Program Data Analysis Report
Department Name: Early Childhood/Special Education
Date: March 20, 2012
Contact Person: Dr. Maureen Walcavich
Program: Early Childhood Graduate
Directions:
1. Review the program assessment data located in D2L.
2. List the 6 to 8 assessments for each program in the box provided for Program Assessments. Examine the data collection for
each program. Be sure to review both the fall and spring data collection. Answer the following questions for each program
assessment placing the information in the appropriate column:
o What does the data indicate for your program?
o What areas of concern if any do you have regarding this assessment?
o What recommendations do you have regarding any revisions for this assessment?
o What program changes if any does this data suggest?
Graduate Unit Data
Program
Assessment
ECED 700
Case Study
Data Analysis
Data from Fall, 2011 (N=17) indicate
that all of the students met target in 5 of
the 9 areas; 9 out of 17 met target on
application of Bronfenbrenner’s
Macrosystems; 13 out of 17 met target
on application of Bronfrenbrenner’s
Recommendations
Based on the data analysis, the following
recommendations are made:
• Provide examples of exosystems and
macrosystems from other case studies
• Review the definitions of the four levels
of ecological systems of
Implementation
Date
Fall, 2012
ECED 740
Family
Literacy
Project
ECED 730
Child Study
ECED 720
Math/Science
Learning
Center
ECED 715
Curriculum
Action Project
ECED 750
Action
Research
Exosystem.
Data from Spring, 2011 (N=14), all
students met target for 4 out of 9 areas.
The rest met acceptable (5 out of 9
areas)
Data from Fall, 2011 (N=16). Only 43%
met target in “Observations.” The other
area of concern is “Written Summary and
Evaluation of the Four Domains,” only 9
or 16 met target.
ONLY TAUGHT IN THE SUMMER
Data from Summer, 2011 (N=35). Only
26 out of 35 met target in “Aligning
assessment with objectives” and 27 out
of 35 met target in “As a reflective
practitioner who can identify the
strengths and weakness of their
math/science center.” Only 14 out of 35
met target in “Providing activities for
differentiating instruction.”
Data from Spring, 2011 (N-26): 80% of
all students met target in all areas; 92%
met target in 5 out of 6 areas. Only
areas of concern include Evaluation of
curricular approach and Writing a correct
bibliography
Data from Spring, 2011 (N=18). Only 8
out of 18 met target for Results and only
6 met target for Implications
Bronfenbrenner’s theory.
Continue delivery of course content in the same
manner.
Based on the data analysis, the following
recommendations are made:
• Clarify the expectations for writing
observations
• Review the information that should be
contained in the summary
Based on the data analysis, the following
recommendations are made:
• Require candidates to clearly label levels
of differentiating instruction (i.e., above,
target, and below)
• Review the SAS website and common
core standards online
• Review the evaluation criteria for the
reflective criteria with the students
Fall, 2012
Based on the data analysis, the following
recommendations are made:
• Review the criteria used to evaluate
curricular approaches
• Review APA guidelines
Spring, 2012
Based on the data analysis, the following
recommendations are made:
• Provide models of reports that have
exemplary results and implications
sections
• Consult with the instructors of EDUC
Spring, 2012
Summer, 2012
788: Research Methods in Education