M.S.
in
Technology
Education
Assessment
in
the
Major
By
Kenneth
Welty,
Program
Director
2009
Submitted
October
2010
i
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Program Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Progress Toward the Degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
Assessment of Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
Follow-up Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Dissemination of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Appendices
Appendix A: Program of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
Appendix B: Candidate Progress Towards the Degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Appendix C: Assessment of Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
Appendix D: Program Specific Follow-up Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
ii
Introduction
4. Articulate an in-depth knowledge of technology
education, its history, philosophy, purpose, current
status and future.
The revision of the M.S. in Technology Education went
into effect during the fall semester of 2009. The following
report will present evidence of candidate learning from this
date through the summer of 2010. It will also address the
status of the program in terms of achieving desired enrollment
targets and the progress candidates have made towards degree
completion, as well as the future of the program as a discrete
program of study.
5. Continue to systematically acquire new knowledge
through action research, the study of promising
practices, serious reflection and constant evaluation.
6. Make useful contributions to the field through
innovation and the dissemination of promising
practices.
7. Assist with the development of other professionals by
serving as a mentor to individuals and the profession.
Program Goals
8. Advance the discipline by providing vision, leadership,
and professionalism.
The 2009 program revision program resulted in a modest
list of prescribed courses that were selected to fulfill the
mission of the program. More specifically, the course
sequence was configured to “Support aspiring master
technology teachers striving to apply and reflect upon
evidence-based practices for the enhancement of student
learning.” Unfortunately, the program goals were not revised
along with the program of study to ensure their alignment with
the new course sequence. Consequently, the following
program goals have, at best, a vicarious relationship with the
new program of study.
9. Conduct program evaluations and compile reports,
complete with recommendations.
10. Identify the skills gaps and preconceptions students
may bring to the subject.
11. Design teaching strategies and student learning
activities.
12. Select and successfully implement a range of
instructional techniques, keeping students motivated,
engaged and focused.
1. Translate technological and societal developments,
trends, issues, problems, opportunities and impacts into
meaningful learning experiences for students.
13. Supervise student teachers.
14. Assess the progress of individual students as well as the
class as a whole.
2. Apply research findings and tried best practices in
learning situations with students.
15. Conduct applied research for the improvement of
learning.
3. Assess program effectiveness, design optimal programs
and implement contemporary program designs.
1
Progress Towards the Degree
As students proceed into their second and final year of
the program, the themes of inquiry and research are addressed.
At this point in the program candidates are required to select a
problem within an area of interest, complete course work
regarding disciplined inquiry, and ultimately design and
implement a study under the auspices of a Master’s thesis.
None of the candidates enrolled in the program have reached
this benchmark.
The National Board informed the new program of study
for the MSTE program for Professional Teaching Standards.
They represent the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that
characterize National Board Certified Teachers. The revised
program of study is comprised of 12 graduate courses (see
appendix A).
There are essentially three benchmarks a student must
pass as they progress through the program, the first of which
occurs during the application process. To maximize the
likelihood of success, candidates are asked to articulate their
professional goals and submit their undergraduate grade point
average. The goals are used to determine their compatibility
with the program’s mission, goals, and course of study. The
undergraduate grade point average is used to gauge each
candidate’s academic preparation for graduate studies. All of
the candidates enrolled in the program have met these criteria
for admission (in contrast to probationary admission).
At the time of this assessment, two candidates have
completed most of their course work and have launched their
thesis studies. Two candidates were admitted in the spring of
2010 and five candidates were admitted into the program
during the summer of 2010. All seven are progressing in the
program in accordance with the recommended course
sequence. The balance of the candidates enrolled in the
program are completing courses in a more intermittent manner
based on the demands of their personal and professional lives.
The next benchmark comes after students have completed
their first year of course work and earned 15 graduate credits.
This assessment involves reviewing selected artifacts from
their course work under the themes foundations, innovation,
leadership, and professional development. This benchmark
requires candidates to reflect on their learning while providing
the program director an opportunity to examine their progress
and determine if they should progress in good standing. To
date, only two candidates have achieved and passed this
benchmark.
Given the status of most of the candidates in the program
and in accordance with the established benchmarks, this
assessment focuses on culminating pieces of work that target
course objectives that align with program goals. Each
candidate’s performance on these representative pieces of work
was coded as being “outstanding,” “satisfactory” or
“unsatisfactory.” Outstanding pieces of work met at least 90
percent of the criteria associated with the objective or
objectives in question. In other words, the work had to be
worthy of an “A.” Similarly, satisfactory pieces of work had to
meet at least 80 percent of the criteria thus representing a
Assessment of Learning Outcomes
2
performance worthy of a “B” in relation to the objective.
Pieces of work that met less than 80 percent of the criteria
associated with the objective were characterized as
“unsatisfactory.”
Wisconsin Teacher Standards. Specifically, alumni will be
asked how important their education at UW-Stout was in
enhancing their ability to satisfy each of the standards based
competencies by indicating the number that corresponded with
the following Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly agree, 2, 3, 4, 5 =
strongly disagree. Descriptive statistics will be used to report
the findings. This tool has yet to be administered because the
program is still anticipating its first graduate under the new online configuration.
A majority of the candidates enrolled in the program are
achieving course objective, and therefore program goals, at the
outstanding or satisfactory level (see Appendix C). Most of the
unsatisfactory performances can be attributed to three
candidates that struggle with the demands of graduate study.
More specifically, they have difficulty studying and applying
prominent theories about the art and science of teaching and
learning in the context of technology education. Furthermore,
they are reluctant to confront salient problems in the profession
and embrace contemporary ideas about the study of technology
in the public schools. Their work often demonstrates a strong
loyalty to traditional content and practices and reluctance to
think deeply about the issues that haunt the profession. In
accordance with the assessment system, their status in the
program will be thoroughly reviewed when they reach the
second benchmark.
Observations
The annual assessment of the program looked at the
candidates’ progress towards the degree as well as their
performance on culminating and representative pieces of work.
The information gathered resulted in the following
observations about the status and viability of the program.
Follow-up Studies
The Budget, Planning, and Analysis office at the
University of Wisconsin-Stout conducts a one- and five-year
follow-up study of university graduates. The MSTE program
exercised its option to have a program specific survey included
as part of this study (see Appendix D). The survey instrument
was developed to determine MSTE graduate’s perceptions as to
what level their MS degree prepared them with the skills
identified in the program competencies and in relation to the
3
•
Although enrollment in the program has increased, the
students are at various stages of the program that range
from just starting classes to launching a thesis.
Therefore, it would be extremely difficult to reach the
enrollment targets for dedicated classes.
•
The program revision did not result in a new series of
classes for technology education teachers that can
compete with other graduate programs while helping
them advance on the salary schedule and complete the
PDP process.
•
The support and goodwill of the upper administration has
diminished dramatically over the last several years due to
low enrollments.
•
•
•
•
The program does not have enough faculty participation,
especially during the summer, to support a quality
program that provides candidates diverse perspectives
about the study of technology in the public schools.
complete the program in the most efficient manner
possible.
There is a growing trend in public education to address
the study of technology through STEM initiatives with
very little, if any, consideration given to technology
education programs and faculty given their loyalty to
traditional content (crafts and trades) and pedagogy
(vocational training).
•
Focus attention on developing a series of classes for a
STEM certificate as proposed by the Wisconsin
Department of Public Instruction.
•
Use the proposed STEM certificate sequence to incubate
a new Master’s degree program in STEM that addresses
the needs of science, technology, and mathematics
teachers.
From the author’s perspective, developing a graduate
program in integrated STEM education would have the
following advantages.
Input from the program’s advisory committee, coupled
with national and state initiatives, suggests integrated
STEM education is an emerging area of focus for
graduate education and professional development for
public teachers.
Practicing technology education teachers have lots of
attractive options for earning a Master’s degree and
advancing on the salary schedule. According to many of
our alumni, the most attractive programs are faster,
cheaper, and easier than the MSTE program at UW-Stout.
The number of candidates interested in the program is
smaller than anticipated given the competition and the
nature of the alternatives.
Recommendations
•
A Master’s degree program in STEM education would
take better advantage of the faculty, especially those with
expertise in science and mathematic education.
•
A Master’s degree program in STEM education would be
a logical extension of the current efforts to certify
science, mathematics, and technology teachers at the
undergraduate level.
•
An M.S. in STEM would represent the systemic change
that was called for in the original effort to revise the M.S.
in Technology Education.
•
A STEM program would be more responsive to the
genuine needs of practicing technology teachers if it
addressed the math and science content pedagogy that is
needed to address the study of engineering.
•
A STEM program would provide technology, science,
and mathematics teachers an opportunity to interact with
Given the current status of the program, the following
recommendations are being proposed.
•
Close enrollment into the program and develop an
aggressive schedule for those currently enrolled to
4
one another in a manner that is consistent with the levels
of collaboration needed to implement integrated STEM
education in the public schools.
•
A STEM program is more likely to be attractive to
forward thinking technology teachers from across the
nation than program dedicated to solely to technology
education.
•
An M.S. in STEM is more consistent with the espoused
vision for STEM education at UW-Stout.
•
A STEM program would be more consistent with the
current funding opportunities and outreach activities.
Dissemination of Findings
Technology Education faculty meet weekly during the
academic school year. This report will be shared with them
during our regularly scheduled meetings. Key findings will
inform the program of work for the next academic year. In
addition, this report will also be shared with other faculty that
are integral to the delivery of the program, the SOE
administration, and the MSTE program advisory committee.
Feedback will be sought during upcoming advisory committee
meetings.
5
Appendix A
Program of Study
Course Number
Course Title
Credits
TECED-704
History and Philosophy of Technology Education
2
PSYC-730
Advanced Psychology of Learning
2
TECED 708
Issues in Technology Education
2
TECED-710
Curricular Innovations in Tech Ed
2
TECED-603
Activities in Tech/Voc. Education
2
TECED-638
Course Construction
2
TECED-744
Seminar (Implementing Engineering)
3
EDUC-782
Instructional Analysis
4
EDUC-742
Program Evaluation
3
TECED-739
Introduction to Research in Vocational/ Technology Education
1
EDUC-740
Research Foundations
4
TECED-735
Problems in Industrial/Technology Education
2
6
Appendix B
Candidate Progress Towards the Degree
Fall 08
00795501
Fall 09
Fall 09
Spr 10
Udell, Andrew W.
00703189
Fall 09
Fall 09
Spr 10
Walz, Catherine M.
00892482
Fall 09
Fall 09
Spr 10
Sum 10
Sum 10
Sum 10
Stapleton, Kyle I.
01054691
Spr 10
Spr 10
Sum 10
Sum 10
Sum 10
Thiel, Adam T.
00854750
Fall 07
Win 08
Spr 10
Huset, Jesse W.
00837006
Fall 09
Fall 09
Spr 10
Hertel, Daniel R.
00861607
Spr 01
Jahn, Kent L.
01057844
Sum 10
Sum 10
Calanchini, Matthew E.
01059607
Sum 10
Sum 10
Bussan, Cory J.
00951132
Greisinger, Blake L.
01061040
Merritt, Jay T.
00733281
Larson, Jonathan J.
00842129
Fall 09
TECED-735
EDUC-740
Pomietlo, Timothy F.
Fall 08
TECED-739
00719508
Sum 10
Spr 10
Spr 10
Spr 10
Spr 10
Fall 10
Sum 08
Spr 08
Spr 08
Spr 10
Sum 01
Sum 05
Sum 05
EDUC-742
Pempek, Randall J.
Sum 10
EDUC-782
00920349
Sum 10
EDUC-744
Spoerk, Tammy K.
TECED-638
00729995
TECED-603
Remiker, Jeffery J.
TECED-710
ID No.
TECED-708
Name
PSYC-730
Students Enrolled in the
M.S. in Technology Education
TECED-704
Program of Study
Fall 10
Fall 09
Fall 10
Spr 07
Spr 10
Fall 10
Fall 10
Spr 08
Sum 10
Sum 03
Fall 10
Sum 10
Fall 10
Fall 09
Fall 10
Fall 10
Fall 10
Spr 10
Sum 10
Sum 10
Sum 10
Fall 10
* The courses completed to-date that provided the data for the assessment of learning outcomes
7
Appendix C
Assessment of Learning Outcomes
Program
Goals
Course
4
TECED-704
Culminating
Pieces of Work
Outstanding
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
No. of
Students
Uncover the relationship between
history and philosophy in the
context of one’s own beliefs and
experiences.
“I believe...” Paper
2 (40%)
1 (20%)
2 (40%)
5
Describe the major milestones in
the history and evolution of
technology education.
Weekly readings,
comprehension
questions, and
discussions
regarding the
history and
evolution of
technology
education.
1 (20%)
3 (60%)
1 (20%)
“Exploring the
Roots of
Technology
Education”
Research Paper
“Developing a
Rationale for the
Study of
Technology” paper
2 (40%)
2 (40%)
1 (20%)
2 (40%)
1 (20%)
2 (40%)
Relevant Course Objectives
Identify key leaders in the
development of technology
education and describe the impact
that their ideas had on the
discipline.
Level of Competency Demonstrated
Describe the problems, issues, and
trends associated with technology
education.
Addresses a central question about
technology education that requires
historical inquiry for an informed
response.
8
Develop, present, and defend a
factually and logically sound
argument for including the study
of technology in the general
education curriculum.
8
Program
Goals
Course
1, 5
TECED-708
Relevant Course Objectives
Culminating
Pieces of Work
Outstanding
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
No. of
Students
2 (25%)
8
Identify and describe the salient
issues that are affecting the study
of technology in public education
from a local, state, and national
perspectives.
“Identifying
Critical Issues and
Problems”
assignment
5 (63%)
1 (12%)
Articulate the critical factors
associated with and contributing to
prominent issues in technology
education.
Weekly readings
and comprehension
quest-ions
regarding issues
7 (88%)
1 (12%)
Develop, present, and defend
logically and factually sound
recommendations for addressing
the prominent issues affecting the
study of technology.
“Making Sense of
the Issues” paper
2 (25%)
2 (25%)
9
Level of Competency Demonstrated
4 (50%)
Program
Goals
Course
1, 8,
TECED-710
Relevant Course Objectives
Culminating
Pieces of Work
Outstanding
Satisfactory
2 (33%)
6
Describe innovations in
technology education curriculum
and instruction.
STEM Curricula
Reviews
4 (66%)
Articulate the nature of advanced
pedagogical strategies for
facilitating the study of technology
and encouraging student learning.
Engineering
Notebook Project
3 (50 %)
Analyze curriculum innovations to
determine the extent to which they
are consistent with exemplary
practices in education.
Weekly readings
and comprehension
questions regarding
innovative
curricula
5 (83%)
1 (17%)
“Engineering
Project Analysis”
assignment
4 (66%)
2 (33%)
Propose modifications to improve
innovative curricula so it targets
the standards endorsed by the
profession and capitalized on the
teaching and assessment strategies
that are supported by research.
Make informed judgments about
innovative curriculum products
and initiatives to determine the
extent to which they are worthy of
adoption.
10
Unsatisfactory
No. of
Students
Level of Competency Demonstrated
2 (33%)
1 (17%)
Program
Goals
Course
1, 6, 11
TECED-603
Relevant Course Objectives
Culminating
Pieces of Work
Level of Competency Demonstrated
Outstanding
Articulate the philosophical and
pedagogical principles that
underpin the development and
implementation of engaging
learning activities.
Readings and
comprehension
questions regarding
learning activities
7 (100%)
Identify salient opportunities to
introduce hands-on learning
experiences that are consistent
with the interests and abilities of
students and address the goals and
objectives of the school's
curriculum.
“STEM Learning
Activity Project”
4 (57 %)
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
No. of
Students
7
3 (43%)
Use a variety of strategies and
frameworks for designing and
implementing hands-on learning
activities that integrate
mathematics, science, and
technology concepts and skills.
Develop time- and cost- effective,
highly experiential, contextually
authentic, conceptually rich, and
developmentally appropriate
learning activities.
Develop documentation for
teachers and students that will
support the implementation of the
learning activity as well as the
teaching and learning process.
11
Program
Goals
1, 2, 3,
12
Course
TECED-638
Relevant Course Objectives
Develop, present, and defend a
unit for a technology education
course that is consistent with
contemporary practices for
designing curriculum and
instruction.
Culminating
Pieces of Work
Outstanding
Curriculum Project
5 (100%)
Level of Competency Demonstrated
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
No. of
Students
5
12
Appendix D
UW‐Stout’s
School
of
Education
(SOE)
Program
Specific
Follow‐Up
Survey
M.S.
in
Education
and
M.S.
in
Technology
Education
Please
help
us
assess
our
programs
by
answering
the
following
questions.
Your
responses
are
important
and
will
assist
us
in
our
efforts
to
continuously
strengthen
our
programs.
1. I
am
an
M.S.
in
Education
Graduate
2. I
am
an
M.S.
in
Technology
Education
Graduate


My
education
at
UW‐Stout
prepared
me
to:
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
2
3
4
5
1
NA
1.
Understand
the
content
and
central
concepts
of
the
discipline
I
teach.
2.
Create
meaningful
learning
experiences
based
on
my
content
knowledge.
3.
Effectively
teach
and
language
arts
including
phonics
(PK‐6,
Special
Education
and
Reading
Teacher
licenses
only).
4.
Effectively
teach
math
skills
(PK‐6,
Special
Education,
and
Math
licenses
only).
13
5.
Provide
instruction
that
supports
student
learning
and
their
intellectual,
social
and
personal
development.
6.
Create
instructional
experiences
adapted
for
students
who
learn
differently.
7.
Use
my
knowledge
of
minority
group
relations
to
create
appropriate
instruction
for
diverse
groups.
8.
Modify
curricula
when
instructing
students
with
disabilities.
9.
Use
a
variety
of
learning
strategies
to
encourage
critical
thinking
and
problem
solving.
10.
Create
a
learning
environment
that
encourages
positive
social
interaction,
active
engagement
in
learning
and
self‐
motivation.
11.
Resolve
conflicts
between
students
and
between
students
and
staff.
12.
Assist
students
in
learning
how
to
resolve
conflicts.
13.
Deal
with
crises
or
disruptive
situations.
14.
Use
effective
communication
techniques,
media
and
technology
to
foster
active
inquiry,
collaboration
and
supportive
interaction
in
the
classroom.
15.
Use
instructional
technology
to
enhance
student
14
learning.
16.
Plan
instruction
based
on
knowledge
of
subject
matter,
students,
the
community
and
curriculum
goals.
17.
Use
formal
and
informal
assessment
strategies
to
evaluate
student
progress.
18.
Use
assessment
tools
for
students
with
disabilities.
19.
Use
developmental,
multiple
and
measurable
assessment
tools
to
assess
student
learning
over
time.
20.
Use
assessments
grounded
in
research
and
based
on
best
practices
in
education.
21.
Use
assessment
tools
with
identified
benchmarks
or
levels
of
proficiency.
22.
Analyze
student,
classroom,
and
school
performance
data;
make
data‐driven
decisions
about
strategies
for
teaching
and
learning.
23.
Reflect
on
teaching
and
evaluate
the
effects
of
choices
and
actions
on
students,
parents
and
others.
24.
Assess
and
analyze
student
learning,
make
appropriate
adjustments
to
instruction,
monitor
student
learning,
and
develop
and
implement
meaningful
learning
experiences
to
help
all
students
learn.
15
25.
Foster
relationships
with
colleagues,
parents
and
the
community
to
support
student
learning
and
wellbeing.
Thank
you
for
your
help
by
responding
to
this
survey.
16