department of mathematical sciences school of science and technology

Department of Mathematical Sciences

School of Science and Technology

B.A. in Mathematics Education

CIP Code: 13.1311Program Code: 155

1Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010

Student Learning Outcomes

The following standards, as designated by the NCTM, are used for the Mathematics Education program:

• Standard 1: Knowledge of Mathematical Problem Solving

• Standard 2: Knowledge of Reasoning and Proof

• Standard 3: Knowledge of Mathematical Communication

• Standard 4: Knowledge of Mathematical Connections

• Standard 5: Knowledge of Mathematical Representation

Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 2


• Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology

• Standard 7: Dispositions

• Standard 8: Knowledge of Mathematics Pedagogy

• Standard 9: Knowledge of Number and Operation

• Standard 10: Knowledge of Different Perspectives on Algebra

• Standard 11: Knowledge of Geometries

• Standard 12: Knowledge of Calculus

• Standard 13: Knowledge of Discrete Mathematics

• Standard 14: Knowledge of Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability

• Standard 15: Knowledge of Measurement

• Standard 16: Field-Based Experiences

* All sixteen standards are mandated student-learning outcomes.


Alignment with Cameron University’s Mission Statements

• framework which students can acquire the skills and knowledge that will enable them to become highly qualified mathematics secondary teachers

• promote and establish excellent working relations with all departments in the university

• optimizes the goals from all the mission statements including the University, School of Science and Technology, and the Department of Mathematical Sciences

• highest quality of education possible

• enhances the opportunities for students to make meaningful contributions to the community


http://www.cameron.edu/info/mission.html

http://www.cameron.edu/science/science-technology-mission-statement

http://www.cameron.edu/math

Alignment with Cameron University’s Strategic Plan 2013


Candidates will:

• receive the highest quality education

• become fully qualified to teach mathematics in the secondary schools

• interact with the community in the form of field-based experiences

• become effective teachers of mathematics

• strengthen connections with the community

http://www.cameron.edu/president

http://www.cameron.edu/president

Program Direct Measures of Student Learning


• Assessment # 1 Oklahoma Subject Area Test (OSAT) for Advanced Mathematics

• Assessment # 2 Major Field Achievement Test (MFT) in Mathematics

• Assessment # 3 Lesson Plans

• Assessment # 4 Student Teaching Evaluations

• Assessment # 5 Teacher Work Sample (TWS)

• Assessment # 6 Mid-level Assessment Exam

• Assessment # 7 Mathematical Proof Portfolio

• Assessment # 8 Technology Portfolio


Shortfalls in Student Learning When It Occurs Major Assessments Recommended Remediation

During MATH 2613 Foundations of Mathematics

Mid-level Assessment Exam (passing score required)

Retake after completing additional math classes

After completing at least 30 of 39 hours of required core mathematics courses

OSAT (Advanced Mathematics) (passing score required)

Retake after completing additional math classes

During EDUC 4313 Practicum in Assessment and Instruction

Teacher Work Sample (passing the class required)

Retake class

Before completion of MATH 4772 Teaching of Secondary Mathematics

Major Field Test (Mathematics) (passing score required)

Meet with assigned mathematics instructor for tutoring and guidance.Retake.

During Math 4772 Lesson Plans (passing score required on all lesson plans)

Meet with mathematics instructor for tutoring and guidance.Rework lesson plans and resubmit to instructor.

During Math 4772 Mathematical Proof Portfolio (score of Meets Standards or higher required)

Meet with mathematics faculty member who graded the proofs. Rework and resubmit.

During Math 4772 Technology Portfolio (score of Meets Standards or higher required)

Meet with mathematics faculty member who graded the portfolio. Rework and resubmit.

During Student Teaching Student Teaching Evaluation (passing scores required on both student teaching evaluation forms)

Meet with math education faculty committee for career counseling and guidance.Possibly repeat student teaching.

Midway Check


Check candidates progress on the following:

• Mid-level Assessment

• Grade Point Average (at least 2.5)

• Grades of C or better in math courses

• Oklahoma General Education Test (OGET)

• Teacher education admission

Program Actions Since Fall 2009

Last year’s action plan:• Develop a technology portfolio• Add an induction proof of a recursive relation to the

mathematical proof portfolio• Realign the lesson plan format• Develop a pretest for MATH 2215 Calculus I • Collect more data

Last year’s PQIR presentation focused on three standards:• Standard 2: Knowledge of Reasoning and Proof• Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology• Standard 13: Knowledge of Discrete Mathematics


Standard 2: Knowledge of Reasoning and ProofLearning Outcomes

2.1 Recognize reasoning and proof as fundamental aspects of mathematics.

2.2 Make and investigate mathematical conjectures.

2.3 Develop and evaluate mathematical arguments and proofs.

2.4 Select and use various types of reasoning and methods of proof.


Standard 2: Knowledge of Reasoning and ProofAssessments

• Oklahoma Subject Area Test in Advanced Mathematics

• Mid-level Assessment Exam

• Mathematical Proof Portfolio

• Technology Portfolio


* Weighted Mean for tests given on 4/18/2009 and 5/30/2009. Total state tests given = 59


TABLE 1Oklahoma Subject Area Test (OSAT) scores, Advanced Mathematics

NCTM Standard 2Total number of OSATs scored: n=2

Academic Year

Mean State Score on Mathematical Processes and Number Sense

Mean Score on Mathematical Processes and Number Sense (NCTM Standard 2)

2008-2009 (n=2)

260* 280.5

2009-2010 (n=0)

NA NA


TABLE 2Results of Oklahoma Subject Area Test

NCTM Standard 2Total Number of OSATs scored: n = 2

Does Not Meet Standards

Meets Standards

Exceeds Standards

Total*

0-239 240-269 270-300 TotalMathematical Processes and Number Sense

0% 0% 100% 100%

Trend Analysis of Assessment Data


OSAT

• Two mathematics education majors took the OSAT during the AY 2008-2009.

• There were no mathematics education candidates who took the OSAT during the AY 2009-2010.

• Both candidates exceeded standards in Mathematical Processes and Number Sense.

• No Trend Analysis can be done at this time.


TABLE 3Results of Mid-level Assessment Exam

NCTM Standard 2Total Number of Mid-level Assessment Exams Scored: n = 5

Does Not Meet Standards – 1

Meets Standards - 3

Exceeds Standards – 5

Total

NCTM Standard 2Fall 2007 (n=2) 50% 0% 50% 100%Fall 2008 (n=1) 0% 100% 0% 100%

Fall 2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100%Total (n=5) 20% 40% 40% 100%



Mid-level Assessment Exam

• During the Fall semesters of 2007-2009, the Mid-level Assessment Exam was administered to five mathematics education candidates.

• For Standard 2, one candidate did not meet standards while the other candidate exceeded standards in the Fall 2007.

• The mathematics education candidate taking the exam in the Fall semester of 2008 met only Standard 2.

• For Standard 2, one mathematics education candidate met standards and one candidate exceeded standards in the Fall 2009.

• Due to the small number (n = 5) of mathematics education candidates taking the Mid-level Assessment Exam, a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn at this time nor can trend analysis be conducted.

* percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding


TABLE 4Results of Mathematical Proof Portfolio

NCTM Standard 2Total Number of Proof Portfolios Scored: n = 2


Meets Standards - 3


Total*

Proof by Contradiction2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA

Total (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%Direct Proof

2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100%2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA

Total (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100%Proof by Induction

2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 100% 0% 100%2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA

Total (n=2) 0% 100% 0% 100%Proof by Induction (Recursive Relation) added Fall 2009

2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NAProof Evaluation

2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA

Total (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%All Proofs 2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 38% 63% 100%

2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal (n=2) 0% 38% 63% 100%



Mathematical Proof Portfolio

• Two mathematics education candidates submitted mathematical proof portfolios for evaluation during the Spring 2009 semester.

• In the proof by Contradiction and Proof Evaluation categories both candidates exceeded standards.

• In the Proof by Induction category both candidates met standards• In the Direct Proof category one candidate exceeded standards

and the other met standards. • There were no mathematics education candidates who completed

the proof portfolio during the AY 2009-2010.• The sample (n=2) is statistically insignificant, and a definite

conclusion cannot be drawn nor can a trend analysis be completed.


TABLE 5Results of Technology Portfolio

NCTM Standard 2Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0


Meets Standards - 3


Total

Triangle Worksheet (College Geometry)2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA

Total NA NA NA NARecursive Worksheet (Discrete Mathematical Structures)

2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal NA NA NA NA



Technology Portfolio •The technology portfolio replaced the upper-level assessment during AY 2009-2010.

•No students were enrolled in MATH 4772 (Teaching of Secondary Mathematics) during AY 2009-2010 thus no data was collected.

Standard 6: Knowledge of TechnologyLearning Outcomes

6.1 Use knowledge of mathematics to select and use appropriate technological tools, such as, but not limited to, spreadsheets, dynamic graphic tools, computer algebra systems, dynamic statistical packages, graphing calculators, data-collection devices, and presentation software.


Standard 6: Knowledge of TechnologyAssessments

• Lesson Plans

• Student Teaching Evaluation

• Teacher Work Sample





TABLE 6Results of Lesson Plans

NCTM Standard 6Total Number of Lesson Plans Scored: n = 6 (two for each of the three assigned lesson plans)

Does Not Meet Standards - 1

Meets Standards - 3

Exceeds Standards - 5

Total*

NCTM Indicator 6.12008-2009 (n=6) 0% 83% 17% 100%2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA



Lesson Plans

• There were no mathematics education candidates who completed lesson plans during AY 2009-2010.

• The sample (n=2) is statistically insignificant, and a definite conclusion cannot be drawn nor can a trend analysis be completed.


TABLE 7Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Education Portion

NCTM Standard 6Total Number of Assessments: n = 12 Total Number of Candidates: N=2

Mean

Min

Max

# of Not Observed

Does Not Meet Standards – 1*

Meets Standards - 2*

Exceeds Standards – 3*

E3 NCTM Indicator 6.12009-2010 (n=4) 2.75 2 3 0 0% 25% 75%

M10 NCTM Indicator 6.12009-2010(n=8) 2.7 2 3 1 0% 29% 71%

Total (n=12) 2.72 2 3 1 0% 27% 73%



Table 21Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Mathematics Addendum

NCTM Standard 6

Total Number of Assessments: n = 8 Total Number of Candidates: N=2

Mean Min

Max

# of Not

Observed


Meets Standards -2


M10 (NCTM 6.1)

Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%

Spring 2010 (n=4) 3.0 3 3 1 0% 0% 100%

Total (n=8) 2.7 2 3 1 0% 29% 71%

*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.



Student Teaching Evaluation •Two mathematics education candidates completed student teaching during AY 2009-2010 .

•For Standards 6, candidates met standards approximately 28% of the time and exceeded standards approximately 72% of the time.

•The sample (n=2) is statistically insignificant, and a definite conclusion cannot be drawn nor can a trend analysis be completed.


TABLE 8Results of Teacher Work Sample

NCTM Standard 6Total Number of Teacher Work Samples Scored: n = 2


Meets Standards - 3


Total

Factor 4 (36 points) 0-10 11-28 29-362008-2009 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%2009-2010 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%

Total (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%



TWS

• One mathematics education candidate completed a Teacher Work Sample during AY 2009-2010.

• The one mathematics education candidate who completed Standard 6 exceeded standards.






Meets Standards - 3


Total*

Real-World problem worksheet (Graphing Calculator)


Statistics worksheet (Graphing Calculator)





NLVM Worksheet (Teaching of Secondary Mathematics)


All Items2009-2010 NA NA NA NA

Total NA NA NA NA



Technology Portfolio •The technology portfolio replaced the upper-level assessment during AY 2009-2010.

•No students were enrolled in MATH 4772 (Teaching of Secondary Mathematics) during AY 2009-2010 thus no data was collected.

Standard 13: Knowledge of Discrete MathematicsLearning Outcomes

13.1 Demonstrate knowledge of basic elements of discrete mathematics such as graph theory, recurrence relations, finite difference approaches, linear programming, and combinatorics.

13.2 Apply the fundamental ideas of discrete mathematics in the formulation and solution of problems arising from real-world situations.

13.3 Use technological tools to solve problems involving the use of discrete structures and the application of algorithms.

13.4 Demonstrate knowledge of the historical development of discrete mathematics including contributions from diverse cultures.


Standard 13: Knowledge of Discrete MathematicsAssessments

• Oklahoma Subject Area Test for Advanced Mathematics

• Major Field Achievement Test in Mathematics

• Mathematical Proof Portfolio




*Weighted Mean for tests given on 4/18/2009 and 5/30/2009. Total state tests given = 59

TABLE 10Results of Oklahoma Subject Area Test (OSAT) scores, Advanced Mathematics

NCTM Standard 13Total number of OSATs scored: n=2

Academic Year

Mean State Score on Probability, Statistics, and Discrete Mathematics

Mean Score on Probability, Statistics, and Discrete Mathematics (NCTM Standard 13)

2008-2009 (n=2)

259* 252

2009-2010 (n=0)

NA NA


TABLE 11Results of Oklahoma Subject Area Test

NCTM Standard 13Total Number of OSATs scored: n = 2

Does Not Meet Standards

Meets Standards

Exceeds Standards

Total

0-239 240-269 270-300 Total

Probability, Statistics, and Discrete Mathematics

50% 0% 50% 100%



OSAT

• Two mathematics education majors took the OSAT during the AY 2008-2009.

• One candidate exceeded standards in Probability, Statistics, and Discrete mathematics.

• One candidate did not meet standards in Probability, Statistics, and Discrete mathematics.

• There were no mathematics education candidates who took the OSAT during the AY 2009-2010.

• No Trend Analysis can be done at this time.


* percentage may not add up to 100 due to rounding

TABLE 12Results of Major Field Achievement Test

NCTM Standard 13Total Number of Major Field Achievement Tests Scored: n = 3


Meets Standards - 3


Total

120-135 136-170 171-200 Total2007-2008 (n=1) 0% 100% 0% 100%2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100%2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA

Total (n=3) 0% 67% 33% 100%



Major Field Achievement Test

• There were no candidates who took the Major Field Achievement Test during AY 2009-2010.




TABLE 13Results of Mathematical Proof Portfolio

NCTM Standard 13Total Number of Proof Portfolios Scored: n = 0


Meets Standards - 3


Total

Proof by Induction (Recursive Relation) added Fall 2009

2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal (n=0) NA NA NA NA



Mathematical Proof Portfolio

• No data has been collected for Standard 13 for Proof by Induction (recursive relation was added Fall 2009).

• There were no mathematics education candidates who completed the proof portfolio during the AY 2009-2010.






Meets Standards - 3


Total

Recursive Worksheet (Discrete Mathematical Structures)




Technology Portfolio

• The technology portfolio replaced the upper-level assessment during AY 2009-2010.

• No students were enrolled in MATH 4772 (Teaching of Secondary Mathematics) during AY 2009-2010 thus no data was collected.

Program Priority Learning Outcomes for Current Year

• Standard 1: Knowledge of Mathematical Problem Solving • Standard 3: Knowledge of Mathematical Communication• Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology


Standard 1: Knowledge of Mathematical Problem Solving


Program objective and measurement (Create separate chart or table for each priority objective)

PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 1: Knowledge of Mathematical Problem Solving

PROGRAM OBJECTIVE

CURRICULUM AREA OR TARGET AUDIENCE

MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVE

Measurements

Methods used to determine validity of measurement instruments

Methods used to determine reliability of measurements

Schedule for measurements

1.1 Apply and adapt a variety of appropriate strategies to solve problems.

1.2 Solve problems that arise in mathematics and those involving mathematics and other contexts.

Required Courses:MATH 1001MATH 2215MATH 2235MATH 3013MATH 3302MATH 3333MATH 3413MATH 4423MATH 4772STAT 3013EDUC 4313EDUC 4965EDUC 4975

OSAT (direct)

MFT (direct)

Student Teaching Evaluation (direct)

State wide test

National norm

Developed by Department of Education

Determined by Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation (OCTP)

Norm reference scores


Recommended that students take after completing 30 or more hours of their mathematical course work

Every Spring semester

Assessed in EDUC 4965 and EDUC 4975



PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 1: Knowledge of Mathematical Problem Solving

PROGRAM OBJECTIVE



Measurements




1.3 Build new mathematical knowledge through problem solving.

1.4 Monitor and reflect on the process of mathematical problem solving.

Elective Courses:MATH 2244MATH 3213MATH 3253MATH 4113MATH 4483

TWS (direct)

Technology Portfolio (direct)


Portfolio graded using standardized rubric


Faculty using rubric discuss rubric before grading begins

Assessed in EDUC 4313

Collected during MATH 4772



Display of Assessment Data – OSAT

TABLE 16OSAT scores

NCTM Standard 1

Total number of OSATs scored: n=2Academic

YearMean OSAT score

Mean Score on

Mathemati-cal Processes and Number

Sense

Mean Score on Relations,

Functions, and Algebra

Mean score on

Measure-ment and Geometry

Mean score on

Trigonome-try and Calculus

Mean score on

Probability, Statistics,

and Discrete

Mathema-tics

Mean Score on

Con-structed

Res-ponse

2008-2009 (n=2)

269.5 280.5 253.5 271 268 252 281.5

State Mean* 260 260 267 257 256 259 267

2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA



Display of Assessment Data – OSAT (continued)

*Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

TABLE 17Results of OSAT

NCTM Standard 1

Total Number of OSATs Scored: n = 2

Does Not Meet Standards Meets Standards

Exceeds Standards

Total*

0-239 240-269 270-300 TotalOSAT – Advanced Mathematics 2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NAMathematical Processes and Number Sense 2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NARelations, Functions, and Algebra 2008-2009 (n=2) 50% 0% 50% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NAMeasurement and Geometry 2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATrigonometry and Calculus

2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NAProbability, Statistics, and Discrete Mathematics

2008-2009 (n=2) 50% 0% 50% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NAConstructed Response

2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA


Display of Assessment Data – MFT


TABLE 18Results of Major Field Achievement Test

NCTM Standard 1

Total Number of Major Field Achievement Tests Scored: n = 3


Meets Standards - 3


Total*

120-135 136-170 171-200 Total2007-2008 (n=1) 0% 100% 0% 100%2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100%2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA

Total (n=3) 0% 67% 33% 100%


Display of Assessment Data – Student Teaching Evaluation


NCTM Standard 1


Mean Min

Max

# of Not

Observed


Meets Standards - 2


M1 (NCTM 1.1, 8.8)Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%

Spring 2010 (n=4) 2.67 2 3 1 0% 33% 67%Total (n=8) 2.57 2 3 1 0% 43% 57%

M2 (NCTM 1.4, 8.8)Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%

Spring 2010 (n=4) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%Total (n=8) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%

M16 (NCTM 1.1, 1.2, 4.2, 5.3)Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.25 2 3 0 0% 75% 25%

Spring 2010 (n=4) 2.33 2 3 1 0% 67% 33%Total (n=8) 2.29 2 3 1 0% 71% 29%



Display of Assessment Data - TWS



NCTM Standard 1

Total Number of Teacher Work Samples Scored: n = 2


Meets Standards - 3


Total*

Factor 6 (50 points)(NCTM 1.4, 7.3, 7.4) 0-21 22-41 42-50

2008-2009 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%

2009-2010 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%

Total (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%


Display of Assessment Data – Technology Portfolio

TABLE 25Technology Portfolio

NCTM Standard 1

Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0


Meets Standards - 3


Total*




Total NA NA NA NANLVM Worksheet (Teaching of Secondary Mathematics)


All Items2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA

Total NA NA NA NA

Action Plan

• Collect more data.

• Redo the data tables for Assessment 4, Student Teaching. After speaking with the Dean of the School of Education and Psychology, the decision was made to rework the tables so the values for n are consistent with those in the Education Department’s tables, as well as within our Mathematics Education tables. Both departments continue to work toward displaying the data so they accurately and clearly tell the story of the candidates’ successes in their student teaching experiences (as well as any issues that may need attention).


Standard 3: Knowledge of Mathematical Communication



PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 3: Knowledge of Mathematical Communication

PROGRAM OBJECTIVE 1



Measurements




3.1 Communicate their mathematical thinking coherently and clearly to peers, faculty, and others.

3.2 Use the language of mathematics to express ideas precisely.

Required courses:MATH 2613MATH 3013MATH 3302MATH 3333MATH 3413MATH 4423MATH 4772EDUC 4313EDUC 4653EDUC 4965EDUC 4975

OSAT (direct)


TWS (direct)

State wide test



Determined by OCTP



Recommended that students take after completing 30 or more hours of their mathematical course work





PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 3: Knowledge of Mathematical Communication

PROGRAM OBJECTIVE 1



Measurements




3.3 Organize mathematical thinking through communication.

3.4 Analyze and evaluate the mathematical thinking and strategies of others.

Elective courses:MATH 3213MATH 4113MATH 4483STAT 3113

Mid-level Assessment Exam (direct)


Developed by subcommittee of faculty

Portfolio graded using standardized rubric

Test is multiple choice –answers are right or wrong; questions are aligned with indicators


Every Fall semester




Display of Assessment Data – OSAT

TABLE 16OSAT scores

NCTM Standard 3

Total number of OSATs scored: n=2Academic Year Mean OSAT

scoreMean Score on Mathematical Processes and Number Sense

Mean Score on Con-structed

Response

2008-2009 (n=2) 269.5 280.5 281.5

State Mean*260 260 267

2009-2010 (n=0)NA NA NA



Display of Assessment Data – OSAT (continued)

*Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

TABLE 17Results of OSAT

NCTM Standard 3

Total Number of OSATs Scored: n = 2

Does Not Meet Standards Meets Standards

Exceeds Standards

Total*

0-239 240-269 270-300 TotalOSAT – Advanced Mathematics 2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NAMathematical Processes and Number Sense 2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NAConstructed Response

2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA



Table 20Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Education Portion

NCTM Standard 3

Total Number of Assessments: n = 4 or 8**Total Number of Candidates: N=2

Mean Min

Max

# of Not

Observed


Meets Standards - 2


**E24 (NCTM 3.1, 3.2, 4.3, 7.1, 7.3, 7.4, 8.1, 8.4)Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.25 2 3 0 0% 75% 25%

Spring 2010 (n=4) 2.25 2 3 0 0% 75% 25%Total (n=8) 2.25 2 3 0 0% 75% 25%

*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.*Items found on Education University Supervisor Form


Display of Assessment Data – Student Teaching Evaluation (continued)


NCTM Standard 3


Mean Min

Max

# of Not

Observed


Meets Standards - 2


M3 (NCTM 3.1)Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.25 2 3 0 0% 75% 25%

Spring 2010 (n=4) 2.75 2 3 0 0% 25% 75%Total (n=8) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%

M4 (NCTM 3.2)Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.25 2 3 0 0% 75% 25%

Spring 2010 (n=4) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%Total (n=8) 2.38 2 3 0 0% 63% 37%

M5 (NCTM 3.3) Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.25 2 3 0 0% 75% 25%

Spring 2010 (n=4) 3.0 3 3 0 0% 0% 100%Total (n=8) 2.63 2 3 0 0% 37% 63%

M6 (NCTM 3.4) Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%

Spring 2010 (n=4) 2.0 2 2 1 0% 100% 0%Total (n=8) 2.29 2 3 1 0% 71% 29%






NCTM Standard 3



Meets Standards - 3


Total*

Factor 3 (45 points)(NCTM 3.4, 7.4, 7.5, 8.3) 0-20 21-37 38-45

2008-2009 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%2009-2010 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%

Total (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%Factor 5 (14 points)(NCTM 3.4, 7.4, 7.5, 8.3, 16.3) 0-4 5-11 12-14

2008-2009 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%2009-2010 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%

Total (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%


Display of Assessment Data – Mid-level Assessment Exam


TABLE 23Mid-level Assessment Exam

NCTM Standard 3

Total Number of Mid-level Assessment Exams Scored: n = 5


Meets Standards - 3


Total*

NCTM Standard 3Fall 2007 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100%Fall 2008 (n=1) 100% 0% 0% 100%Fall 2009 (n=2) 50% 50% 0% 100%

Total (n=5) 40% 40% 20% 100%




NCTM Standard 3

Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0Does Not Meet Standards – 1

Meets Standards - 3


Total*





Total NA NA NA NA

Action Plan


• Assessment 6, Mid-level Assessment Exam needs to be checked for face validity to determine if the twenty questions are appropriate to adequately evaluate students in relation to the courses completed and to determine if the instrument is measuring the student-learning outcomes. A mathematics faculty member not previously involved with the Mid-level assessment will be asked to conduct this check.


Action Plan (Continued)



Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology



PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology

PROGRAM OBJECTIVE 1



Measurements




6.1: Use knowledge of mathematics to select and use appropriate technological tools, such as, but not limited to, spreadsheets, dynamic graphic tools, computer algebra systems, dynamic statistical packages, graphing calculators, data-collection devices and presentation software

Required courses:MATH 1001MATH 2215MATH 3001MATH 3013MATH 3413MATH 4772STAT 3013EDUC 3673EDUC 4313EDUC 4965EDUC 4975

Elective courses:MATH 4113STAT 3113

Lesson Plans (direct)


TWS (direct)





Portfolios graded using standardized rubric





Assessed in MATH 4772






Display of Assessment Data – Lesson Plans


TABLE 19Results of Lesson Plans

NCTM Standard 6

Total Number of Lesson Plans Scored: n = 6 (two for each of the three assigned lesson plans)


Meets Standards - 3


Total*

NCTM Indicator 6.12008-2009 (n=6) 0% 83% 17% 100%2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA



Table 20Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Education Portion

NCTM Standard 6

Total Number of Assessments: n = 4 or 8**Total Number of Candidates: N=2

Mean Min

Max

# of Not

Observed


Meets Standards - 2


E3 (NCTM 6.1, 7.6, 8.9)Fall 2009 (n=2) 3.0 3 3 0 0% 0% 100%

Spring 2010 (n=2) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%Total (n=4) 2.75 2 3 0 0% 25% 75%

*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.*Items found on Education University Supervisor Form


Display of Assessment Data – Student Teaching Evaluation (continued)


NCTM Standard 6


Mean Min

Max

# of Not

Observed


Meets Standards - 2


M10 (NCTM 6.1)

Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%

Spring 2010 (n=4) 3.0 3 3 1 0% 0% 100%

Total (n=8) 2.7 2 3 1 0% 29% 71%






NCTM Standard 6



Meets Standards - 3


Total*

Factor 4 (36 points)(NCTM 6.1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.6, 8.3, 8.7, 8.9) 0-10 11-28 29-36

2008-2009 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%2009-2010 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%

Total (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%




NCTM Standard 6

Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0


Meets Standards - 3


Total*



Statistics worksheet (Graphing Calculator)





NLVM Worksheet (Teaching of Secondary Mathematics)



Total NA NA NA NA

Action Plan



• Ask the Dean of the School of Science and Technology to convert the remaining mathematics classrooms (that are not already smart classrooms) in Burch Hall to smart classrooms in order to enhance student learning.

Action Plan(continued)


• Ask the Dean of the School of Science and Technology to purchase TI Emulator software for the classrooms. According to the TI website, “This easy-to-use software complements the TI-83 Plus and TI-84 Plus families of graphing calculators, letting the educator project an interactive representation of the calculator’s display to the entire class. It is an ideal demonstration tool for leading classroom instruction of math and science concepts.” Faculty who previously used this software agreed that it is very helpful to the students.

Action Plan(continued)



Ancillary Actions


• Ask the Dean of the School of Science and Technology to have Room B026 in Burch Hall redecorated. The atmosphere of this classroom in unfriendly and repressive. Students say that the classroom feels like a prison or a detention center. One student commented, upon having a class in a different room, that she was “glad to be out of the basement.” A more student-friendly atmosphere should promote more positive student learning experiences.

Published information on graduates

78

Academic Year 09-10 Entered Working in Discipline OtherSummer 2009 0 0 0Fall 2009 0 0 0Spring 2010 0 1 0Total 0 1 0

Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010

Questions?


department of mathematical sciences school of science and technology

Documents

knowledge of calculus

proof standard

probability standard

algebra standard

dispositions standard

operation standard

knowledge of reasoning

knowledge of number