Upload
lamliem
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Weber State University Annual Assessment of Evidence of Learning
Cover Page Department/Program: Master of Education in Curriculum and Assessment Academic Year of Report: 2013-2014 Date Submitted: December 19, 2014 Report author: Peggy J. Saunders, Ph.D., Program Director Contact Information: Phone: 801-626-7673 Email: [email protected]
2
A. Brief Introductory Statement:
New Statement – Spring Semester, 2014
The Master of Education (MED) Program is the oldest master’s program on the WSU campus. It began in 1978 as collaboration
between WSU and Utah State University; although, all the courses were taught by WSU Teacher Education faculty. In 1988, it
became the first stand-alone master’s degree on campus, three years before Weber became a university. The program caters to
practicing teachers, on-campus personnel wishing to pursue a master’s degree, and to people in business and medical fields who
teach as part of their jobs.
In an effort to help those who already had bachelor’s degrees and wanted to teach, the department added a licensure track for
secondary education in 2007 at the post-baccalaureate level. As long as a person had a degree in a subject taught in Utah schools,
he or she could successfully complete the coursework including student teaching and qualify for a Level 1 Utah Teaching License.
This part of the program was immediately successful. The following year, due to popular demand, an elementary licensing track
and a special education (mild/moderate) licensing track began. It is estimated that approximately two-thirds of the students
admitted each semester (usually between 22 and 30) are seeking a teaching license. The post-baccalaureate licensing program will be aligning its outcomes to the Utah Effective Teaching Standards. This portion of
the M.Ed. program is in the process of accreditation by the Teacher Education Accreditation Council. Many of the new
assessment tools are under development and will be piloted in spring, 2015.
B. Mission Statement Updated – Spring Semester, 2014
The mission of the Master of Education in Curriculum and Instruction (MEd) program is to extend the professional knowledge, skills,
and attitudes of educators in schools, business, industry, and higher education through advancing the theoretical and practical
applications of curriculum and instruction.
The program has a secondary mission of preparing post-baccalaureate students for an entry level teaching license in elementary
education, secondary education, or special education. The mission of this segment of the program aligns with the Teacher Education
Department’s mission: We work within our communities to prepare caring, competent educators and to promote equitable, inclusive,
and transformative education practices.
3
C. Student Learning Outcomes
Outcomes are current except for the dispositions information. It has been found over the past seven years of using the dispositions
form that professors have concerns about only a few of the master’s students. The faculty decided to use the form only in referral
situations rather than an on-going assessment tool because it yields limited data.
The post-baccalaureate licensing students’ dispositions will be assessed based on the Utah Effective Teaching Standards –
Standard 10 which reads: The teacher demonstrates the highest standard of legal, moral, and ethical conduct as specified in Utah
State Board Rule R277-515. The assessment tool will be piloted in spring semester, 2015.
D. Curriculum
Curriculum grid is current. E. Assessment Plan
Assessment plan is current with the exception of the dispositions as noted above.
4
F. Report of assessment results for the most previous academic year:
Evidence of MED Candidate Learning (Summer, 2013, Fall, 2013, & Spring, 2014)
Course Outcome Assessment Assessment Tool Data for 2013-2014 Academic Year
Candidates will demonstrate
MED 6000: Fundamentals of Graduate Study
Ability to analyze and critique educational research.
Preliminary Literature
Review
Rubric: Literature Review
for MED 6000
Instructor did not supply data.
MED 6010: Advanced Historical Foundations
Knowledge of the history and philosophy of
education. Group Presentation on
Ed. Foundations Topic
Rubric: Presentation MED
6010
The mean score is 25/25. A total of 39 students were in the
course during these three semesters.
MED 6020: Diversity in Education
Knowledge of issues related to differences among
groups of people and individuals and the impact on
teaching and learning.
Social Justice Action
Research Paper
Instructor grading No data available because professor no longer teaches at WSU.
Research Presentation
on an Assigned
Diversity Topic
Instructor grading
MED 6030: Advanced Educational Psychology
Knowledge of important theories of learning and
development and the implications for education. Oral Presentation of
Influential
Psychological Theorist
Rubric: Presentation MED
6030
The mean score is 48.97/50. The range is 44-50. A total of 38
students were in the course during fall & spring semesters.
MED 6050: Curriculum Design, Evaluation, & Assessment
Knowledge of principles of curriculum
development and assessment. UBD Curricular Unit
with Integration and
Differentiation
Rubric: Curricular Unit*
Mastery Model
The mean score is 70/70. A total of 44 students were in the
course during these three semesters.
MED 6060: Instructional Strategies
Knowledge of instructional strategies and practices that facilitate effective learning.
Instructional Strategies
Practical Applications
and Reflective Paper
Instructor grading The mean score is 18.9/20. The range is 0-20 out of 20 pts. A total of 47 students were in the course during these three
semesters.
MED 6080: Conducting Educational Research
Ability to analyze and critique educational research.
Literature Synthesis
and Critique
Rubric: Literature Review
for MED 6080
The mean score is 87.15/100. The range is 0-100 out of 100 pts. A total of 41 students were in the course during fall &
spring semesters.
MED 6085: Proposal Writing
Ability to analyze and critique educational research. AND Ability to use writing to meet
scholarly and professional goals.
Literature Review
section of the Proposal
Rubric: Literature Review
for MED 6085
Mastery Model
The mean score is 26/30. The range is 0-30 out of 30 pts. A total of 37 students were in the course during these three
semesters.
MED 6090: Master's Project
Ability to find and report on a significant educational question that has usefulness and
applicability through the development of a written
project. AND Ability to use writing to meet scholarly and professional goals.
Final Project/Thesis Rubric with final grade:
Mastery Model
Final Grades: 28 students graduated in the three terms. Of the 29, 22 received A’s on their final project; 4 received A-‘s; 2
received B+’s. Two other students were registered in 6090,
but as of Dec., 2014 have not completed their projects.
MED 6091: Graduate Synthesis Seminar
Ability to critically and reflectively synthesize
personal and professional experience in the graduate program through the development of the
project and the portfolio.
Synthesizing portfolio
of all core courses
with reflections
Scoring Scale: Portfolio* The mean score is 48/50. The range is 45-50. A total of 47
students were in the course during these three semesters.
*New rubrics (See below.)
5
Rubrics for Course Outcomes (rubrics that have not changed can be found in the 2011-2012 document):
MED 6050 – UbD (Understanding by Design) Unit Design Scoring Guide (Comments column deleted to save space.)
Stage One
On Target Partly Understood Needs Improvement
Introduction to Unit Introduction explains unit, the big ideas, and the concepts,
theories, and processes that serve as the focal point of the unit.
(5 points)
Introduction explains unit topic and the big
ideas.
(3 points)
Introduction restates the establish goals.
(1 point)
Standard(s) or
Established Goals
Standards are listed, including the subject, number and
narrative; if more than one standard is listed, they are all from
the same grade level. Standard drives unit.
(5 points)
X
Standards are not listed with all pieces (subject,
number, and narrative) or not listed.
(1 point)
Transfer Outcomes are created based upon long-term learning goals,
make reference to independent learning and align to the
standard. Thorough and completely represent standard.
(5 points)
Outcomes address deeper understanding but
are limited in content and/or limited in
thought about standard.
(3 points)
Deeper meaning or transfer of outcomes is not
evident and/or outcome is not aligned to the
standard.
(1 point)
Meaning
Essential Questions
Essential questions asked are ongoing and may not have a
black/white answer. Questions address controversial issues in
the field. have no “right” answer, are meant to be argued, provoke and sustain student inquiry, while focusing learning
and final performance, and written in age appropriate language.
Thorough and complete standard. (5 points)
Essential questions are basic and probably
answerable with a bit of learning or research.
(3 points)
Essential questions are not aligned to standard
or are simple, answered questions.
(1 point)
Meaning
Enduring Understandings
Understandings are written as statements with no redundancy.
Involve big ideas, are aligned with goals, both over arching and topical, and may provide a conceptual foundation for basic
skills.
(5 points)
Understandings are written as statements but
do not thoroughly represent standard.
(3 points)
Understandings are redundant with
knowledge/skill objectives.
(1 point)
Acquisition
Knowledge
The outcomes are measurable, student centered, concise and match standard. Outcomes are inclusive of most areas of the
standard. May include: vocabulary, facts, formulas, critical
details, important events and people. (5 points)
The outcomes are vague and don’t address the entire standard. They are limited in the
content. Outcomes are redundant with other
areas of the unit design. (3 points)
Outcomes are not student-centered or measurable. They don’t align with the
standard. The standard is not fully addressed
based upon the outcomes provided. (1 point)
Acquisition
Skills
The outcomes are expressed as a verb or verb phrase, address
six facets of understanding, basic skills of solving, communicating, thinking, researching and studying.
(5 points)
The outcomes are vague and don’t address the
entire standard. They are limited in the content or redundant with other areas of the
unit design. The outcomes don’t address the
six facets of understanding. (3 points)
Outcomes are not student-centered or
measurable. They don’t align with standard. They are redundant with knowledge or
understanding.
(1 point)
6
Stage Two
On Target Partly Understood Needs Improvement
Summative Assessment
Blueprint for Assessments
A blueprint for assessment is included and completed
accurately with justification for unbalanced objectives (if
needed). Percentages relate to prioritization of importance. (5 points)
A blueprint for assessment is included but is
not accurate. The percentages don’t prioritize
the learning importance. (3 points)
Not all objectives are included or no blue print
is included.
(1 point)
Test Plan A test plan is included and completed accurately with
justification for percentage of objective weight. (5 points)
A test plan is included but is not accurate.
Objectives are unbalanced based upon percentages.
(3 points)
No test plan is included. Objectives are not
balanced based upon big idea of unit.
(1 point)
Summative Assessment
Valid and reliable
The summative assessments or task clearly provides a valid
measure of the targets understanding. Students must demonstrate the desired understanding to successfully complete
the task.
(5 points)
The summative assessments or task clearly
provides a valid measure of the targets understanding OR students must demonstrate
the desired understanding to successfully
complete the task, but not both. (3 points)
The summative assessments or tasks are not
reliable or valid.
(1point)
Summative Assessment
Design
Summative assessment(s) is/are designed using the guidelines
of the particular method you used. The choice of assessment type is appropriate for the standard/objectives tested.
(5 points)
Most of the assessment is designed correctly.
The choice of assessment type works, but there may be a different type that would be
better.
(3 points)
Summative assessment(s) is/are designed
without regard to the guidelines for that type of assessment and/or the choice of assessment
type is not appropriate for the
standard/objectives tested. (1 point)
Stage Three
On Target Partly Understood Needs Improvement
WHERETO
W- Students will know where, why, what is required of them. H- Hook and hold student interest
E- Equip students with experiences, tools, knowledge and
strategies R- Students will rethink, reflect and revise
E- Students evaluate progress, and self-adjust
T-Tailor the unit to a diverse class O- Organize unit for engagement and effectiveness
(5 points)
On WHERETO 5out of the 7 components are not correct.
(3 points)
On WHERETO 3 out of the 7 components are not correct.
(1 point)
Acquisition, Meaning, and
Transfer Objectives aligned
with Teaching
Strategies/Meaningful Activities
Objectives align with teaching strategies that have students
learning in engaging and effective ways.
(5 points)
Objectives align but aren’t engaging and/or
effective.
(3 points)
Objectives aren’t aligned with teaching
strategies or meaningful activities.
(1 point)
Daily Lesson Plan
Objective/ meaningful
activity/ formative assessment
Daily lessons show a progression of learning that scaffolds
learning, and brings about learning outcomes. Objectives align
with unit outcomes, meaningful activities are engaging and effective, formative assessments allow learner and teacher to
make instructional decisions based upon learning.
(5 points)
One of the components does not promote
engagement, effectiveness or a progression of
learning or formative assessments doesn’t engage learner with self- assessment of
learning.
(3 points)
Daily lessons are not scaffold or activities do
not align with objectives or formative
assessment does not promote instructional decision-making.
(1 point)
7
MED 6091 - Portfolio Rubric 1. Student demonstrates with artifacts and discusses evidence of growth/change in writing ability during his/her program
Shows artifacts and explains/discusses growth/change in
writing.
7
Discusses growth/change in writing when asked.
5
Does not discuss or show artifacts.
0
2. Student demonstrates with artifacts and discusses evidence of growth/change in research abilities during his/her program.
Shows artifacts and explains/ discusses growth/change
in research skills.
7
Discusses growth/change in research skills when asked.
5
Does not discuss or show artifacts.
0
3. Student demonstrates and discusses reasons for the organization of the portfolio.
Shows artifacts and explains/discusses reasons for the
organization of the portfolio.
7
Discusses reasons for the organization of the portfolio
when asked.
5
Does not discuss or show artifacts.
0
4. Student demonstrates and discusses the table of content for the portfolio.
Shows artifacts and explains/discusses reasons for the
table of content.
7
Discusses reasons for the table of content when asked.
5
Does not discuss or show artifacts.
0
5. Student demonstrates and discusses the types and findings of the evaluations contained within the portfolio.
Shows artifacts and explains/
discusses the types and findings of the evaluations.
7
Discusses the types and findings of the evaluations when
asked. 5
Does not discuss or show artifacts.
0
6. All core classes have at least one artifact.
Yes.
5
No.
0
7. Overall Look of the Portfolio
The overall look and flow are effective. No grammar or
writing errors
10
The overall look and flow are adequate. Few grammar
or writing errors.
5
The overall look and flow are inadequate. Many errors.
0
Total points:______________/50
8
G. Summary of Artifact Collection Procedure
Each professor is responsible for keeping and assessing the data for his or her courses. The grading rubric for the final project
is kept in the individual student’s file in a secure filing cabinet. The files are kept for 5 years before they are shredded.
9
Appendix A
Report of progress on ‘non-learning-outcome recommendations’ from previous 5 year program review (optional):
Date of Program Review:
Feb. 11, 2014 Recommendation Progress Description
Recommendation 1
The M.Ed. and post-bacc licensure program need to be two
separate programs. The M.Ed. and post-bacc licensure
should have separate mission statements and sets of
learning outcomes.
The director is in the process of writing a
proposal to create a graduate certificate
for each of the three post-baccalaureate
licensing programs. It is hoped that the
new programs will be approved by the
Board of Regents during the summer of
2015.
The mission statement for the M.Ed. has
been altered; the mission statement for the
post-baccalaureate licensing has been
aligned to the undergraduate licensing
program as of August, 2014.
Recommendation 2
The program should create three sets of admission
criteria—a set for the undergraduate program, a set for the
post-bacc licensure program, and a set for the M.Ed.
program. Each program has a different mission and is
catering to a slightly different set of students. Having
criteria specifically for the M.Ed. that isn’t impacted by the
post-bacc. licensure will strengthen the program and allow
the faculty to select the best students to mentor in graduate
studies.
Undergraduate admissions will not be
addressed here.
Post-baccalaureate admissions have be
changed to reflect the State Board Rule
which requires a 3.0 cumulative GPA (we
base that on the students’ undergraduate
transcripts), and they must take and pass a
nationally normed test (we are using the
appropriate Praxis II tests for each
licensing area with the approval of the
USOE. Group interviews will be used for
those licensing similar to what is used in
the undergrad program. (August, 2014)
Criteria for admittance into the M.Ed.
program will remain the same.
10
Recommendation 3
The program should continue its efforts to transition to the
Utah Effective Teaching Standards (UETS). The program
should align curriculum and program assessments with the
standards.
Practicum and student teaching
observation/assessment forms will be
piloted during spring, 2015. Although it
was not specifically stated, this alignment
is focused on the licensing programs.
Recommendation 4
The program should evaluate ways that the post-bacc
licensure students can receive advisement that relieves
pressure from Dr. Saunders. The program indicated that
Lynda Goucher, part-time program secretary, does help
with this effort along with her other duties.
Post-bacc. licensure people do not receive
any more advisement from Dr. Saunders
that regular M.Ed. students. Unclear in
the document was the fact that they
receive advising from the M.Ed. admin.
asst., the student teaching coordinator, and
the advisor in charge of licensing.
Mrs. Goucher retired in Aug., 2014 and
was replaced by a full-time administrative
assistant who has 50% of her duties in
advising and the other 50% as the office
manager.
Recommendation 5
The program indicated that Lynda Goucher’s position,
part-time program secretary, should be reevaluated for an
increase in compensation commensurate with
responsibilities. The team further recommends that the
position be expanded to a full-time FTE providing
additional resource to support the M.Ed. program.
The Dean has authorized the position to be
moved to full-time in Aug., 2011;
however, Mrs. Goucher preferred her part-
time status. She was too good at her job
to remove her from the position. This
issue was rectified upon her retirement in
August, 2014. See progress note above.
Recommendation 6
The program is encouraged to reach out to their K-12 and
community partners and reconvene the Advisory
Committee that hasn’t met since spring 2011.
Although the Advisory Committee has not
met, the program director has met with
many community partners which were not
directly addressed in the program review.
These partnerships are more dynamic and
synergistic than the Advisory Committee.
The director meets with practicing
teachers, principals, human resource
directors throughout the school year.
11
Appendix B – Faculty
All faculty counts are part of the Teacher Education Department of which the Master of Education program is a part. As such, this
section does not apply.
Please respond to the following questions.
1) Reflecting on this year’s assessment(s), how does the evidence of student learning impact your faculty’s confidence in the
program being reviewed; how does that analysis change when compared with previous assessment evidence?
The outcomes for the program have always been exceptional. It is a great program with a long standing history. The post-
baccalaureate licensing programs have created an additional burden on the program and the faculty, yet the outcomes remain
strong. The learning by individuals has not been compromised at any time. It must be noted that none of the recommendations
from the 5-year program review, nor the national TEAC audit, had concerns about the learning outcomes of the program.
With that said, we are a faculty who is committed to continuous improvement. When something new is coming into the k-12
system, such as the Common Core State Standards, we modify our teaching objectives to reflect those changes. We are
committed to preparing teachers who have the knowledge, skills, and ethical behaviors that align with the Utah Effective
Teaching Standards.
Our “regular” master’s students are prepared to be better teachers and are tapped by schools and school districts to be teacher
leaders. They read, understand, and dissect the educational research. They conduct their own research and write a project/
thesis on their chosen topic. It is a rigorous program.
2) With whom did you share the results of the year’s assessment efforts?
The assessment results were shared with the MED Policy Committee, faculty members in the Teacher Education Dept., the
dean and associate dean of the Moyes College of Education, and various staff members. The results will also be available as a
link on the appropriate page of the Office of Institutional Effectiveness which anyone can access.
12
3) Based on your program’s assessment findings, what subsequent action will your program take?
The program will follow through on the creation of the graduate certificates for the post-baccalaureate licensing programs. We
will continually monitor new policies and rules that come from the Utah State Board of Education and modify our admission
process, educational outcomes, and assessments accordingly.