elementary education - william woods university

Annual Assessment

Report Elementary Education

Shari Means

Program Mission:

Annual Assessment Report

Program Profile

2012-2013 2013-2014

Majors (total, majors 1,2,3) 50 45

Minors NA NA

Concentrations (Add Rows

if needed)

Social Science: 54

English: 0

Science: 2

Math: 7

Art: 5

Speech/Theater: 0

Social Science: 44

English: 2

Science: 2

Math: 7

Art: 5

Speech/Theater: 2

Full Time Faculty

(Education)

8 8

Part Time Faculty 2 2

Combine all major students. If your discipline has a secondary education certification component, you

will need to indicate that in the title of this report unless you are submitting a separate report for the

education component.

*If your discipline is a major with one or multiple concentrations, that information needs to be

included as separate content. Report the number of declared students by concentration and each

concentration will need a separate assessment section.

Program Delivery (HLC 3A3)

Traditional on-campus ________X____

Online Program ____________

Evening Cohort _______X______

Program Retention Numbers:

Year 2009-2014

Persistence % Freshman to Soph (2009-2010) 67%

Persistence % Soph to Junior (2010-2011) 54%

Persistence % Junior to Senior (2011-2012) 54%

Graduation Rate from 6 year cohort. (2009-2014) ___50%_ / __54%__

Retention: IPEDS definition. (The percentage of students entering fall freshman year who are retained

through the fall of the sophomore year) This does not include transfers.

Persistence: the number of students who continue to make progress towards the degree from year to

year within the program.

Graduation Rate: from the incoming fall cohort of students how many graduated within 4 and 6 year

national average

Analysis: Program goals for student retention, persistence and degree completion are? What do the persistence

numbers mean to the faculty in the program? Are your persistence and graduation data what you

expected? If yes, what has made for this success? If not, how could they be improved? Consider the

students’ “time to degree.” Does the actual time to degree fit and reflect the program’s expected and

advertised time? If not, are there ways to align the two?

Outside Accreditation: Is your program accredited by outside accreditor? If “yes”, name the accrediting agency and include

the cycle for accreditation review.

Is accreditation available for your program?

Are you making strides to attain accreditation? If no, why not?

Program Objectives:

Objective 1. Content knowledge and perspectives aligned with appropriate instruction.

Objective 2. Understanding and encouraging student learning, growth, and development.

Objective 3. Implementing the curriculum.

Objective 4. Teach critical thinking.

Objective 5. Creating a positive classroom learning environment.

Objective 6. Utilizing effective communication.

Objective 7. Use of student assessment data to analyze and modify instruction.

Objective 8. Professional practice.

Objective 9. Professional collaboration.

Program Objectives Matrix (from most recent Assessment Plan)

Obj. 1 Obj. 2 Obj. 3 Obj. 4 Obj. 5 Obj. 6 Obj. 7 Obj. 8 Obj. 9

EDU201 I A

EDU211 A R

EDU231 A R I M I I I I I

EDU250 I-R I-R I-R A I-R I-R I-R I-R

EDU291 I I-A I

EDU292 R R-A R-A I R R-A

EDU317 I R-A R

EDU318 I, A R R R R

EDU341 R-A R

EDU392

EDU393

EDU422

EDU441 R

EDU453

EDU490 M-A M-A M-A M-A M-A M-A M-A M-A M-A

EDU492 M-A M-A M-A M-A M-A M-A M-A M-A M-A

MAT231

PED107

PSY209 I I

PSY221 I,R,A R R,A R,A R

I=Introduced R= Reinforced M=Mastered A=Assessed

Early Childhood Endorsement

Obj. 1 Obj. 2 Obj. 3 Obj. 4 Obj. 5 Obj. 6 Obj. 7 Obj. 8 Obj. 9

EDU261 I A

EDU281 A R

EDU301 A R M

EDU313 A

EDU417

Assessment of Program Objectives

Objective 1

Content knowledge and perspectives aligned with appropriate

instruction.

Methods 317 – Thematic Unit Lesson Plans

Praxis II

MoPTA

Evaluation by Supervisor and Cooperating Teacher

Benchmark Scoring guide lists necessary components for Thematic Unit Lesson

Plans. (Direct Instruction Lesson Plan Rubric.)

Passing Score on Praxis II

Passing score on each of the 4 Tasks of the MoPTA

Proficient level of evaluation by supervisor and cooperating teacher

Data Collected

(course specific)

1. Students are required to create/submit 4 ELA lesson plans as part of

a thematic unit. Each lesson plan is graded using the direct

instruction lesson plan rubric. (Rubric included) Average percentage

from each lesson plan is included: Lesson Plan 1/ 84%; Lesson Plan 2

90%; Lesson Plans 3- 4/ 89%.

2. Student scores on the Praxis II are: 165, 166,170, 173, 173, 174, 175,

177, 178, 179, 179, 179, 180, 183, 188, 188, 189.

3. MoPTA scores: Task 1/ 92%; Task 2/95%; Task 3/ 96%; Task 4/ 93%.

4. Supervisor/cooperating teacher scores include: 87% A; 13% B.

Data Collected

(Assessment Day,

external tests,

Senior

Achievement)

1. Students are required to pass the Praxis II (164) prior to student

teaching.

2. During student teaching, student teachers are required to complete 4

tasks and upload those tasks to ETS where they will be scored by

educators in the state of Missouri in the future but were scored by WWU

professors this school year.

3. In addition, student teachers are observed and evaluated by both the

cooperating teacher and the supervisor from WWU. Both of these people

determine the grade based on both the formative and summative

evaluations. (Evaluation forms included)

Results/Outcomes 1. Lesson Plan Scores indicate growth between 1 & 2 and staying fairly

constant between 2 & 3-4. These were turned in throughout the

semester to stimulate growth as opposed to all at once, which

eliminated the chance for improvement.

2. Praxis II scores are all passing and include a range of 24 points.

3. MoPTA scores show consistent achievement, with a slight drop on

the last task. There is a need for continued motivation on Task 4. We

will need to analyze the results when the tasks are graded by state

entities.

4. All student teachers showed growth in content knowledge during

the semester.

Proposed changes

to the assessment

process

1. The coursework will continue to be turned in throughout the

semester to allow students to improve their lesson plans.

2. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education assessment

process will change substantially over the next several years. The

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has

changed several of its requirements for elementary teacher

certification. The Praxis II will be replaced with the Content Area

Assessment which does not have a passing score designated, yet.

Each of the 4 MoPTA tasks will be submitted starting Fall 2014 for

scoring, although the scores will not count toward certification

during the 2014-2015 school year. These 4 tasks must be completed

during student teaching and uploaded to ETS.org. They will be

evaluated by practicing education professors in the state of Missouri.

New formative and summative clinical evaluation forms will be

approved by the state school board in July (hopefully) and these

forms will include points which will help the Supervisor determine a

grade based on a point value. No passing score has been designated,

yet.

Budget needs

related to the

objective?

1. We will need to purchase new study materials for the Content Area

Exams when these materials become available. (Cost ????)

2. A way to include assessment fees for the Content Area Exam and the

evaluation of the MoPTA Tasks as part of the semester fees would be

advisable. This would enable students to use grants or loans to pay

for these.

Objective 2 Understanding and Encouraging Student Learning, Growth and

Development.

Methods Direct Instruction Lesson Plan

Unit Plan




Benchmark Age-appropriate activities

Differentiated activities




Data Collected

(course specific)

1. Students are required to create/submit a Direct Instruction Lesson Plan.

(Rubric included)

Data Collected

(Assessment Day,

external tests,

Senior

Achievement)


teaching.









Results/Outcomes 1. Direct Instruction Lesson Plan Scores (minus the 1 student who did

not turn one in): Average score: 42.5/50 or 85%.


177, 178, 179, 179, 179, 180, 183, 188, 188, 189.



Proposed changes

to the assessment

process

2. No change to the Direct Instruction Lesson Plan (EDU 291)

3. The DESE assessment process will change substantially over the next

several years. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

has changed several of its requirements for elementary teacher


Assessment which does not have a passing score designated, yet. Each

of the 4 MoPTA tasks will be submitted starting Fall 2014 for scoring,

although the scores will not count toward certification during the 2014-

2015 school year. New formative and summative clinical evaluation

forms will be approved by the state school board in July (hopefully) and

these forms will include points which will help the Supervisor

determine a grade based on a point value. No passing score has been

designated, yet.

Budget needs

related to the




objective? evaluation of the MoPTA Tasks as part of the semester fees would be


for these.

Objective 3 Implementing the curriculum.

Methods Math Fair Miniesson Plan/Assessment/Reflection

Praxis II

4 Tasks of the MoPTA

Evaluation by supervisor and cooperating teacher

Benchmark Passing grade on Math Fair Miniesson Plan/Assessment/Reflection




Data Collected

(course specific)

1. Students are required to create/submit a minilesson for an activity

which will be implemented 24-30 times during a math fair.

2. Students are then required to assess their own performance.

3. Students then write a reflection of how the activity began, how it

was changed for improvement and overall impressions of the success

of the activity.

Data Collected

(Assessment Day,

external tests,

Senior

Achievement)


teaching.









Results/Outcomes 1. Students were required to create/submit a minilesson for an activity

which was implemented 24-30 times during a math fair. Students

were then required to assess their own performance and to write a

reflection of how the activity began, how it was changed for

improvement and overall impressions of the success of the activity.

Each mini lesson plan was graded using the direct instruction lesson

plan rubric. (Rubric included) Average percentage from each

assignment are included: Minilesson Plan/87%; Student Self-

Assessment/ 97%; Reflection of Math Fair Activity/ 100%.


177, 178, 179, 179, 179, 180, 183, 188, 188, 189.



Proposed changes

to the assessment

process

1. No change to the Math Fair Activities

2. 2. The (DESE) assessment process will change substantially over the

next several years. The Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education has changed several of its requirements for elementary

teacher certification. The Praxis II will be replaced with the Content

Area Assessment which does not have a passing score designated,

yet. Each of the 4 MoPTA tasks will be submitted starting Fall 2014

for scoring, although the scores will not count toward certification

during the 2014-2015 school year. New formative and summative

clinical evaluation forms will be approved by the state school board

in July (hopefully) and these forms will include points which will

help the Supervisor determine a grade based on a point value. No

passing score has been designated, yet.

Budget needs

related to the

objective?






for these.

Objective 4 Teaching for critical thinking.

Methods Unit Plan

Praxis II



Benchmark Critical thinking activities included in Unit Plan/passing grade




Data Collected

(course specific)

Students are required to create a Unit Plan (Inquiry-based), based on the

rubric designed by eMINTS.

Data Collected

(Assessment Day,

external tests,

Senior


teaching.





Achievement) 3. In addition, student teachers are observed and evaluated by both the




Results/Outcomes 1. Students are required to create a Unit Plan (Inquiry-based), based on

the rubric designed by eMINTS. The average score on this Unit Plan

by Elementary Education majors was 87%.


177, 178, 179, 179, 179, 180, 183, 188, 188, 189.



Proposed changes

to the assessment

process

1. Changes will be made to the eMINTS materials during the 2014-

2015 school year. Professors will obtain retraining.

2. The assessment process will change substantially over the next

several years. The Department of Elementary and Secondary


teacher certification. The Praxis II will be replaced with the

Content Area Assessment which does not have a passing score

designated, yet. Each of the 4 MoPTA tasks will be submitted

starting Fall 2014 for scoring, although the scores will not count

toward certification during the 2014-2015 school year. New

formative and summative clinical evaluation forms will be

approved by the state school board in July (hopefully) and these

forms will include points which will help the Supervisor

determine a grade based on a point value. No passing score has

been designated, yet.

Budget needs

related to the

objective?






for these.

Objective 5 Creating a positive classroom learning environment.

Methods Task 1 & 4, MoPTA

Praxis II


Benchmark Passing Score on Tasks 1 & 4



Data Collected

(course specific)

Students complete Task 1: Knowledge of Students and the Learning

Environment; and Task 4: Implementing and Analyzing Instruction to

Promote Student Learning.

Data Collected

(Assessment Day,

external tests,

Senior

Achievement)


teaching.









Results/Outcomes 1. On Task 1, students scored at 92%.

On Task 4, students scored at 93%.


177, 178, 179, 179, 179, 180, 183, 188, 188, 189.



Proposed changes

to the assessment

process

The DESE assessment process will change substantially over the next




Assessment which does not have a passing score designated, yet. Each of

the 4 MoPTA tasks will be submitted starting Fall 2014 for scoring,




these forms will include points which will help the Supervisor determine

a grade based on a point value. No passing score has been designated,

yet.

Budget needs

related to the

objective?






for these.

Objective 6 Utilizing effective communication.

Methods Praxis II



Benchmark Passing Score on Praxis II



Data Collected

(course specific)

During student teaching, student teachers are required to complete 4




Data Collected

(Assessment Day,

external tests,

Senior

Achievement)


teaching.









Results/Outcomes 1. Student scores on the Praxis II are: 165, 166,170, 173, 173, 174, 175,

177, 178, 179, 179, 179, 180, 183, 188, 188, 189.



Proposed changes

to the assessment

process

The DESE assessment process will change substantially over the next




Assessment which does not have a passing score designated, yet. Each of

the 4 MoPTA tasks will be submitted starting Fall 2014 for scoring,




these forms will include points which will help the Supervisor determine

a grade based on a point value. No passing score has been designated,

yet.

Budget needs 1. We will need to purchase new study materials for the Content Area

related to the

objective?





for these.

Objective 7 Use of student assessment data to analyze and modify instruction.

Methods Assessment of Student WorkSamples/ Assignment EDU 341

Praxis II






Data Collected

(course specific)

Students analyze student work samples to determine amount of

knowledge/understanding of concept. They then summarize the findings

and plan future instruction.

Data Collected

(Assessment Day,

external tests,

Senior

Achievement)


teaching.









Results/Outcomes 1. Assessment of Student Work Samples: 89%.


177, 178, 179, 179, 179, 180, 183, 188, 188, 189.



Proposed changes

to the assessment

process

1. Students will continue to assess their students’ work samples to

inform future instruction.

2. The assessment process will change substantially over the next












Budget needs

related to the

objective?






for these.

Objective 8 Professional Practice.

Methods Score on My Professional Ethics/ EDU 291

Praxis II






Data Collected

(course specific)

Students analyze and discuss the Codes of Ethics created by MSTA and

NEA and then create their own Code of Ethics. They must address their

commitment to students, the profession, the community, and themselves.

Data Collected

(Assessment Day,

external tests,

Senior

Achievement)


teaching.









Results/Outcomes 1. Students analyze the Codes of Ethics created by MSTA and NEA and

then create their own Code of Ethics. Average score is: 95%


177, 178, 179, 179, 179, 180, 183, 188, 188, 189.



Proposed changes

to the assessment

process

1. Students will continue to analyze and discuss professional ethics.













Budget needs

related to the

objective?






for these.

Objective 9 Professional collaboration.

Methods Learning Contract (292)

Parent-Teacher Collaboration Activities (292)

Praxis II



Benchmark Passing Score on Learning Contract (rubric)

Passing Score on Parent-Teacher Collaboration Activities(rubric)




Data Collected

(course specific)

1. Students create a learning contract for a unit that gives all assignments

and point values for the unit. The unit must contain activities that

differentiate instruction and student choices. Students and parents sign

the contract. This is scored by a rubric (included).

2. Students create an annotated list of activities to promote collaboration

with parents. This is scored by a rubric (included).

Data Collected

(Assessment Day,

external tests,

Senior

Achievement)


teaching.









Results/Outcomes 1. Student scores on Learning Contract: 94%. (Not including student

who did not turn one in: 75%).

2. Student scores on Parent Collaboration Activities: 97%. (Not

including student who did not turn one in: 77%)


177, 178, 179, 179, 179, 180, 183, 188, 188, 189.



Proposed changes

to the assessment

process

1. Continue Learning Contract assignment and Parent Collaboration

Activities assignment.













Budget needs

related to the

objective?






for these.

Attach Rubrics and or other explanatory documents pertaining to program assessment discussed in the

chart to the report (portfolio guidelines, assignment sheet)

Analysis of Assessment: The data provided on course assignments is representative of the work required by the Elementary

Education Program. The data which DESE will provide is nonexistent at this point. We will continue to

change course content to compliment DESE requirements as soon as we are informed about those

requirements. No information has been given to institutions at this time on the Content Area Assessments

except for the beginning date. Teacher education programs have not received any scores at this time on

any of the 4 tasks that were submitted by student teachers. (HLC 4B1).

Analysis of the Assessment Process (Empirical & Non-Empirical) (HLC4B3) The Elementary Education Program is currently undergoing a total revision due to changes in DESE

requirements. The Education Division met weekly throughout March and April to match course

content to the requirements set forth in the new state compendium. We will be rewriting syllabi over

the summer and fall to make the necessary changes in course content.

In addition we are implementing the new testing requirements which have been discussed previously

under each objective.

Program Changes Based on Assessment: The elementary education program is currently undergoing a total revision due to changes in DESE

requirements. The Education Division met weekly throughout March and April to match course

content to the requirements set forth in the new state compendium. We will be rewriting syllabi over

the summer and fall to make the necessary changes in course content.

In addition we are implementing new testing requirements which have been discussed previously

under each objective.

General Education Assessment: Elementary education majors must complete the Missouri General Education Assessment by the end of

their sophomore year. The exam specifically covers: English Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social

Science. All elementary majors must pass this assessment to be admitted to the Teacher Education

Program. All of the other general education courses compliment one of these four main areas.

In addition, education majors must have excellent communication skills. They are required to complete

several assignments during course work which utilize communication skills. Some of these assignments

include: letter to parents; learning contract; permission slip, various lesson plans, storytelling, book

review; professional ethics; classroom website; resume; cover letter. During the student teaching

semester, elementary education majors utilize some of the knowledge and skills acquired in the general

education courses, but are primarily evaluated on the communication skils. (HLC 4B1)

Program Activities: Student Performance Day Activities (Assessment Day):

This year we had students meet in a computer lab in Burton so that they could take the new

MEP required by DESE for counseling purposes. Each student, who had not already taken it,

paid the fee, via credit card, and completed the measure. These results were sent to advisors

for advising purposes.

Students also attended a town hall meeting where they were informed on the most current

requirements set forth by DESE. They were given ending dates and beginning dates for the new

assessments.

Students also attended 2 workshops on school safety and motivation.

Assessment days don’t really enhance the elementary education program because they don’t occur at a

time when students are ready to assess particular skills & knowledge. Many students are at different

places in program completion and have completed different benchmarks.

Senior Achievement Day Presentations:

Student teachers worked in groups to describe, analyze, and reflect on the completion of the 4

Tasks of the MoPTA. This could be beneficial to future student teachers, but few ever attend.

Service Learning Activities:

Service Learning Activities are incorporated in several courses throughout the Elementary

Education Program. Students participate in a Storytelling Activity, a Math Fair, and Reading

Fairs at various elementary locations. The local schools enjoy being a recipient of our students’

teaching practice and our students get a chance to practice what they are learning with real

students.

Program Sponsored LEAD Events:

Report submitted by other education programs. One of the LEAD events offered was a

presentation on the new 4 Tasks required by DESE during student teaching. Although this

event would have benefitted all education students, only 3-4 attended.

Student Accomplishments:

Most Elementary Education student teachers are so busy with the requirements of being a

student teacher and completing the 4 tasks that they are not involved in any outside activities.

Faculty Accomplishments:

Alumni (Recent Graduates) Accomplishments (past year graduating class):

Most of the 2013-2014 graduates are currently looking for teaching jobs. Of the 19 Elementary

Education graduates this year, 3 have decided to attend graduate school. 5 have signed

contracts for teaching jobs. Many others will continue to seek employment throughout the

summer as more jobs become available that don’t require teaching experience.

Assessment Rubric

Annual Assessment Report Assessment

Component

Assessment

Reflects Best

Practices

Assessment Meets

the Expectations of

the University

Assessment

Needs

Development

Assessment is

Inadequate

Comments:

Learning

Outcomes

Posted

measurable

program

learning

outcomes

(objectives)

All outcomes

are developed

and include a

mix of

assessment

measures.

Measurable

program learning

outcomes.

Learning

outcomes are

clearly articulated.

Program

learning

outcomes

have been

identified

and are

somewhat

measurable

Program

learning

outcomes are

not clear or

measurable

Many of the

outcomes are

not in the

program

matrix for

assessment.

Need to

review the

matrix.

Assessment

Measures

Multiple

measures are

used to assess a

student-

learning

outcomes.

Rubrics or

guides used are

provided.

All

measurements

are clearly

described.

Specific measures

are clearly

identified

Measures relate to

program learning

outcomes.

Measures can

provide useful

information about

student learning.

Some

measurement

s are

described,

but need

further

description.

Assessment

measures do

not connect

to learning

outcomes

(objectives).

Assessment

measures are

not clear.

No

assessment

measures are

established.

Measures are

described

Assessment

Results

All learning

outcomes are

assessed

annually; or a

rotation

schedule is

provided.

Data are

collected and

analyzed to

evaluate prior

actions to

A majority of

learning outcomes

assessed annually.

Data collected and

aggregated are

linked to specific

learning

outcome(s).

Data are

aggregated in a

meaningful way

that the average

Data

collected and

aggregated

for at least

one learning

outcome

(objectives).

Data

collection is

incomplete

Standards for

student

Learning

outcomes are

not routinely

assessed.

Routine data

is not

collected.

N/A

Program is

too new to

have

collected

Only a few

courses are

reflected in the

data collection.

no data on the

early child

endorsement.

Only one

upper level

course used.

The provided

data was

improve

student

learning.

Standards for

performance

and gaps in

student

learning are

clearly

identified.

reader can

understand.

Standards for

student

performance and

gaps in student

learning are

recognized.

performance

and gaps in

student

learning are

not

identified.

assessment

data.

clearly

articulated.

Assessment

Component

Assessment

Reflects Best

Practices

Assessment meets

the expectations of

the University

Assessment

needs

Development

Assessment is

Inadequate

Comments:

Faculty

Analysis and

Conclusions

All faculty

within the

program

synthesize the

results from

various

assessment

measures to

form

conclusions

about each

learning

outcome.

Includes input

from adjunct

faculty.

Includes input

from outside

consultant.

Program faculty

receive annual

assessment results

and meet to

discuss

assessment

results.

Specific

conclusions about

student learning

are made based

on the available

assessment

results.

Some

program

faculty

receive

annual

assessment

results

Faculty input

about results

is sought

Faculty

input is not

sought.

Conclusions

about

student

learning are

not

identified.

N/A

Program

recently

started or

too few

graduates to

suggest any

changes.

There is no

discussion

about faculty

collaboration

on the report.

The reported

classes only

represent one

faculty

member’s

course content.

Actions to

Improve

Learning and

Assessment

A

comprehensive

understanding

of the

program’s

assessment

Description of the

action to improve

learning or

assessment is

specific and

relates directly to

At least one

action to

improve

learning or

improve

assessment is

No actions

are taken to

improve

student

learning.

Actions

The program

is waiting on

state standards

to be updated

prior to

curricular/asse

plan and

suggestions for

improvement.

Clearly stated

adjustments in

curriculum as a

result of

assessment

data.

faculty

conclusions about

areas for

improvement.

Description of

action includes a

timetable for

implementation

and identifies

who is responsible

for action

Actions are

realistic, with a

good probability

of improving

learning or

assessment.

identified.

Adjustments

to the

assessment

plan are

proposed but

not clearly

connected to

data

Minimal

discussion of

the

effectiveness

of the

assessment

plan;

minimal

discussion of

changes, if

needed.

discussed

are not

connected to

data results

or analysis.

N/A

Program

recently

started or

too few

graduates to

suggest any

changes.

ssment

changes being

made. The

program is in

limbo to make

changes as

they wait on

the state.

Additional Comments:

I would imagine that the mission for Elementary Education would be the same as the mission for the

rest of the education programs, but I am not sure. So far, each program has used a different mission

statement.

The numbers for the program have been declining, when looking at the past 5 years, the numbers

dropped from 75 total students to 45 total students. The past two years, which is what the report

focuses on also shows a small decline, does the program have any idea as to why numbers are

declining or if the numbers are just representative of total enrollment? I am working with Dr. Sturgis to

get the persistence numbers for all programs. The data that was provided is retention by 6 year cohort

and it not current student persistence. I am hoping to get you all data that is more beneficial to

programs and amounts to more than generic demographic information.

Does the Early Childhood endorsement have additional learning objectives? I would think that there

would be additional objectives that focused on the additional content those students were required to

master?

Need to look at the matrix and revise to match the plan or alter the plan to match the matrix. According

to the matrix, Objective 1 is assessed in courses EDU213, EDU318, EDU390, EDU492, PSY221, &

EDU301. That means on the assessment chart there sould be an assignment from each of these courses

that supports the objective. The data that was provided to show success in learning objective 1 is easy

to read and defined so that a person outside of the program could follow the assignment.

Some programs include the cost of exams as a course fee so that the program does not end up paying,

and the student can use their aid to pay for the exam. It is something that can be set up in financial

services and then put on the list of fees. The program would need to identify which course the fee

would be attached to, is there one course where they generally always take the exam?

The program matrix is something that needs to be evaluated for accuracy, knowing that there will be

many changes happening within this program, but the assessment provided is not represented by what

is on the matrix. More specificity on some assessment methods would also be helpful, i.e. the “unit

plan” on objective 4. Is this is one class specifically?? There are some gaps in the clarity of what is being

assessed where. Using the Praxis and the MOPTA for assessment of all objectives as well as the

evaluations by supervisors makes sense and with the rubric provided it is clear that those three

assessments are clear on all objectives. It is the supporting class artifact of assessment that needs to be

tied more clearly to courses. No complaints on the data provided for the course content, it would be

helpful to know which classes were contributing the data.

Objective 5: thank you for dividing out the tasks on the Mo PTA and the scores of students. That helps

make the assessment clearer.

Objective 7 thank you for including the course in the assessment measures. This one it would be

helpful to know which specific assignment is being used for assessment purposes.

I understand the changes coming from DESE are sweeping and impacting all aspects of the program,

but it seems that the program needs to coordinate the assessment process a bit to make it easier for the

various programs to collaborate and use the overlapping courses successfully. In essence, each report

should include data from EDU292 as evidence for Objective 2, 4, & 9. I don’t have the answers to help

programs coordinate the data, but if that was done in these programs it would benefit the assessment

process. This is one of the reasons for the assessment day activities, to allow time for faculty who teach

in the classes that are used across the curriculum to provide the data to a centralized location so that

when needed it is available to be shared. Some programs use their admin assistant for that or a folder

on the share drive, but then the data is present in a location where anyone who needs it for the report

can get to it. I hope that makes sense? I thought all the education program used TK20 for all their

assignment submission, if that is happening then there are reports that can be pulled easily. I thought

the rubrics were aligned to the current standards and that is what is used until DESE releases the new

ones, but I thought the old standards were in TK20 and aligned with the rubrics the program used. I

don’t know if that is the case or not??

There is nothing to assess for the early childhood endorsement? I guess I don’t understand this part, as

there are no objectives for this additional course work nor is there any evidence that the students with

this endorsement are assessed on their advanced understanding of younger kids. Does the state not

have objectives for early childhood??

elementary education - william woods university

Documents