APR Committee Report
Academic Program Review SUMMARY*
Department under review: Undergraduate PETE
Date self-study received in Dean’s office: 4/1/2015
Date of external consultant’s review: Fall 2014
Date APR received report: 7/1/2015
APR’s Recommendations (must be completed)
Recommendations:
1. Thoughtfully consider the decline in the number of major students and any implications for the
program.
2. Clarify a staffing plan, including a hiring plan for at least five years into the future.
3. Include more detailed information related to curriculum, assessment, and personnel in the next APR
self-study.
☐ No serious areas to address – review in next regularly scheduled cycle
☒ Some areas to address – review in next regularly scheduled cycle
☐ Some areas to address – department should submit short report on progress to Faculty Senate/Provost’s Office
in 3 years
APR’S summary of self-study (first two boxes must be completed)
APR’s summary of how the academic program attempts to reach its goals and objectives and the extent to which
those goals and objectives have been achieved.
The undergraduate Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) program is housed within the Department
of Exercise and Sport Science. This program addresses teacher certification in physical education as a major
(123 credits) or as a minor (24 credits) and encourages students to obtain licensure in multiple areas in
order to increase their employability. The undergraduate PETE program has undergone several revisions in
the past few years in order to accommodate the updated expectations for teacher education in the state of
Wisconsin. This included adopting a new set of teacher standards (InTASC) and therefore a new set of
evaluations. Members of this program have taken a leadership role within the School of Education to
determine the way UWL will prepare and assess teacher candidates in response to these new
expectations. The PETE program has ranged between 33 and 42 graduates in the major (Physical Education
BS) per year from 2009 to 2013. There has been a significant decrease in the number of graduates in this
major per year over the time frame 2007 to 2013 (decreasing on average by four graduates per year).
The undergraduate PETE programmed completed a full self-study and APR review in 2007. The 2007 APR
committee report requested a three-year progress report from the program that focused on “progress
toward improving assessment of student learning.” A progress report was submitted in 2009 and the APR
1
committee noted that the assessment of student learning was still not sufficient. The 2009 response from
the APR committee requested that the program continue to work on improving assessment with specific
requests to include rubrics, data, and curricular changes resulting from this data in their 2014 APR selfstudy.
APR’s comments including:
Notable Strengths
Collaborative relationships with community partners
Extensive opportunities in adventure and outdoor education
Notable Weaknesses/Challenges
Continue to respond to licensure changes at the state level
Turnover in personnel
Decline in graduating majors
APR evaluation/comments on any/all of the six specific components of the self-study (if applicable)
Self Study: Purposes
Evaluation
Criterion
Mission Statement or overall goals/objectives provided
Description of academic programs housed in department and interdisciplinary programs
to which department/program is major contributor
Clearly
expressed
☒
☐
Insufficient
or missing
☐
☒
☐
Sufficient
☐
Comments: The mission and vision statements are consistent with the mission and vision statements for the
School of Education and the Department of Exercise and Sport Science.
Self Study: Curriculum
Criterion
Evaluation
Well
supported
Sufficient
evidence
Some/partial
evidence
Insufficient
or missing
Summary of curriculum, including course delivery mode, and how it reflects
current disciplinary trends and emphases
☐
☒
☐
☐
Statement of minimum total credits to degree (justify if exceeds 120 cr)
and explain any significant difference between this and credits at time of
graduate reported in Table 1 of Unit Data Sheet
☐
☒
☐
☐
Comments:
•
•
•
Alignment of curriculum with disciplinary trends was discussed well.
The discussion of course delivery modes could be made more explicit (not addressed in the body of
the self-study, but found in Appendix F).
A more detailed justification for the number of minimum credits (48 general education + 60
professional requirements + 15 student teaching = 123) is needed in the self-study. The program
2
•
•
director clarified in conversation that the “60 professional requirements” includes science courses
that are required for all ESS students, courses specific to physical education, and an educational
psychology course.
Comments explaining the relatively high number of credits at graduation (shown in UDS to range
from 162 to 171 between 2006 and 2013) are provided, consistent with other SOE programs.
A discussion of how each of the additional licensures affects the number of credit hours would be a
useful addition to the self-study (specifically, outlining the required credits for each of these
additional licensures beyond those included in the PETE major).
Self Study: Assessment of Student Learning & Degree of Program Success
Criterion
Evaluation
Well
supported
Sufficient
evidence
Some/partial
evidence
Insufficient
or missing
N/A
Has appropriate assessment plan for measuring the stated student
learning outcomes for department (may be separate for each
program in department, including graduate)
☒
☐
☐
☐
☐
Provided assessment data collected during review period, and
discussed important changes made as a result of this data (linked
changes to data) plus potential future curriculum revisions due to
assessment results
☐
☐
☒
☐
☐
Provided Writing in the Major Program (WIMP) assessment results,
changes
☐
☐
☐
☐
☒
Well-defined process of advising students and description of any
changes made since last APR review
☐
☒
☐
☐
☐
Identified and described single most significant strength
☐
☒
☐
☐
☐
Identified and described single area most in need of improvement
and discuss plans for accomplishing this
☐
☒
☐
☐
☐
Comments:
Since the last APR review, the program has established a set of curriculum maps that relate the curriculum
to the InTASC and EdTPA standards adopted by DPI. The curriculum maps include at least one direct
assessment measure for each standard. However, there is minimal data collected at the time of the selfstudy from these assessments and no reflection/changes to the curriculum tied to these assessments.
Direct assessment results are only shared in the self-study by way of vague summary numbers (number of
students “ready to advance” based on portfolios and field evaluations) from one annual report (201213). This assessment data is not related to specific student learning outcomes, but rather to the composite
set of student learning outcomes. No changes (or lack of changes) to the curriculum are noted in response
to this data.
The self-study details the results of an indirect assessment of student learning (an alumni survey) and the
changes made in response to this data.
The assessment data that is missing from the current report (clearly documented direct assessment data
that ties explicitly to the program student learning outcomes) was specifically requested in the 2009 3-year
report response from the APR Committee. In follow-up conversation with the new Program Director, it was
noted that a detailed rubric that separately evaluates each of the program SLOs exists and is regularly
3
applied to student portfolios at three points in their course work. Systematic direct assessment of program
SLOs is taking place, but this was not fully communicated in the self-study.
Self Study: Previous Academic Program Review and New Program Initiatives
Criterion
Evaluation
Well
supported
Sufficient
evidence
Some/partial
evidence
Insufficient
or missing
N/A
Actions taken in response to recommendations of most recent
previous APR and results of those actions
☐
☐
☒
☐
☐
Continuing or new concerns related to your program/department’s
ability to achieve its goals were elucidated
☐
☐
☐
☐
☒
Plans for new program initiatives were provided
☐
☒
☐
☐
☐
Comments on any trends in the Unit Data Sheets noteworthy to
changes in the program/department
☐
☐
☐
☒
☐
Comments:
•
•
•
The initiatives and adjustments within this program appear to mostly be centered on making
appropriate adjustments in response to state-level requirements for teacher preparation programs
and are in line with SoE initiatives.
The program’s response to the recommendation, “The Program and the SAH Deans need to work
together to ensure that a systemic assessment method for determining student learning is
established,” shows evidence of progress, but clear direct assessment data and related reflections
are not provided in this section or in the assessment section of the self-study or in the appendices. A
conversation with the (new) program director clarified that robust direct assessment is taking place,
even though it was not documented well in the self-study.
The UDS show a significant decline in the number of majors over the time period 2007 to 2013. This
is not addressed in the self-study. The program director noted in a follow-up conversation that this
trend has been noticed. The decline is paralleling a national trend and possibly leveling out.
Self Study: Personnel
Criterion
Evaluation
Well
supported
Sufficient
evidence
Some/partial
evidence
Insufficient
or missing
☐
☐
☒
☐
Relative emphases placed on teaching, scholarly achievements and service
when making recommendations regarding retention and promotion are
clearly described
☐
☒
☐
☐
Clear description of staffing plan, with estimate for next 5 years
☐
☐
☒
☐
Professional development opportunities and expectations are clearly
described
Comments: (include APR comments concerning Unit Data Sheet data on faculty, IAS and workload)
•
•
The self-study noted that expectations for professional development are clearly laid out in
department bylaws, but did not explain the expectations in the self-study.
No indication was given in the self-study of a staffing plan except for the note that two new hires are
likely needed in the next year. Staffing plan information such as the total number of personnel in the
program, their areas of specialty, and their employment class (tenure/tenure track faculty or IAS,
full-time or part-time) were not reported.
4
•
The report addressed hiring plans for the next year (replacing two existing positions – one IAS and
one tenure-track), but did not discuss their plan for the next 5 years.
Self Study: Support for Achieving Academic Program Goals (Resources)
Criterion
Clear description of impact that physical facilities, supplies and equipment,
personnel and external funding have had on the ability to achieve goals
Evaluation
Well
supported
Sufficient
evidence
Some/partial
evidence
Insufficient
or missing
☐
☒
☐
☐
Comments:
•
•
•
The need was noted for additional dedicated space and exclusive access to resources.
The need for increased communication related to scheduling of facilities was discussed in the selfstudy.
In follow-up conversation on these points, the new Program Director noted that conflicts in
scheduling shared rooms and shared resources are not a notable concern.
External Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on report from External Reviewer or Accreditation Agency (if applicable)
Criterion
Areas addressed and comments made by external reviewer or accreditation
agency
Evaluation
Agree
with all
comments
Agree
with most
comments
Disagree
with most
comments
Disagree
with all
comments
☒
☐
☐
☐
Comments:
The evaluation from DPI did not include any areas of concern.
Department’s response to the Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on the Department’s Response (if applicable)
Criterion
Department’s response addressed all areas raised by external reviewer
Evaluation
Well
supported
Sufficient
evidence
Some/partial
evidence
Insufficient
or missing
☒
☐
☐
☐
Comments:
The department provided a clarification statement regarding using DPI as the external reviewer.
No response was required since no concerns were raised by DPI.
Dean’s Letter
APR’s Comments on Dean’s Letter (if applicable)
Criterion
Evaluation
Agree
with all
Agree
with most
Disagree
with most
Disagree
with all
5
Areas addressed and comments made by Dean
comments
comments
comments
comments
☒
☐
☐
☐
Comments:
The Associate Dean of the College of Science and Health noted no concerns.
The Dean of the School of Education did not have any specific strengths or weaknesses of the program to
comment on, based on the DPI evaluation.
* APR’s report to faculty senate will consist of this completed form in electronic form.
6