Northern Arizona University College of Education Program Reviews
December 3-4, 2013
The off-site team (Drs. Grant Miller, Katharine Rasch, and James Vornberg) and on-site
reviewer Dr. Michael Lebec provided a comprehensive review of the College of Education
programs not accredited by an external accrediting body as per The Arizona Board of Regents
(ABOR) Policy Number 2-225. The targeted programs for this review were:
1. B.S. Ed. in Career and Technical Education (Educational Specialties department)
2. M.Ed. in Career and Technical Education (Educational Specialties department)
3. M.Ed. in Special Education-Non-certification (Educational Specialties department)
4. M.Ed. in Educational Leadership – School Leadership K-12 Emphasis
5. M.Ed. in Educational Leadership - Educational Foundations
6. M.Ed. in Educational Leadership – Community College/Higher Education
7. Ed.D. in Educational Leadership – Community College/Higher Education
8. M. Ed. in Early Childhood (Teaching & Learning department)
9. M. Ed. In Elementary-Continuing (Teaching & Learning department)
10. M. Ed. in Secondary-Continuing (Teaching & Learning department)
11. Ed.D. in Curriculum & Instruction (Teaching & Learning department)
The findings of the team will be organized in sections regarding overall Strengths,
overall concerns, and recommendations. Finally, program specific findings and
recommendations will be presented.
Overall Strengths
Faculty Expertise
Faculty experience and expertise is extensive in the field of study with many resources available
to students to not only succeed from their instruction but also their contacts for placement and
success in building bridges for professional success once they have completed their
studies/degrees. Clearly, the credentials of newly hired faculty will enhance existing expertise
and provide depth of knowledge in several areas, including educational research.
Flexibility and Responsiveness for Student Needs
The quality of students that have entered the program has been noted by the faculty. There is an
atmosphere of personalized service for the student among the faculty and collaboration within
programs in an effort to help the student attain their goals in the professional setting. There also
appears to be a variety of ways and locations to complete many of the master’s degree programs
that are offered, enabling the University to serve a large part of the state and also accommodate
out of state students who wish to earn degrees at NAU. The connection to the Western
Governors Consortium also provides a method to serve students from Western States at in-state
rates making these degrees available to citizens from outside Arizona. Further, Northern Arizona
University has a reputation as having a focus on students and their success. Students are not a
number when they come to study in both on-campus and extended campus locations. Both
faculty and students noted that they value quality in developing their programs and success for
their students. The university leadership at all levels should protect this reputation that has been
built over a long period and carefully guard policies that maintain such a relationship with
students.
Community College Partnerships
The close relationship that has developed between NAU and some of the community colleges
within the state is commendable as productive partnerships can be developed to help meet the
Community College and NAU program needs. Such partnerships can meet specific needs of both
institutions with specific programs as well as provide excellent locations for internships on the
job.
Faculty Engagement in Off-campus Programs
There has been significant faculty engagement in supporting and sustaining the development of
programs across the state. Even as administration of these programs have been more highly
centralized, faculty maintain a willingness to travel to sites, teach students from a variety of
locations across the state and serve rural, suburban and urban off-campus sites.
Emphasis on Developing Partnerships
The College has become focused on developing new school partnerships focused on areas of
mutual need and benefits. In some cases, partnership have also been renewed and revitalized.
These partnerships have the potential to increase graduate student enrollment and further the
influence of the NAU College of Education in P-12 state initiatives and priorities.
Overall Concerns
Development and Use of an Assessment System
For some faculty, it appears that there is a lack of clarity, value, and--as a result--modeling of
assessment systems. For example, the recent decisions to cut graduate programs from 36 to 30
hours did not appear to be guided by more than anecdotal information. (This approach to cutting
hours did not appear to be unique for educational leadership, however.) Further, the myriad
standards educational leadership faculty currently use seem more ambiguous and vague than
useful. Developing, using, and modeling an aligned assessment system is an opportunity for
students to experience and learn about how meaningful data (not just data for data's sake) can be
used to make informed decisions about program updates.
While it was clear that at the time of the review some of the program reports were at least one
year old, it was not clear what the current status of each of these programs within the unit’s
assessment system. It was not clear whether all programs had finalized their goals. The clarity of
program goals varied greatly and some had been revised since the program reviews were written,
but the revised goals were not available to the team. With goals in various stages of
development, faculty and chairs confirm that many M.Ed. programs have not yet finalized
specific goals and key assessments (known as signature assignments) to collect data as to the
effectiveness of candidate performance related to those goals. In addition, it was not clear the
extent to which all full-time faculty, adjunct faculty and candidates were aware of the currently
existing goals or systems for assessment for many of the programs. There is uneven
understanding among faculty in different programs as to the nature of appropriate assessments
and accountability for program goals rather than more limited responsibility for individual
courses. It is not clear how programs within departments are collaborating in the development
of assessments that cut across programs.
Candidate Evaluation of Courses in all Programs
The course evaluation instruments used to collect inputs from candidates in evaluating the
courses from their perspective need to be reviewed and rewritten in order to obtain more useful
information to improve courses and to better determine the successful presentation of material
taught to the students. Current instruments collect inputs; however the topics addressed by the
prompts are sometimes not appropriate or useful in gathering needed or valuable data from
students. This review and development process should have representatives from all groups
(students, professors and department/college leadership) in developing this instrument. Data
collected should be of assistance to both instructors and administrators in better determining
success of both the course outlines and the teaching procedures utilized.
Collaboration/Role Clarification with Mountain Campus and Off-Campus Delivery
It is clear that changes in the roles structure of the administration of off-campus delivery
programs has been in transition. In the process, it seems that the rapid growth of those programs
has been strategic to the enrollment growth of the university. At the same time, faculty perceive
that quality control and programmatic fidelity has, at times, been compromised by unclear
procedures and incomplete communication between the site coordinators and the Mountain
campus faculty. They specifically mentioned scheduling and approval/hiring of adjunct faculty
as areas of concern. Faculty report that there have been recent clarifications to procedures to
ensure that adjunct faculty at off-campus locations will be credentialed in the respective
departments, but tensions and ambiguity remains between the academic programs and the
resources and administrative structures related to the off-campus and on-line offerings.
Technical Support for Extended Campus Programs
There are 36 sites utilized to teach courses in the state with a variety of resources available at
each of these. However, the tech support available at these locations varies and sometimes the
faculty need easier access and assistance in utilizing the electronic resources available for their
teaching. Most of the support comes from the Mountain Campus personnel for this teaching, but
there is a need for easier access to this support for those located in extended campus sites,
including full-time faculty based at off-campus sites.
Collaboration Across Programs and Colleges
It is clear that most individual programs have had renewed conversations internally throughout
this program review process. However, it is unclear how opportunities for grants, interactions in
the public schools (particularly related to Early Childhood and STEM initiatives) and secondary
programs are exploring opportunities to utilize the expertise in the College of Education to
enhance/provide additional opportunities across colleges. There are grant opportunities that are
unrealized without a university emphasis and rewards for such collaborations.
Collaboration Within Programs
Instructional personnel (professors, full and part time) are spread over a large distance and many
seldom or almost never are in contact with the full time faculty in Flagstaff. Because all
contribute to a larger goal (that of preparing students for real world work) there is a need for
more significant contact and communication between those who are not located in Flagstaff for
convenient regular contact. When this is available through direct or indirect contact (online or
distance group meetings) better coordination should pay dividends to all who are involved and in
developing greater student assistance within the programs. Faculty on the Mountain campus
identified this concern as well and cited some examples of how these concerns are beginning to
be addressed.
Visibility of Programs for Prospective Students
Enrollment for programs hinges greatly on the marketing efforts, which are extended by those on
the Mountain Campus. The resources utilized in the marketing efforts are many; however, the
material and access to it by potential students is often blurred due to several factors such as
separating the programs offered through the extended campus and the same programs offered on
campus. For example, prospective graduate students have to perform multiple clicks (computer)
to access masters/doctoral program information and other relevant information through websites
in the College of Education, graduate school and Extended Campus. Many of these links do not
intersect or the links are out dated/dead, resulting in search fatigue and access failure.
Extended Program Advisement
There is a perception (also a requirement) that professors at extended campus locations are not to
advise students, but to refer them to resources on campus for their program advice. Faculty noted
that often times these on-campus sources cannot answer the student’s questions and must refer
them to others who are not available at that time, but the “designated individuals” do not call
them back or contact them with answers through electronic means. This translates to “no one
really cares” even though the instructors do care but are told that their job does not include
“counseling students.” What is perceived as being an “efficient model” for advisement actually
becomes a roadblock in the long run for serving the students. Eventually students grow to feel
“no one is interested in their success,” only in their enrollment. This issue is acute for programs
where full-time faculty and the majority of the student body are not on the Mountain campus.
Oversight/Communication with Part-time Faculty
The rapid expansion of off-campus locations has led to a proliferation of adjunct faculty. There
has been a lack of clarity as to who authorizes, hires, and monitors continued employment of
adjunct faculty. Program faculty report that there have been times when these adjuncts were
hired/appointed by branch campus administrators rather than full-time faculty. While current
chairs reported that this oversight is back in the hands of full-time faculty, there were no policies
or assurances presented that processes for faculty appointment were codified or consistent.
Lack of Communication/coordination for Targeted Marketing for Specific College Programs at
Off-campus Locations
Off-Campus program operations have been centralized. There remain tensions with faculty
regarding the implementation of the centralized plans, acknowledging that off-campus is a
separate fiscal unit. In the process, there have been plans for a centralized marketing plan,
though it has been unclear how the unit faculty were invited to provide input in this centralized
plan. While centralized vs. targeted marketing is always open to a wide variety of opinions and
perspectives, it is unclear how marketing research for decisions has both been communicated to
schools or programs or sought the input/consideration of information regarding the targeted
markets for public schools, which are drastically different than those from other, more corporate
programs. The College of Education perceives that there are markets to be tapped through
partnerships and other channels that would not be the same as those targeted in the centralized
plan and are very unclear as to how their input /data will be considered in recruiting off-campus.
Unarticulated Common Expectations Regarding Dissertations and a Lack of Exploration for
Alternatives for Ed.D. programs.
The team explored concerns regarding the Ed.D., explicitly related to the dissertations. This
program crosses all 3 departments examined and it is unclear what are global college-wide
expectations and accompanying oversight for dissertations. Central administration expressed
specific concerns that elements of the dissertation were not uniformly present (particularly those
in Ed. Leadership) nor was there sufficient rigor Faculty posit that dissertations are of sufficient
quality but could not point to uniform expectations, publications of expectations or specific
rubrics to ensure quality. This area needs much more study, to ensure that cross-department
expectations are appropriate. This area had very specific concerns/recommendations, but no
specific data to support any point of view. See our recommendations.
Overall Recommendations
Establish Protocol for Ongoing Program Review
Program Review committees of Mountain campus and field based faculty should be set up where
needed to examine all the requirements for each of the programs reviewed. This has begun with
the current review and changes in the number of hours in some of the master’s degree programs.
With the rapid change in the educational environment today there is a need to examine degree
and course requirements more often than in the past. With competition among programs across
the nation basically making almost all programs available to any student located anywhere in the
world, it is important to maintain cutting edge ideas and constructs when developing programs.
Programs not on the cutting edge of their field will lose their impact and enrollments if not
maintained. Such examination of programs will also mean that course revisions will also need to
be a topic of concern. A review cycle should be set up that makes this happen more often than it
has in the past; this will also necessitate that faculty loads realize that such a review will
necessitate research and focus time.
Clarify Program Outcomes
Program outcomes need to be carefully considered for the programs reviewed. In some cases the
outcomes for the programs considered here were really not program outcomes but rather
instructional goals that were more appropriately called course objectives. A program should
probably have about 7-10 outcomes that are broad statements. In reconstituting what has already
been written for this review, the more detailed points can be cataloged under these points and can
become instructional objectives that are then assigned to specific courses that make up the
requirements for the degree.
Commence Inclusion of Reviewed Programs in the College’s Assessment System
With clear program outcomes, plans for assessment should flow logically from those goals.
Identify and design signature assignments for each program and plans for data collection and
analysis for program improvement. Consideration should be given to using/modifying signature
assignments already in place for the college’s NCATE approved programs. Ensure that among
assessments designed there is attention to ensuring that programs can show evidence of support
of P-16 student learning.
The assessment system should also include robust instruments for faculty course evaluations
related to program outcomes.
The entire college would likely benefit from the recent hires' assessment backgrounds. These
faculty are already developing new courses for assessment and program evaluation. The college
should encourage these faculty to become leaders in educational assessment.
Strengthen Online Quality Assurance
The on-line instructional aspect for the programs reviewed need to undergo a specific evaluation
that will help all those involved with online programs. There are several of these evaluations that
have been developed recently and one will be included as an example of what should be
considered for such an evaluation.
Streamline Course and Degree Offerings
The recent effort to reduce the requirements of a master’s degree to 30 hours credit is noted as
consistent with the need to maintain a competitive program in the marketplace. In doing so
completion of this process should not necessarily eliminate an important area of study by
removing a course, but the review would indicate that two courses that have a close relationship
can often be combined into a single course and the important aspects that are of a proactive
nature for a student can be maintained within the program. Also the fact that many courses
(particularly the foundation courses) may serve more than one program, these course offerings
should be coordinated between programs so that more students might be served with one section
rather than scheduling multiple sections of the same course that might be less than full.
The streamlining of course offerings may also indicate streamlining of degree programs. See
specific recommendations that follow.
Re-examine Current Funding Practices for Travel
The practice of funding travel for the full-time faculty members from the summer surplus
appears to be a poor decision in light of the fact that doctoral and graduate faculty are expected
to be researchers and to publish their findings. Since those graduate programs necessitate that to
maintain the research contribution, it seems at least a percentage of travel funds should be
budgeted in the 9 month budget for this to be expected. Without such research, and in the fact
that part time faculty usually don’t have to do research and are not paid for research travel, some
of the funds for research travel for full time faculty should come from the budgeted 9 month
expenses. This could be supplemented with summer funds.
Explore Further Opportunities for Cross-College Collaboration
Identify specific ways in which faculty and doctoral student scholarship can align with the
College’s partnerships and assessment endeavors to increase the visibility of the College’s work
to fulfill its mission. Examine opportunities for strategic leveraging of grants, presentations,
and scholarship to enhance the College’s mission. Consider opportunities that would bring
together faculty to work on areas of need identified by P-12 district partners.
Strengthen Collaboration for Targeted Marketing and Enrollment
Increase collaboration to determine appropriate marketing programs and includes the
perspectives of the faculty in extended campus programs. Clearly identify each program’s
potential distinction for relevance and excellence so that marketing efforts can clearly articulate
the distinguishing qualities of NAU programs in the College of Education.
Oversight of Part Time Faculty
Develop systems for communication and oversight with part time faculty to establish mentoring
relationships and quality assurance. In particular, establish practices to assure that course
expectations and signature assignments are uniform regardless of the site or method of delivery
for the course.
Address the Lack of Articulated Expectations for the Dissertation
The concern for dissertation quality has been expressed at several levels during the team’s visit.
This is often the case in education programs across the US due to the soft science that education
finds itself in, and being a “people focused” academic area of study. As a result of this view and
the tendency to question academic rigor in research efforts in education, the team suggests that
the college consider the development of a research center at the college level to assist doctoral
students in the development of their prospective research topics as discussed with their advisors.
The center could offer technical expertise in the areas of development of the study questions, the
research design, and the data analysis procedures for the student with the advisor’s inputs and
advice. The center is not taking over the advisor’s and committee’s approval role, but is helping
to ensure that various components utilized are appropriate in a technical sense. Also the expertise
helps to confirm to the department head and dean that the various decisions made are the most
effective choices in terms of quality.
In addition, it is suggested that the dean convene a cross-departmental committee (to extend
beyond the current Doctoral Steering Committee) to review and codify existing expectations for
the dissertation. The committee needs to review existing dissertations perceived to be of high,
average and low quality to verify consistent expectations and areas of concern. This committee
should also explore current initiatives that are exploring alternate possibilities to the dissertation,
particularly for the Ed.D. A community of scholars is currently exploring these possibilities is
the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (http://cpedinitiative.org/).
EDUCATIONAL SPECIALTIES DEPARTMENT
B.S. Ed. in Career and Technical Education
M.Ed. in Career and Technical Education
M.Ed. in Special Education-Non-certification
Resources Consulted
This evaluation is based on our review of the programs’ assessment reports and conversations
with the dean, the department chair, and a few faculty members. One undergraduate student was
available for additional input.
Strengths Noted
Program Relevance
There is evidence that the programs of study in Career and Technical Education connect to what
prospective students will need in their chosen careers. Students have the opportunity to evaluate,
develop, and implement curricula related to career and technical education. In the words of an
undergraduate student, the program provides an “educational background” to what she is already
doing in her current career as a career and technical educator.
Relevance of Degree for Target Audience/Prospective Students
According to a program coordinator in Career and Technical Education, there is an identifiable
and accessible population of prospective students in the M.Ed. program, many of whom
currently teach welding—and other trade-related skills—at surrounding community colleges.
Advocacy
Faculty and students in the Career and Technical Education program are strong advocates for K16 students having alternative paths to career and college. This emphasis on the relevance of
career and technical education’s theory and practice was echoed by a student and faculty
member, which is a potential strength for this program of study.
Issues to Address
Partnerships with Schools and Colleges
The extent that these programs have established sustainable partnerships with PK-14 schools and
communities colleges is not clear. Collaboration with these educational partners can strengthen
the programs’ outreach mission and visibility.
External Funding and Grants
It appears that faculty in these programs have not taken advantage of the potential opportunities
for external funding related to STEM education and accessibility to the general curriculum.
Preparing Teachers to Meet Students Diverse Learning Needs
It appears that the programs of study in Career and Technical Education would benefit from
more coursework in differentiating instruction. Too much emphasis, it seems, is placed on
Multiple Intelligences, instead of instructional strategies that increase curricula’s flexibility for
diverse learners (e.g. Universal Design for Learning, Sheltered Instruction).
Recommendations
Promoting Programs through Western Governors’ Consortium
Programs of study in Career and Technical Education are becoming more rare; however, there
seems to be a need for this option in education. We recommend that the university’s
administration seek ways to promote and provide these programs for out-of-state prospective
students through channels such as the Western undergraduate exchange.
Collaboration with Business and Industry
The assessment report completed by Career and Technical Education faculty mentions seeking
out and collaborating with local business and industry as a way to evaluate and update their
programs of study. We strongly support this idea and recommend that faculty establish these
partnerships in order to create an informal board for program consultation and evaluation.
Emphasize the Programs’ Relevance and Visibility through Scholarship
The advocacy for programs in Career and Technical Education that was espoused during the visit
can also be an important part of the faculties’ productivity in scholarship. Descriptions of
practice in—and advocacy for—technical education are important contributions to conversations
in the literature related to rural and urban education. The voices at NAU needed to be part of the
larger conversations occurring in the field of education. Further, this productivity only benefits
the visibility and viability of these programs of study.
Eliminate M.Ed. in Special Education without Certification
The review team did not receive any clear indication that the non-certified special education
major needs to continue. Our recommendation is that this major be eliminated; however, the
coursework can still be offered. Students seeking employment with private schools would still
have the option of completing the university’s special education program of study without taking
the required examinations for certification.
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
M.Ed. In Educational Leadership – School Leadership K-12 Emphasis
M.Ed. In Educational Leadership - Educational Foundations
M.Ed. In Educational Leadership – Community College/Higher Education
Ed.D. In Educational Leadership – Community College/Higher Education
Resources Consulted
This evaluation is based on our review of the programs’ assessment reports and conversations
with the dean, the department chair, a few faculty members and one student.
Strengths Noted
Qualified Adjunct Faculty
There are a numerous active superintendents and other educational administrators who teach on a
part time basis for NAU leadership program in education. These active leaders offer a
perspective that most full-time professors are not able to offer to students due to their activity in
the education field. Likewise full time career professors offer a perspective of research and
writing that can extend a different perspective than the practicing administrators do not currently
have. Together this team of professionals offers a broad view of the field of study that many
research oriented institutions cannot offer to their students.
Program Relevance
The masters’ and doctoral programs in community college and higher education appear to be
achieving their goals and filling the needs that they were intended to fill. Although these
programs still need monitoring to maintain their impact, there should be no question of their
viability or continuance at this time.
Responsiveness for Student Needs and Success
Completion rate for cohort students in the Ed.D. Community College/Higher Education program
of study is expected to be 100% shortly after completing the course work. The collegiality of
both students and instructors (professors) is a strength of the program and students assist each
other in keeping focus on completion and also in successfully understanding material being
mastered through instruction.
Issues to Address
Collaboration with Extended Campus Faculty
There is a perception among field-based instructors that there is less input from faculty by those
making decisions on programs and perceived needs for the field based instruction. Collaboration
is not valued as much as it has been in the past and the “vision” of upper administration for the
future is not shared with those who do the close contact work in the “trenches.” Decisions
impacting instruction and program policies are now “announced to all” without input from those
being significantly impacted by the decisions. Without the collaborative effort of all involved
“fire walls” appear to be built among the players involved in the program decisions.
Transferability of M.Ed. Program in Educational Leadership (K-12)
Although the enrollment numbers in the M.Ed. program in Educational Leadership (K-12, w/o
certification) appears to be adequate for this program to continue, assuming the enrollment is
maintained; ultimately many of these students may decide that they need a principal’s certificate
to reap some of the financial rewards of providing leadership. It would be good practice to
identify additional courses needed for certificate should this occur as the student may be able to
understand the impact of their decision better with this information. Practice shows that in many
states private and independent school leadership continue to complete certifications as
administrators although not legally necessary.
Recommendations
Streamline M.Ed. Programs in Educational Leadership
Consideration should be given to having fewer master’s degrees with majors in “educational
leadership.” The current specialization focus of the degrees can still exist as choices available to
students, but there would be fewer differentiated “majors” in educational leadership. Most of the
majors now existing have common core courses that are required of all these degrees at this time.
These would continue to be the “basic core” for the major and the specialties would contain the
“focus courses” required. The result would be the elimination of degrees, not courses or
specializations offered.
Support for Continued Review of the Ed.D. with Other Partners
See the general recommendations regarding the Ed.D. The Doctoral Steering Committee can be
an excellent tool to oversee the total program components that constitute the Ed.D./Ph.D.
programs that are served. The review team found that there are still some areas that perhaps need
more focus—mostly being in the curriculum coordination of off campus courses, especially if
part time faculty members are teaching a course as well as a further review of consistency and
sufficient expectations for the dissertation.
TEACHING AND LEARNING DEPARTMENT
M. Ed. in Early Childhood (Teaching and Learning Department
M. Ed. In Elementary-Continuing (Teaching & Learning department)
M. Ed. in Secondary-Continuing (Teaching & Learning department)
Ed.D. in Curriculum & Instruction (Teaching & Learning department)
Resources Consulted
This evaluation is based on our review of the programs’ assessment reports and conversations
with the dean, the department chair, and a few faculty members. One graduate student was
available for additional input. It is the team’s understanding that the program review documents
did not reflect recent recommendations for changes in the master’s programs.
Strengths Noted
Varied Delivery Systems for Candidate Access to Master’s Programs
Each of the master’s degree programs has embraced the outreach to a statewide audience and is
offered face to face and on-line. Most programs are also offered in a hybrid format as well.
Faculty have been responsive to serving candidates at multiple locations. They have continued
to work to be responsive to the identified needs of their students, including those in remote and
rural areas and diverse populations of graduate students in Arizona.
Awareness/attention to Evolving Emphasis and Audience for Degree Programs
Faculty in all programs (including the Ed.D.) identified the need to focus on changes in the
candidate populations wishing to pursue the department’s current degrees. There is
acknowledgement that the populations that NAU is serving are changing. Faculty are working to
be proactive in understanding the current needs of the P-12 systems.
Issues to Address
Precipitous Declines in Enrollment in M.Ed. Programs
There have been significant declines in enrollment in M.Ed. Programs. Program reviews
provided point to the changes in requirements for master’s degrees and competition from other
statewide programs factors for decreasing enrollment. There appears to be a lack of awareness
as to national trends (e.g., decoupling of master’s degrees from faculty accountability and policy
makers demands for stronger development of teacher’s content knowledge) for this decline. It is
unclear as to how faculty have turned to needs analysis and identification of priorities of P-12
educators to inform and account for the surge of competition and lack of enrollment.
Program Goals that May Not Be Aligned with the Priorities of P-12 Districts for the M.Ed.
A Disparate, Menu Driven Selection of Courses not Aligned with Program Goals
Program goals and programs of study are not sharp in focus. There is a menu of courses that do
not clearly align with program goals. A lack of defined signature assignments does not allow for
clear definition as to the purpose and outcomes from the M.Ed. programs for any targeted
audiences. Programs that used to be easily populated for teachers seeking salary increases do not
now provide clear evidence of deliverables and a unique market niche.
M.Ed. in Secondary Education that Does Not Enhance the Content Knowledge and Content
Specific Pedagogy of Secondary Teachers
While the current M.Ed. in Secondary courses focus on policy and pedagogy, they are not
designed to enhance content knowledge and re-explore content specific pedagogy demanded by
current migration to stricter content specific standards in the P-12 system. A lack of
collaboration among the colleges at NAU inhibits the power of a degree that addresses both
content knowledge and content specific pedagogy. National trends point to a need to address
both content and pedagogy in such programs for new standards and for trends in dual enrollment
and AP preparation for secondary teachers.
Unclear Foci for the Populations to be Recruited/served by the M.Ed. Programs
Beginning with the M.Ed. in early childhood, it is unclear as to the target population of programs
(e.g. public school early childhood teachers vs. early childhood center directors) and, subsequent
identification of appropriate program goals that reflect the needs/demands of the those
populations.
Unclear Focus for the Ed.D.
The Ed.D. program in the department of Teaching and Learning has reported a demographic shift
in the population it is serving. Its admitted population is very small. It is unclear as to whether
the preference of applicants or the priorities for student recruitment have shifted from candidates
interested in P-12 leadership to those interested in higher education. There are no data to
present a study of applicants over time.
Recommendations
Strengthen Doctoral Steering Committee
The Doctoral Steering Committee can be an excellent tool to oversee the total program
components that constitute the Ed.D./Ph.D. programs that are served. Review committee
assessment found that there are still some areas that perhaps need more focus—mostly being in
the curriculum coordination of off campus courses, especially if part time faculty members are
teaching a course. This also applies to masters’ level course offerings. In either case careful
attention needs to ensure that all needed components of course design are included.
Strengthen Support for Dissertation Research Design
See recommendations in general recommendations.
Clarify Needs Assessment to Consider the Ph.D. Rather than the Ed.D.
Priorities for the Ed.D. seem to differ across departments. For Teaching and Learning, it will be
necessary to clarify the purposes of the Ed.D. or specify the enrollment justification/feasibility to
consider a new Ph.D. Included in that study should be a realistic assessment of how many
graduates of the NAU program could be considered employable in higher education in placebound circumstances in AZ in research intensive universities, as this appears to be the population
being admitted. While Ed.D. students may aspire to higher education, it would be important to
delineate qualifications and career aspirations that would assure employment of these NAU
graduates in appropriate placements.
Refocus and Narrow the Emphasis of the M.Ed. Programs
Conduct more thorough market analysis of the niche of the M.Ed. programs. Consider the needs
and priorities of partner districts at each level of the M.Ed. programs. Consider alternative
delivery/tuition structures incentives for programs at partnership districts. Consider
streamlining the course structures/offerings in these programs. Specifically in the secondary
program, consider partnerships to combine advanced content preparation with enhanced
development of pedagogy.
Summary
The review team thanks the NAU faculty and administration for their diligence and candor
throughout the review. The direction and focus with which the team was provided enhanced its
ability to analyze programs and provide recommendations. It is hoped that the team’s findings
can provide focus and affirmation for future actions.