Central Washington University
Assessment of Student Learning
Department and Program Report
Please enter the appropriate information concerning your student learning assessment activities
for this year.
Academic Year of Report: 2010 College: CEPS
Department LLSE Program: MA Ed. Reading Specialist
1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
The CTL’s conceptual framework is centered in a constructivist philosophy, supported by
professional dispositions, a strong content knowledge base, competency in facilitating a diverse society,
commitment to field experiences, and assessment. The University’s mission similarly states that this
community should support emotional, personal, and professional growth of its learners.
Through implementation, the Reading Advanced Program’s outcomes are committed to this
framework and mission. Program outcomes are based in the Washington State 2007 Reading
Endorsement Standards and the 2010 International Reading Association (IRA) Standards. Using these
standards, a framework for assessment was created. During the fall of 2007, the reading faculty revised
the assessment system for the Reading Specialist degree to emphasize each candidate’s knowledge base
and competencies for the endorsement. A protocol to be used during the final oral exam was developed.
This protocol provides the expectations for program completion for each candidate. During the oral exam,
the candidate will not only discuss her/his thesis/project, but also note how s/he has met the standards set
forth by Washington State and the IRA.
The outcomes for these candidates are gleaned from each of the six Washington State common
core standards for Reading Professionals. Please see individual course syllabi for course learning
outcomes. The six (6) core standards include:
The candidate will describe understanding of language/literacy development and processes.
The candidate will describe understanding of the assessment, diagnosis, and evaluation process as it
relates to her/his current teaching position.
The candidate will describe understanding of the teaching of literacy.
The candidate will describe the literacy environment of own classroom.
The candidate will share professional development goals.
The candidate will describe own process for teaching literacy.
2. How were they assessed?
A) What methods were used?
B) Who was assessed?
C) When was it assessed?
The MAEd-Reading Specialist program uses an end-of-program assessment. At completion of
the thesis/project, the candidate will meet with her/his committee in order to discuss the thesis/project.
Additionally, during this final defense, the candidate will demonstrate competency in the six standard
areas for the reading endorsement. In order to be fully prepared for the oral defense, the candidate will
collect physical evidence toward each of the endorsement standards such as: student work samples, lesson
plans, student literacy assessments, photographs, candidate reflections, candidate self-assessments, and
parent communications. Using the protocol developed (on file in the Advance Program-Reading
Assessment site), documentation will be taken by the candidate’s committee. The candidate will be
evaluated on a “meets,” “meets with assistance,” or “does not meet” the standard.
The program outcomes assessment is administered when a candidate applies for the defense. This
final assessment is met through a meeting with the candidate’s committee. Previous to this, the candidate
has been collecting physical data toward the defense. This evidence may be collected through the course
projects, classroom experiences, or other professional development opportunities such as: student work
samples, lesson plans, student literacy assessments, photographs, candidate reflections, candidate selfassessments, and parent communications. Candidates are encouraged to meet with their committee
members to discuss the process of the collection of physical evidence.
The assessment program in this report is a reflection of consideration of previous data. The endof-program protocol was developed as a way to standardize the final defense process. The checkpoints in
courses have also helped to keep consistent documentation on those progressing through the program.
In the past year, one candidate completed the defense for the Advance Program-Reading. She was
responsible for defending her final project using the new protocol. The grades she received for her
courses were considered evidence of her level of competency in content knowledge, as the standards were
cross-listed with the course content in the course syllabi.
As previously stated, in order to devise a more consistent and accountable system to the program
outcomes, the assessment system was revised to include the assessment protocol. Candidates now
enrolled in the program are advised of their responsibility toward showing competency toward the
standards. They will share their knowledge during the defense of their program. Because the candidates
are responsible for showing competency in each of the standard areas, s/he will have higher achievement
level in Content Knowledge performance.
3. What was learned?
The candidates in the Advance Program-Reading have an opportunity to meet standards in Pedagogical
Content Knowledge and Skills through their enrollment in an Advanced Practicum. The participation in
this practicum meets the standard for the ability to teach content in multiple ways, drawing on cultural
backgrounds, and drawing on the background of experiences of students. Each candidate develops a
reading program specified to the needs of the student enrolled. Those students enrolled are of varying
backgrounds providing for a diversity of experience for the candidates.
The candidates enrolled in the Advance Program-Reading meet the standards for the Professional and
Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills from a historical, economic, sociological, philosophical, and
psychological perspective through their enrollment in Advanced Foundation courses for this 2010-2011
report. Each candidate is required to enroll in 10 credits of Educational Foundations courses, including
EDF 510 for 4 credits. Additionally, each candidate in this program enrolls in a course in a course
concerning the psychology of reading, a course concerning the reading in schools, and a course that
surveys reading research.
The candidates enrolled in this program participate in a practicum experience. Through this practicum,
they are to keep extensive data on the achievement of the students they are tutoring. The final requirement
for this practicum is the development of a case study. The purpose of this case study is to compile,
summarize, and report the data collected during the practicum experience. Additionally, the physical
evidence the candidates collect toward their final program defense will be in the form of how student
learning was impacted by their teaching.
Based on the reviews of the protocol by Literacy faculty, it was determined that the new protocol was of
higher quality due to alignment of the standards and the artifacts collected. Those artifacts collected
reflected those standards and the candidate was candidate to articulate and explain the standards.
4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
The program will continue to utilize the new protocol and revise as necessary based on student and
faculty interaction and response.
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s assessment
information?
The changes to the assessment system have already been made. There is currently one candidate in
the ‘old’ assessment process and three candidates in the upcoming year that will participate in the
previously described assessment process. Additionally, the Literacy Program has developed an online version of its MA Ed. Literacy Program. The on-line program has received department, CTL
approval and is currently at the Graduate Council level for review. The Literacy program has
received twelve (12) phone calls/emails requesting information regarding the on-line masters
program. The change of this delivery model will somewhat alter the assessment program as
described.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Central
Washington University:
Comments: The Literacy program is constructivist based, not behaviorist based. Our
learning outcomes align with WA State outcomes for the MEd-Reading Specialist degree.
The learning outcomes are designed to reflect the constructivist learning model.
Central Washington University (2007-2008)
Assessment of Student Learning Report: Target Levels
Feedback for the Department of
Degree Award: Program:
1.
What outcomes were assessed this year and why?
Value
4
3
2
1
0
Guidelines for Assessing a Program’s Reporting of Student Learning Outcomes (Target = 2)
Outcomes are written in clear, measurable terms and include knowledge, skills, and attitudes. All
outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals.
Outcomes are written in clear, measurable terms and include knowledge, skills, and attitudes.
Some outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals.
Outcomes are written in clear, measurable terms and include knowledge, skills, or attitudes. Outcomes
may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals.
Some outcomes may be written as general, broad, or abstract statements. Outcomes include
knowledge, skills, or attitudes. Outcomes may be linked to department, college and university mission
and goals.
Outcomes are not identified.
Comments: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by increasingly specific student learning outcomes that relate to
multiple domains of student development (knowledge, skill, and attitudes). In addition, higher scored reports will clearly
articulate the relationship between program outcomes and department, college and university mission and goals.
2.
How were they assessed?
a. What methods were used?
b. Who was assessed?
c.
When was it assessed?
Value
Guidelines for Assessing a Program's Reporting of Assessment Methods (Target = 3)
4
A variety of methods, both direct and indirect are used for assessing each outcome. Reporting of
assessment method includes population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey
response rate. Each method has a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be
assessed
3
Some outcomes may be assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect.
All assessment methods are described in terms of population assessed, number assessed, and
when applicable, survey response rate. Each method has a clear standard of mastery (criterion)
against which results will be assessed.
2
Some outcomes may be assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect. All
assessment methods are described in terms of population assessed, number assessed, and when
applicable, survey response rate. Some methods may have a clear standard of mastery (criterion)
against which results will be assessed.
1
Each outcome is assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect. Some
assessment methods may be described in terms of population assessed, number assessed, and when
applicable, survey response rate. Some methods may have a clear standard of mastery (criterion)
0
against which results will be assessed.
Assessment methods are non existent, not reported, or include grades, student/faculty ratios, program
evaluations, or other “non-measures” of actual student performance or satisfaction.
Comments: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by increasingly clearer information in determining how the
assessment took place and the use of a standard of mastery. In addition, higher scored reports will include a greater number of
methods in assessing each outcome.
*Target Levels are bolded for each area.
3.
What was learned (assessment results)?
Value
4
3
2
1
0
Guidelines for Assessing a Program’s Reporting of Assessment Results (Target = 3)
Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms. Results are explicitly linked to
outcomes and compared to the established standard of mastery. Reporting of results includes interpretation
and conclusions about the results.
Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms and are explicitly linked to
outcomes and compared to the established standard of mastery.
Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms, although they may not all be explicitly
linked to outcomes and compared to the established standard of mastery.
Results are presented in general statements.
Results are not reported.
Comments: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by increasingly clearer information about what was learned
from the assessment, particularly in relation to a standard of mastery.
4.
What will the department do as a result of that information (feedback/program improvement)?
Value
2
Guidelines for Assessing a Program’s Reporting of Planned Program Improvements (Target = 2)
Program improvement is related to pedagogical or curricular decisions described in specific terms
congruent with assessment results. The department reports the results and changes to internal and
external constituents.
Program improvement is related to pedagogical or curricular decisions described only in global or
ambiguous terms, or plans for improvement do not match assessment results. The department may report
the results and changes to internal or external constituents.
Program improvement is not indicated by assessment results.
Program improvement is not addressed.
1
NA
0
Comments: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by specific curricular and pedagogical improvement
information. In addition, the department reports the results and changes to internal and external constituents.
5.
How did the department or program make use of the feedback from last year’s assessment?
Value
2
Guidelines for Assessing a Program’s Reporting of Previous Feedback (Target = 2)
Discussion of feedback indicates that assessment results and feedback from previous assessment
reports are being used for long-term curricular and pedagogical decisions.
Discussion of feedback indicates that assessment results and feedback from previous assessment reports are
acknowledged.
This is a first year report.
There is no discussion of assessment results or feedback from previous assessment reports.
1
NA
0
Comments: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by specific curricular and pedagogical improvement
information from previous years.
*Target Levels are bolded for each area.