5 Student Diversity in Development and Learning

MAE Fall

MAE Spring

MAE Summer

EdS 1 Fall

EdS 1 Spring

EdS 2 Fall (Internship)

EdS 2 Spring (Internship)

EDPSYCH 6280 and MEASRES

6282 grades

MEASRES 6283 and SPED 5180

grades

EDPSYCH 6232 grades



Practicum IV Evaluation and

EDPSYCH 6289 grades


Internship Evaluation and Comprehensive

Case Exam

Goal 6: To train specialist-level school psychologists who engage in reflective practice. NASP Domain: 2.10 School Psychology Practice and Development

MAE Fall

MAE Spring

MAE Summer

EdS 1 Fall

EdS 1 Spring

EdS2 Fall (Internship)

EdS2 Spring (Internship)

Practicum I and EDPSYCH 6240

grades





Internship Evaluation and Comprehensive

Case Exam


Description of Assessments:

Practicum III Evaluations (first year of Ed.S)

a) The first practicum during the Ed.S (Practicum III) is a 120-hour practicum working under the supervision of a licensed school psychologist. This practicum offers the student a closely-supervised and scaffolded experience in providing school psychological services. Students complete a consultation case that is presented in the university-based course. Each student is evaluated by their field supervisor at the end of the practicum using the Practicum IV Evaluation Form (available in this document). The goal for students at this level of training is between “Developing” (rating of 2.0) and “Competent” (rating of 3.0).

b) The practicum evaluation is aligned with the 9 of the 11 NASP Domains and is similar to the Practicum III and Internship evaluations to help ensure continuity in monitoring students across all levels of their program. The alignment of the evaluation with the program goals is provided in Table 2. See Table 3 for the number of items per NASP domain addressed on the Practicum III Evaluation Form.

Practicum IV Evaluations (first year of Ed.S.) a) The final practicum during the Ed.S (practicum IV) is a 240-hour practicum working under the

supervision of a licensed school psychologist. This practicum offers the student a closely-supervised and scaffolded experience in providing school psychological services. Students are concurrently taking an on-campus course in Interventions in Natural Environments and complete an academic or behavioral intervention at their practicum site as a part of Interventions in Natural Environments course requirements. Each student is evaluated by their field supervisor at the end of the practicum using the Practicum IV Evaluation Form (available in this document). The goal for students at this level of training is between “Developing” (rating of 2.0) and “Competent” (rating of 3.0).

b) The practicum evaluation is aligned with the 11 NASP Domains and is similar to the internship evaluation to help ensure continuity in monitoring students across all levels of their program. The alignment of the evaluation with the program goals is provided in Table 2. See Table 3 for the number of items per NASP domain addressed on the Practicum Evaluation Form.

Internship Evaluations

a) Interns are evaluated at the end of each semester by their field supervisor. Once the evaluations are completed by the field supervisor, the intern, field supervisor, and university supervisor meet to review the evaluation. Goals for the spring semester are also discussed at this meeting.

b) The intern evaluation is aligned with the 11 NASP Domains and is similar to the practica and Comprehensive Case Presentation evaluations to ensure continuity in monitoring student progress at all levels of the program. The intern evaluation also includes eight items related to professional behaviors and a section for additional comments about the intern’s strengths and weakness. The alignment of the evaluation with the program goals is provided in Table 2. The number of items associated with each domain is summarized in Table 3.

Comprehensive Case Exam

a) Interns complete a comprehensive case study during their internship year. The case study is presented in a written report and oral presentation that addresses background information, collaboration with the problem solving team, reflective practice driven by theory and research,


evaluation procedures tied to problem definition, and intervention tied to evaluation data and effectiveness research. All interns present their cases to faculty and additional evaluators at UNI one day in April of their internship year. Current school psychology students are also invited to attend the presentations.

b) Each comprehensive case study is evaluated by a minimum of two raters. At least one rater is a program faculty member. Other raters may include faculty from related fields, school psychologist practitioners, or Iowa Department of Education personnel. In addition to completing the evaluation form, evaluators determine if the case presentation should result in a pass, conditional pass, or fail rating. A conditional pass typically involves additional research or study and a revision of the paper. The final decision regarding the completion of this requirement rests with the School Psychology Committee. Results are reviewed by faculty on an annual basis for implications for program modification.

c) The scale for evaluating the comprehensive case study is aligned with the 11 NASP Domains. Each domain is addressed by two or more ratings of candidate’s skills, knowledge, or professional practice. The alignment of the evaluation with the program goals is provided in Table 2. Table 3 provides an overview of the number of items associated with each domain.

d) There was an error in copying the Comprehensive Case Exam evaluation tool. As a result, only 27% of the evaluations included all of the items. Only domains that were assessed for all students are included in the 2012-2013 assessment.


Table 2. Program Goal Alignment with Practicum, Internship, and Comprehensive Case Exam Evaluation Sections

Domain Program Goal 2. 1 Data-Based Decision-Making and

Accountability G1. Data-based decision-making G4. Expert skills

2. 2 Consultation and Collaboration G2. Foundation of knowledge in both education and psychology G4. Expert skills

2.3 Effective Instruction and Development

of Cognitive/Academic Skills G1. Data-based decision-making G2. Foundation of knowledge in both education and psychology G4. Expert Skills

2.4 Socialization and Development of Life

Skills G1. Data-based decision-making G2. Foundation of knowledge in both education and psychology G4. Expert skills G5. Diversity

2.5 Student Diversity in Development and Learning

G1. Data-based decision-making G5. Diversity

2.6 School and Systems Organization, Policy Development, and Climate

2.7 Prevention, Crisis Intervention, and Mental Health

G2. Foundation of knowledge in both education and psychology G5. Diversity

2.8 Home/School/Community

Collaboration G4. Expert Skills

2.9 Research and Program Evaluation G1. Data-based decision-making

2.10 School Psychology Practice and Development

G3. Ethical decision-makers G6. Reflective Practice

2.11 Information Technology


Table 3. Number of Practicum IV, Internship, and Comprehensive Case Exam Evaluation Items Associated With Each NASP Domain Domain

Practicum III

Practicum IV

Internship Comprehensive Case

2. 1 Data-Based Decision-Making and Accountability

7 9 9 6

2. 2 Consultation and Collaboration 6 7 7 3

2.3 Effective Instruction and Development of Cognitive/Academic Skills

0 6 6 4

2.4 Socialization and Development of Life Skills

0 5 5 2

2.5 Student Diversity in Development and Learning

5 5 5 0

2.5 School and Systems Organization, Policy Development, and Climate

3 3 3 0

2.7 Prevention, Crisis Intervention, and Mental Health

0 2 2 0

2.8 Home/School/Community Collaboration

1 4 4 0

2.9 Research and Program Evaluation 2 2 2 3

2.10 School Psychology Practice and Development

6 6 6 3

2.11 Information Technology 1 1 1 2

Praxis II: National School Psychology Examination Candidates are required to take the Praxis II: National School Psychology Examination during their internship year. The Praxis II yields a total score ranging from 100 to 200. The raw points earned, raw points available, and average performance range are available for each of the six test categories. The average performance range provided is “the range of scores earned by the middle 50% of a group of examinees who took this form of the test at the most recent national administration or other comparable time period” (Educational Testing Service, 2008). The alignment of the Praxis II to the NASP domains and program goals is provided in Table 4.


Table 4 Alignment of Praxis II to 11 NASP Domains and Program Goals

Test Category NASP Domain Goal Data-Based Decision Making

2.1 Data-Based Decision-Making and Accountability 2.3 Effective Instruction and Development of Cognitive/Academic Skills 2.4 Socialization and Development of Life Skills 2.5 Student Diversity in Development and Learning 2.9 Research and Program Evaluation

G1. Data-based decision-making

Research-Based Academic Practices

2.3 Effective Instruction and Development of Cognitive/Academic Skills

G4. Expert Skills

Research-Based Behavioral and Mental Health Practices

2.4 Socialization and Development of Life Skills 2.7 Prevention, Crisis Intervention, and Mental Health 2.11 Information Technology

Consultation and Collaboration

2.2 Consultation and Collaboration 2.6 School and Systems Organization, Policy Development, and Climate 2.8 Home/School/Community Collaboration

G4. Expert Skills

Applied Psychological Foundations

2.3 Effective Instruction and Development of Cognitive/Academic Skills 2.4 Socialization and Development of Life Skills 2.5 Student Diversity in Development and Learning 2.7 Prevention, Crisis Intervention, and Mental Health 2.9 Research and Program Evaluation

G2. Foundation of knowledge in both education and psychology

Ethical, Legal, and Professional Foundations

2.10 School Psychology Practice and Development 2.11 Information Technology

G2. Foundation of knowledge in both education and psychology G3. Ethical decision makers


Assessment Data Goal 1: To train specialist-level school psychologists who practice data-based decision making. MAE - student grades in MEASRES 6205, 6281, 6282, and 6283 (n=8) Mean Median SD

MEASRES 6205 (Educational Research) 3.75 3.67 .22

MEASRES 6281 (Statistics and Measurement) 3.12 3.17 .47

MEASRES 6282 (Individual Intellectual Assessment) 3.75 3.84 .28

MEASRES 6283 (Academic Assessment & Intervention)

3.62 3.67 .28

Ed.S.- Student grades in MEASRES 6284 and EDPSYCH 6289 (n=7) Mean Median SD

MEASRES 6284 (Psychosocial Assessment) 3.38 3.33 .28 EDPSYCH 6289 (Interventions in Natural Environments)

4.00 4.00 0

Practicum III Evaluation (n=6) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range

Data-Based Decision-Making and Accountability 3.85 3.67 3.00-5.00 Student Diversity in Development and Learning 4.20 4.00 3.60-5.00 Research and Program Evaluation 4.08 4.00 3.00-5.00

1= Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3= Competent, 4=High Competent, 5= Exceptional and NA=Not Applicable Practicum IV Evaluation (n=6) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range

Data-Based Decision-Making and Accountability 4.35 4.33 3.67-5.00 Effective Instruction and Development of Cognitive/Academic Skills

4.09 4.20 3.33-4.83

Socialization and Development of Life Skills 4.28 4.33 3.17-5.00 Student Diversity in Development and Learning 4.60 4.90 3.80-5.00 Research and Program Evaluation 4.33 4.75 3.00-5.00

1= Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3= Competent, 4=High Competent, 5= Exceptional and NA=Not Applicable


Fall Internship Evaluation (n=5) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range


4.02 4.00 3.00-5.00

Socialization and Development of Life Skills 3.93 3.80 3.00-4.67 Student Diversity in Development and Learning 4.62 5.00 3.50-5.00 Research and Program Evaluation 4.00 4.00 3.00- 5.00

1= Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3= Competent, 4=High Competent, 5= Exceptional and NA=Not Applicable Spring Internship Evaluation (n=9) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range


4.49 4.17 3.83-5.00

Socialization and Development of Life Skills 4.37 4.67 3.33-5.00 Student Diversity in Development and Learning 4.73 4.80 4.00-5.00 Research and Program Evaluation 4.72 5.00 3.50-5.00

1= Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3= Competent, 4=High Competent, 5= Exceptional and NA=Not Applicable Comprehensive Case Study (n=9) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range


3.85 3.94 3.35-4.17

Socialization and Development of Life Skills 3.99 4.00 3.50-4.75

Research and Program Evaluation 3.90 3.89 3.00-5.00 1= Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3= Competent, 4=High Competent, 5= Exceptional and NA=Not Applicable


Praxis II Test Category Scores Compared to Average Range Indicated on Score Report for Cohorts (n=10) Category Below Average Average Above Average Data-Based Decision Making and Accountability 0 4 6

Goal 2: To train specialist-level school psychologists who have a foundation of knowledge in both education and psychology. MAE- Student grades in MEASRES 6205, MEASRES 6281, EDPSYCH 6214 and EDPSYCH 6232 (n=8) Course Mean Median SD

MEASRES 6205 (Educational Research) 3.75 3.67 .22

MEASRES 6281 (Statistics and Measurement) 3.12 3.17 .47

EDPSYCH 6214 (Foundations of Instructional Psychology)

4.00 4.00 0

EDPSYCH 6232 (Risk and Resilience: Child, Family, School, and Community Factors)

2.96 3.00 .46

SPED 5180 (Interdisciplinary Study of Disability) 4.00 4.00 0 Ed.S. Practicum III Evaluation (n=6) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range

Consultation and Collaboration 4.19 4.25 3.00-5.00 1= Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3= Competent, 4=High Competent, 5= Exceptional and NA=Not Applicable Practicum IV Evaluation (n=6) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range

Consultation and Collaboration 4.54 4.71 3.86-5.00 Effective Instruction and Development of Cognitive/Academic Skills

4.09 4.20 3.33-4.83

Socialization and Development of Life Skills 4.28 4.33 3.17-5.00 Prevention, Crisis Intervention, and Mental Health 4.33 4.25 3.50-5.00



Fall Internship Evaluation (n=5) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range


4.02 4.00 3.00-5.00


1= Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3= Competent, 4=High Competent, 5= Exceptional and NA=Not Applicable Spring Internship Evaluation (n=9) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range


4.49 4.17 3.83-5.00


1= Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3= Competent, 4=High Competent, 5= Exceptional and NA=Not Applicable Comprehensive Case Exam (n=9) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range


3.85 3.94 3.35-4.17


1= Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3= Competent, 4=High Competent, 5= Exceptional and NA=Not Applicable Praxis II Test Category Scores Compared to Average Range Indicated on Score Report for Cohorts (n=10) Category Below Average Average Above Average

Applied Psychological Foundations 1 7 2 Ethical/Legal and Professional Foundations 1 8 1


Goal 3: To train specialist-level school psychologist who are ethical decision-makers. Ed.S. (n=7) Course Mean Median SD

MEASRES 6284 (Psychosocial Assessment) 3.38 3.33 .28

EDPSYCH 6289 (Interventions in Natural Environments)

4.00 4.00 0

Practicum IV Evaluation, Spring Internship Evaluation, and Comprehensive Case Exam: School Psychology Practice and Development Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range

Practicum III 4.44 4.83 3.33-5.00

Practicum IV 4.75 5.00 4.17-5.00 Fall Internship 4.77 5.00 4.00-5.00 Spring Internship 4.85 5.00 4.17-5.00 Comprehensive Case Exam 4.32 4.33 3.67-5.00

1= Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3= Competent, 4=High Competent, 5= Exceptional and NA=Not Applicable Praxis II Test Category Scores Compared to Average Range Indicated on Score Report for Cohorts (n=10) Category Below Average Average Above Average Ethical/Legal and Professional Foundations 1 8 1

Goal 4: To train school psychologists who have expert skills as indicated by the school psychology literature. MAE - student grades in MEASRES 6282 and 6283 and EDPSYCH 6280 (n=8) Course Mean Median SD

EDPSYCH 6280 (Psychological Consultation in the Schools)

3.75 3.67 .22



3.62 3.67 .22


Ed.S. Ed.S.- Student grades in MEASRES 6284 and EDPSYCH 6289 (n=7) Course Mean Median SD


EDPSYCH 6289 (Interventions in Natural Environments)

4.00 4.00 0

Practicum III Evaluation (n=6) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range

Data-Based Decision-Making and Accountability 3.85 3.67 3.00-5.00 Consultation and Collaboration 4.18 4.25 3.00-5.00 Home/School/Community Collaboration 4.00 4.00 3.00-5.00

1= Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3= Competent, 4=High Competent, 5= Exceptional and NA=Not Applicable Practicum IV Evaluation (n=6) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range

Data-Based Decision-Making and Accountability 4.35 4.33 3.67-5.00 Consultation and Collaboration 4.54 4.71 3.86-5.00 Effective Instruction and Development of Cognitive/Academic Skills 4.09 4.20 3.33-4.83 Socialization and Development of Life Skills 4.28 4.33 3.17-5.00 Home/School/Community Collaboration 4.13 4.29 3.25-4.80

1= Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3= Competent, 4=High Competent, 5= Exceptional and NA=Not Applicable Fall Internship Evaluation (n=5) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range





Spring Internship Evaluation (n=9) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range


1= Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3= Competent, 4=High Competent, 5= Exceptional and NA=Not Applicable Comprehensive Case Examination (n=9) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range

Data-Based Decision-Making and Accountability 4.06 4.00 3.17-4.50 Consultation and Collaboration 4.05 4,06 3.33-4.67 Effective Instruction and Development of Cognitive/Academic Skills

3.85 3.94 3.35-4.17


1= Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3= Competent, 4=High Competent, 5= Exceptional and NA=Not Applicable Praxis II Test Category Scores Compared to Average Range Indicated on Score Report for Cohorts (n=10) Category

Below Average

Average Above Average

Data-Based Decision Making and Accountability 0 4 6

Research Based Academic Practices 0 2 8 Research-Based Behavioral and Mental Health Practices 1 8 1

Consultation and Collaboration 0 6 4

Applied Psychological Foundations 1 7 2 Ethical/Legal and Professional Foundations 1 8 1


Goal 5: To train specialist-level school psychologists who understand, consider, and respect differences in gender, culture, ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation and who will promote a safe and respectful school environment for all individuals. MAE - student grades in MEASRES 6282 and 6283 and EDPSYCH 6232 and 6280 (n=8) Course Mean Median SD

EDPSYCH 6232 (Risk and Resilience: Child, Family, School, and Community Factors)

2.96 3.00 .45

EDPSYCH 6280 (Psychological Consultation in the Schools)

3.75 3.67 .22



3.62 3.67 .28

SPED 5180 (Interdisciplinary Study of Disabilities) 4.00 4.00 0

Ed.S.- Student grades in MEASRES 6284 and EDPSYCH 6289 (n=7) Course Mean Median SD


EDPSYCH 6289 (Interventions in Natural Environments) 4.00 4.00 0 Practicum III and IV Evaluations- Student Diversity in Development and Learning Evaluation

Mean

Median

Range

Practicum III (n=6) 4.20 4.00 3.60-5.00 Practicum IV (n=6) 4.60 4.90 3.80-5.00

1= Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3= Competent, 4=High Competent, 5= Exceptional and NA=Not Applicable Fall Internship Evaluation (n=5) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range

Socialization and Development of Life Skills 3.93 3.80 3.00-4.67 Student Diversity in Development and Learning 4.62 5.00 3.50-5.00




Spring Internship Evaluation (n=9) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range


Student Diversity in Development and Learning 4.73 4.80 4.00-5.00 1= Unsatisfactory, 2=Developing, 3= Competent, 4=High Competent, 5= Exceptional and NA=Not Applicable Comprehensive Case Study (n=9) Domain/Category

Mean

Median

Range



Goal 6: To train specialist-level school psychologists who engage in reflective practice. MAE- Practicum I and EDPSYCH 6240 grades (n=8)

Course Mean Median SD

EDPSYCH 6240 (Intro to School Psychology) 3.88 4.00 .16

EDPSYCH 6290 (Practicum I) 4.00 4.00 0 Ed.S.

Practicum III, Practicum IV, Internship, and Comprehensive Case Exam Evaluations: School Psychology Practice and Development Evaluation

Mean

Median

Range

Practicum III 4.44 4.83 3.33-5.00 Practicum IV 4.75 5.00 4.17-5.00 Fall Internship 4.77 5.00 4.00-5.00 Spring Internship 4.85 5.00 4.17-5.00 Comprehensive Case Exam 4.32 4.33 3.67-5.00


School Psychology Program (2012-2013 academic year) Addendum 22 UNI School Psychology Program Summary Sheet: 2012-2013

MAE GPA EdS GPA EdS Practica and Internship Ratings

Comprehensive Exam Ratings

Praxis (N=10)

N # of courses

Mean (SD)

N # of courses

Mean (SD)

Pract/ Internship

N # of domains

Mean (SD)

N # of domains

Mean (SD)

# Subtests

% in range

Goal 1

8 4 3.56 (.42)

7 2 3.69 (.37)

P III 6 3 4.04 (.73) 9 4 3.95 (.42)

1 Ave= 40 Ab Ave= 60

PIV 6 5 4.33 (.64) Intern 2 9 5 4.60 (.51) Goal 2

8 5 3.69 (.46)

NA P III 6 1 4.19 (.72) 9 3 3.99 (.41)

2 Ave=75 Ab Ave= 15

P IV 6 4 4.31 (.56) Intern 2 9 4 4.47 (.59) Goal 3

NA 7 2 3.69 (.37) P III 6 1 4.44 (.69) 9 1 4.32 (.42)

1 Ave= 80 Ab Ave= 10

P IV 6 1 4.75 (.36) Intern 2 9 1 4.85 (.27) Goal 4

8 3 3.71 (.27)

7 2 3.69 (.37) P III 6 3 4.01 (.79) 9 4 4.01 (.43)

6 Ave= 58 Ab Ave=37

P IV 6 5 4.28 (.57) Intern 2 9 5 4.52 (.53) Goal 5

8 5 3.62 (.46)

7 2 3.69 (.37) P III 6 1 4.20 (.59) 9 1 3.99 (.35)

NA

P IV 6 1 4.60 (.50) Intern 2 9 2 4.58 (.55) Goal 6

8 2 3.94 (.13)

NA P III 6 1 4.44 (.69) 9 1 4.32 (.42)

NA

P IV 6 1 4.75 (.36) Intern 2 9 1 4.85 (.27)

*Summary of data presented in this report

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT TEMPLATE


Name of Department/Unit: Educational Leadership and Postsecondary Education

Program: Superintendent Advanced Studies Certificate

Department/Unit Mission: The Educational Leadership faculty at UNI develop and nurture reflective leaders of learning, service and change who positively impact student achievement and school improvement.

Program Learning Goals: Preparation for licensure as a Superintendent or AEA Chief Administrator

Person submitting this report (name and e-mail): Dewitt Jones, Coordinator [email protected]

Date submitted: November 6, 2013


Student Learning







(Outcome) 1 - Candidates will articulate an understanding of how to serve as School Leaders of Learning, Service & Change

• Rubric for papers and course assigned internship activities in use by all advisors.

• Students specify how they have served in these capacities at final portfolio presentation

• “Strengths Finder” is given to every student in their first semester and used throughout the program to help them identify where their leadership strength are and what they can improve upon.

• Faculty continues to refer students, when necessary, to UNI Writing Center for writing assistance so Ed Leadership faculty can focus on Ed Leadership content in papers

• Program handbook has been updated with specific guidance for course assigned activities and rubrics for each activity

• The use of a software program for students to develop their portfolio will be looked at and adopted for the 2014 cohort to help better quantify their work

Discussed and decision made by faculty consensus following student portfolio feedback specifically related to the Iowa Standards for School Leaders (ISSL)and Superintendent Leadership Exit Proficiency Themes

http://www.uni.edu/assessment/policies.shtml

in their internship experiences.

(Outcome)2 – Identify areas of professional growth using Skills Assessment Tool and Dispositions Rubrics

Skills Assessment used in each term throughout the program and kept in the on-line data base for each student

As part of all student’s exit portfolio presentation is a summative evaluation by the Lead Mentor, the Advisor, and the student. Based on students and mentor reflections and recommendations for improvement, we have altered two of the course assigned internship experiences and added one more to finance class.

• Formative assessments and the final summative assessment are all shared in conferences with the Lead Mentor, Advisor and students.

(Outcome) 3- Identify and present artifacts and experiences that serve as evidence of their competence as school leaders as measured by ISSL

• Rubric for portfolio presentations in use.

• Streamlined program handbook provides specific guidance for assembling and presenting portfolio.

• Optional portfolio preparation presentation offered via Adobe Connect prior to portfolio semester

No students have been asked to re-present the portfolio. The portfolio is reviewed by all professors teaching in the superintendent program and any changes or recommendations are given to the student prior to his/her actual final presentation.

• ISSL is at the heart of driving all courses and is constantly discussed and benchmarked as the students progress through the program.

• Artifacts are required to support students portfolios and are reviewed and approved by the Lead Mentor and Advisor

(Outcome) 4 – Demonstrate competence as Reflective Writers and Thinkers

• Writing and Reflective thinking rubrics are now in place in streamlined handbook.

Faculty believes reflective writing and thinking has improved with presence of specific rubrics for assignments in syllabi. Student portfolio feedback shows UNI Educational Leadership Framework specified in syllabi & all course assignment is clear.

• Discussed per UNI Superintendent Preparation Program Calendar of Assessments


(Outcome) 5 – Demonstrate skills identified by ISSL and 35 criteria through successful performance on the internship

• Satisfactory progress on internship monitored by Lead mentor and Ed Lead Staff.

• Student Management System (SMS) shows explicitly aligned with 35 ISSL criteria.

• Students have access to sample logs of internship experiences and reflections in program handbook.

• Semester/Final Formative/Summative Evaluation instrument explicitly aligned with ISSL criteria & UNI Ed Lead Conceptual Framework (Learning, Service & Change)

• Ed Lead staff monitors each internship experience logged on SMS

Notations made for particularly intriguing, unusual, or notable experiences to department faculty and passed along to students as potential internship experiences.

• Discussed per UNI

Superintendent Preparation Program Calendar of Assessments

(Outcome) 6 – Express confidence in practice as school leaders, as defined by ISSL

• Students complete course assigned and site determined internship activities and after Lead mentor and Advisor approval are logged into the Student Management System (SMS)

Faculty have been assigned to call graduates /first year superintendents twice during the year to check in and assess progress and preparation. Conversations continue well after graduations on a needs basis. Help for graduates applying for superintendent or central office jobs has been offered and accepted. This past year we mentored seven graduated through the application, preparation, and interviewing phases and of these seven, four were hired as superintendents and two into central office positions. This practice will continue.

• Discussed per UNI Superintendent Preparation Program Calendar of Assessments


Next Steps: Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.) The superintendent licensure program has taken a crucial step leaving the Iowa Communications Network (ICN) and moving the Adobe Connect, full audio and video. This tool has really created a better learning environment and allows single sites to do group work together just like they would do in a regular classroom. The feedback from participants has been terrific in testimonials as well as exit portfolio interviews. Betty Hogan, Educational Leadership Administrative Assistant works closely with the Superintendent Program Coordinator (Dewitt Jones) to note additions to the streamlined program handbook to make requirements, reporting, and procedures simpler and easily understood for students. Betty is retiring in May, 2013 and her replacement being sought. We have an additional staff member with the hiring of Dr. Denise Schares, retired superintendent from Clear Creek Amana. This is a great addition to our department as she has a great educational background and is well known around the state of Iowa as well as the Department of Education and the AEA’s in Iowa. The Dean has also given us permission to do a search for another position picking up the loss of Dr. Robert Decker, Dr. David Else, and myself – Dr. Dewitt Jones - all to retirement this summer. (Decker in December of 1012) We are also looking at streamlining our portfolio review process encompassing student’s internships making it all electronic and following a specific template so we can better quantify their work in their 450 hour internships. Software programs for this process will be reviewed and implemented for use with the 2014 cohort. While our current procedures are not weaknesses, they can be improved. Our state advisory committee recommendations were to continue the superintendent program as currently being delivered. No major changes were recommended. Continued emphasis on eLearning opportunities for all educators was discussed. Involvement with the Iowa Association of School Board with our “Ultimate Board Meeting” as a real world simulation was again sited as a terrific opportunity learning opportunity. This activity was covered by The Courier in a page three lead story this past summer. We are always looking for more way to make our experiences for students as “real world” as possible. We have taken a more active approach to recruitment for this program working with Continuing Education in developing pamphlets, cards, and better mailers as well as attendance at state conventions hosting booths. Letters specifically directed at Iowa principals were again sent out in addition to the literature already sent out by Continuing Education. This process will continue and we will look at broadening our base to include cities in adjacent states where many folks live in Iowa but work in these cities. Ie, Omaha, Souix Falls, East Dubuque, Rock Island, Moline etc. With the use of Adobe Connect – these cities are now viable centers for principals to enroll in the UNI Program. Finally – during the School Administrators of Iowa State Convention in August we always have a booth and are visited by usually over 400 principals and superintendents. This is another way that we visit with current and past students on how our program has prepared them for being educational leaders. Respectfully submitted by: Dewitt Jones, Ed.D. – Superintendent Advanced Studies Certificate Coordinator



Name of College



School of HPELS

Program

Physical Education Division Master’s degrees in Teaching/Coaching Department/Unit Mission

The Physical Education Division at the University Of Northern Iowa creates, interprets, applies, and disseminates scientific knowledge and artistic expression in order to help students become responsible professionals, be life-long learners, and establish successful careers as teachers, scholars, leaders, performers, and promoters of physically active, healthy lifestyles in a multicultural society. We pursue this mission by addressing the biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors that influence movement. Program Learning Goals

1) Students should have a fundamental understanding of the scientific method and be capable of critical

thinking 2) Students should have in-depth knowledge and mastery of content in teaching/coaching. 3) Students should have strong communication and applied skills. 4) Students should have a fundamental demonstrate the ability to do independent research. Person submitting this report (name and e-mail)

Jennifer Waldron, [email protected]

Date submitted

October 25, 2013

1



The Master’s degree in Teaching/Coaching is delivered online to professionals who are currently teaching in elementary and secondary physical education. Students take one course at a time for 8 weeks.

Outcome

Students should have a fundamental understanding of the scientific method and be capable of critical thinking


PEMES 6231: reading articles and reflecting upon the implications to their own program; Analysis assignment regarding comparing and contrasting the Highly qualified verses the highly effective teaching; Reflection paper on Classroom management theories.

PEMES 6222: discussion board

PEMES 6255: article assessment assignment

Summary of Findings

Thirty-five points were gathered over the 2012-2013 year. Of the students, 9% were at the novice level, 46% were at the proficient level, and 46% were at the advanced level.

Of the culminating projects completed, students were novice to advance in their ability to analyze and integrate the literature.

Outcome

Students should have in-depth knowledge and mastery of content in teaching/coaching.


PEMES 6231: program evaluation assignment; power point presentation on class management theories; assignment on teaching styles

PEMES 6222: 12-step forms PEMES 6255: specific open-ended essay questions from final exam

Summary of Findings

Thirty-five data points were gathered over the 2012-2013 year. Of the students, 6% were at the novice level, 43% were at the proficient level, and 51% were at the advanced level.

2

Outcome

Students should have strong communication and applied skills.


PEMES 6222: facilitation of scholarly article via adobe connect PEMES 6231: discussion board postings; writing assignments. PEMES 6299: completed research project

Summary of Findings

Twenty-three data points were gathered over the 2012-2013 year. Of the students, 13% were at the novice level, 57% were at the proficient level, and 30%were at the advanced level. Of the culminating projects completed, 40% of students were novice, 20% of students were proficient, and 40% of students were advance in their writing skills and presentation skills.

Outcome

Students should have a fundamental demonstrate the ability to do independent research.


PEMES 6299: completed research project

Summary of Findings

Five literature reviews were completed during the 2012-2013 academic year, which means that approximately 41% of the cohort graduated in two years. Overall, 40% of students were novice, 20% of students were proficient, and 40% of students were advance in their ability to do independent research. The majority of the culminating projects were written for professionals in the field. One of the projects will be submitted to a journal.


The assessment report was shared both in writing and orally with the division at a faculty meeting. A discussion of the report occurred allowing for dialogue about the assessment plan, report, and future steps.

Next Steps


Because this is a new assessment plan, we did not have students complete the exit-survey nor were students who have not completed the degree contacted about the follow-up survey. We anticipate completing these steps this academic year (2013-2014). This was the first cohort of students who completed the Master’s program in teaching/coaching online. There are some shortcomings to the current assessment plan. For example, the oral communication is limited in an online program. Although some instructors have discussions via adobe connect, it is, for example, impossible to assess eye contact. Therefore, there is a need to update aspects of the assessment plan. It was surprising that no classes assessed outcome four, ability to do independent research. This will be examined in the coming year and discusses will occur about potential ways to incorporate more opportunities for students in engage in independent research. Additionally, the novice writing ability of some students during the culminating project is a concern. Discussion occurred about how to better prepare students in this process.

3



We did make some minor changes in the Teaching/Coaching program. We reduced the entry requirements so individuals without a teaching degree could enter the program. The total hours for the Practicum course was reduced from 3 to 2.. Actions Taken Related to Recommended Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes (Summary report or NA) We did not accomplish this goal from the previous report. It is on the agenda for this Spring and our intent is to write specific outcomes for this program. Actions Taken Related Recommended Revisions to SOA Plan, Including Changes in Assessment Strategies (Summary report or NA) NA

Additional Comments

E.g., lessons learned; current challenges, anticipated future changes/challenges,

thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc. We think we have a system in place allowing for easy recording of data throughout the year. Finding contact information for students who have not completed their degree will be challenging this coming spring.

4

DIVISION OF ATHLETIC TRAINING ATHLETIC TRAINING EDUCATION PROGRAM

2005 – 2012 STUDENT OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT REPORT

A. Benchmarks for student outcomes assessments. The benchmarks for the Athletic Training Education program are based on student outcomes and performance. This requires us to systematically collect data on student performance that is then analyzed, interpreted, and discussed in the context of program improvement. As such, the Athletic Training Education program outcomes include:

Outcome I. Students will be knowledgeable of the Athletic Training Educational Competencies. Outcome II. Students will be competent with regards to all of the Athletic Training Clinical Proficiencies*.

Outcome III. Students will be prepared allied health care professionals. Outcome IV. Students will be prepared to pass the Board of Certification Exam (BOC)

Outcome 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

I & II

NATA Competencies addressed within curriculum

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Bi-semester evaluation complete on every student

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Students required to retake specific athletic training courses (rounded to the nearest

whole number) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2%

Students passing all competencies & proficiencies (competence & proficiency

≥95% during 1st examination or subsequent repeats)

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

NATA Proficiencies* addressed within curriculum

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

III


100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

IV

Ratio of students who finished program/those accepted into cohort

21/23 19/22 20/23 20/27 25/33 21/29 24/35

Students eligible to sit for NATA BOC exam (based on completion of standards)

21/21 19/19 20/20 20/20 25/25 21/21 21/21

Students who sat for BOC exam 19/21 ? 16/20 18/20 22/25 20/21 19/21

BOC passing rate (within 1 year post-graduation)

19/19 ? 14/16 15/18 (3??) 16/22 (3$$) 19/20 pending

Self-reported program effectiveness evaluation completion

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Post-graduation placement (Job/continue education/other career)

5/15/1 (21/21) ? 7/12/1 8/12/0 8/12/2 (3??) 4/16/1 (21/21) 3/17/3 (23/23)

*In the summer of 2011, the National Athletic Trainers’ Association released the 5th Edition of the “Athletic Training Educational Competencies”. The term

“Clinical Proficiency” has been replaced with “Clinical Integration Proficiency”.

Peer Evaluation of Annual Reports Form

1. College College of Education

2. Department/Unit Athletic Training

3. Program/Year Being Assessed 2005-2012

4. Submission Date of Report

5. Is the report submitted using the annual report template?

No

Comments The annual report template is not used. The data presented here are from 2005-2012 rather than just the most recent academic year.

6. Did the introductory page include a statement of department/unit mission?

Yes, No, Unsure, Not applicable

Comments

7. Was the report submitted in November of the year following the report period?

Unsure

8. Summary of Assessment Activity Findings Yes No Partially Unclear Not applicable

• Identifies the outcomes that were assessed

• Data are collected for all student learning outcomes and/or the program describes a specific cycle of collecting data for each student learning outcome

• Provides enough information to understand the data collection process –e.g. methodology, administered to whom (including description of process for sample selection, as appropriate), by whom, when, how

• Describes assessment at the program level, rather than describing how work of individual student is assessed

Comments What is self-reported program effectiveness evaluation? Is this a survey of students post-graduation? A survey of alums? Is it done yearly? What are students assessed on bi-annually? How is it determined if NATA competencies are addressed within curriculum? Is this the percentage of courses that cover this content?

9. This question and the one following record the types of assessment strategies discussed in the annual report of assessment activity. This information is collected for general reporting purposes; types of strategies used or not used do not affect evaluation of this section of the annual report or evaluation of the annual report as a whole.

Senior thesis

Major project

Major paper/research paper

Oral presentation

What kinds of direct assessment strategies were included in this report? Check all that apply.

Lab performance

Portfolio evaluations

Comprehensive exams

Licensure/certification exam

Internship work samples

Evaluation by outside professionals

Embedded test questions

Institutionally-developed pre-test

Institutionally-developed post-test

Commercial instrument or test

Observations/ratings of student performance

Video or audio tapes student performance

Comments We are unsure what types of direct assessment strategies you are referring to.

10. What kinds of indirect assessment strategies were used?

Student program evaluation

Student satisfaction survey

Alumni survey

Alumni interviews or focus groups

Job placement rates

Graduation rates

Placement report/future plans survey

Focus group discussions

Student interviews/exit interviews

Employer surveys

Employer interviews or focus groups

Graduate/professional school acceptance of program graduates

Comments We are unsure what types of indirect assessment strategies you are referring to.

11. With respect to Summary of Findings: Yes No Partially Unclear Not applicable

• Identifies measures for all learning outcomes assessed for the reporting year

• Provides sufficient and specific summaries of results for each assessment for each outcome measured during the reporting period

• Presents results in such a way that they can be understood by persons outside of the content area or persons reviewing the report a year of more after the report was written

12. With respect to Methods Used for Sharing Assessment Information:

Yes No Partially Unclear Not applicable

• Provides succinct and specific descriptions of when, how and with whom assessment findings were shared (or will be shared)

• Indicates that information was shared with all faculty

• Indicates that information was shared with relevant stakeholders beyond faculty

Comments 13. Evaluation for this section of the report: Needs improvement

Comments 14. With respect to Next Steps for action

based on assessment: Yes No Partially Unclear Not

applicable

• As needed, briefly but specifically describes changes to be undertaken within the curriculum and/or courses within the curriculum or other actions to be pursued in response to assessment findings

• As needed, briefly but specifically describes weaknesses/limitations/ shortcomings in the current

assessment plan to be addressed.

• As needed, outlines needed review/ revision related to current statement of student learning outcomes for the program

• If findings suggest no changes in the three areas outlines above, a brief statement is included indicating that no changes are anticipated and why.

• Includes actions to be taken and timeline for taking action Comments

15. Evaluation for this section of the report: Needs improvement

Comments

16. With respect to actions taken based on previous year’s assessments:


• Responds to each of the focus areas—program changes, revision of learning outcomes, revision to SOA plan – whether or not changes were made

• Provides evidence that assessment activity has led to discussion, reflection, and decision-making

• For changes in program, student learning outcomes, and/or assessment plan recommended in the previous year, provides brief but comprehensive description of actions taken in response, including when steps were taken and by whom

Comments

17. With respect to Comments/Further Action Steps:


• If recommended actions were not completed, provides brief description of revised action plan/current status.

• Information provided in this section is specific enough to serve as a guide for future action

Comments 18. Evaluation for this section of the report: Needs improvement

Comments 19. Evaluation for the annual report as a

whole: Needs improvement

Comments

20. Reviewers and review date Nicole Skaar and Elaine Eshbaugh, 3/18/2013

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES REPORT For 2010-2011

Name of College:

Education



Program:

Ed.D. Intensive Study Area


Program Learning Goals:


Linda Fitzgerald ([email protected])

Date submitted:

09/22/11


Student Learning







1999 set of outcomes Posted on eLearning site for 210:389 C&I Doc Seminar sum.11 and invited responses

Only one student gave a detailed written response but others gave brief comments or oral comments

Shared anonymous comments from doc students at COE EdD all-day retreat August 2011

(Outcome)

(Outcome)


Next Steps: This program is in reorganization mode, since Spring 2009, when the final report and approval of the Provost’s Program Assessment recommendations were completed. The Curriculum and Instruction (C&I) Intensive Study Area (ISA) are in the process of combining with the Special Education (SpEd) ISA due to the small numbers of doctoral students in the Special Education doctoral program. Rather than unilaterally usurping the SpEd program, C&I ISA members wish to collaboratively reorganize such that both populations are appropriately served to meet their professional needs.



Recommended Program Changes Last year’s report said, “Consultation of Dr. Uhlenberg and Dr. Kohler; Review programs of study and recommend changes, additional courses, core requirements; Propose approved changes through the UNI Curriculum Cycle proposals”

C&I ISA changes need to follow COE EdD program changes. The latter as still under construction, so no changes were sent from the C&I ISA through the Curriculum process yet. Review is ongoing.

Revisions to Student Learning Outcomes To be determined

SOA Plan Revisions To be determined

Additional Comments: (E.g., lessons learned; thoughts for future assessment planning, budgeting, or strategic planning; resources to explore, etc.


University of Northern Iowa School of Health, Physical Education & Leisure Services

Division of Physical Education

Student Learning Outcomes Master of Arts in Teaching/Coaching and Kinesiology

Student outcomes and competencies

1) Students should have a fundamental understanding of the scientific method and be capable of critical thinking

2) Students should have in-depth knowledge and mastery of content in one of the following areas: teaching/coaching, exercise science and sport performance, or sport and exercise psychology.

3) Students should have strong communication and applied skills. 4) Students should have a fundamental demonstrate the ability to do independent research.

Documents

GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION · questions over the student’s coursework, or an alternative format, consisting of an annotated bibliography and synthesis related to the