Science Education Self Study
Program Review 2009-2010
Central Washington University
Page 1
3/15/2010
Page 2
3/15/2010
Table of Contents
Introduction to the Science Education Department .................................................................. 5
Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Mission and Vision ..................................................................................................................... 5
Context ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Governance ................................................................................................................................. 8
Department Goals ..................................................................................................................... 10
Relationship of Department Goals to University Goals ........................................................... 12
Assessment of Department Goals ............................................................................................. 18
Curricula ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Description of Degree Programs ............................................................................................... 18
Degree Program Goals .............................................................................................................. 22
Assessment of Degree Program Goals ...................................................................................... 23
Degree Program Student Learning Outcomes .......................................................................... 23
Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes ............................................................................. 24
Other Curricular Contributions ................................................................................................. 25
Currency of Curricula ............................................................................................................... 26
Effectiveness of Instruction ...................................................................................................... 27
Faculty .......................................................................................................................................... 31
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 31
Faculty Vitae ............................................................................................................................. 32
Faculty Awards ......................................................................................................................... 32
Faculty Performance Expectations ........................................................................................... 33
Students........................................................................................................................................ 33
Overview of Accomplishments................................................................................................. 33
Evidence of Successful Student Advising ................................................................................ 33
Other Student Services .............................................................................................................. 33
Facilities, Equipment, and Instrumentation ............................................................................. 38
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 38
Library and Technological Resources ...................................................................................... 41
Library Requirements ............................................................................................................... 41
Future Needs ............................................................................................................................. 42
Page 3
3/15/2010
Information Technology Used .................................................................................................. 42
Information Technology Used .................................................................................................. 44
Technology Available, Its Adequacy and Future Needs .......................................................... 44
Analysis of the Review Period .................................................................................................... 45
Departmental Successes ............................................................................................................ 45
Departmental Challenges .......................................................................................................... 49
Past Review Recommendations ................................................................................................ 52
Comparison Between Last Program Review and Current Status ............................................. 55
Future Directions ........................................................................................................................ 55
Aspirations for Next Three to Five Years ................................................................................. 55
Plans to Increase Quality, Quantity, Productivity, and Efficiency ........................................... 58
Resources .................................................................................................................................. 59
Suggestions for Future Program Review .................................................................................. 59
Page 4
3/15/2010
Program Review Self Study
Science Education Department
Year 2009-2010
Introduction to the Science Education Department
Overview
The Science Education Department at Central Washington University develops student skills in
contemporary science teaching consistent with state and national science standards. Through
inquiry, we promote student understanding of scientific concepts relevant to the individual and
society. Our students obtain a broad education covering a wide variety of content disciplines.
Our constructivist teaching philosophy, engaging curriculum, and excellent facilities foster a rich
education with small class sizes, hands-on experience, regular interaction with expert faculty,
and opportunities for both undergraduate and graduate research. Through cooperative
partnerships with local organizations, state organizations, and other CWU Science departments,
the Science Education Department provides opportunity for students to develop practical
teaching skills in real classrooms. The Science Education Department also participates in
ongoing science education reform efforts based on research and state and national science
standards.
Mission and Vision
Mission
The Science Education Department prepares students in contemporary science
teaching by promoting inquiry, science literacy, and earth stewardship through
science education coursework, practica, and research experiences.
Vision
The Science Education Department aspires to deliver the preeminent program
that students from the State of Washington choose to become outstanding
science educators.
The Science Education Department contributes significantly to the University by:
 providing high quality science education training to undergraduate students in the
elementary education and middle level science programs,
 providing a foundation in science pedagogy for teaching majors in science
departments,
 training teachers grounded in content and inquiry-based teaching and learning,
 fostering strong undergraduate and developing graduate research programs,
 conducting rigorous, externally funded scholarly programs, and
 participating in university governance and on academic committees.
The Science Education Department contributes to the Community by:
Page 5
3/15/2010




providing standards-based professional development for local and regional teachers,
participating in professional organizations through membership, committee work,
dissemination of scholarship at conferences, and leadership,
disseminating scholarly products locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally,
and
serving as experts on local, state regional, national panels and policy forming
committees.
Centrality to the University’s Mission
Central Washington University’s mission is to prepare students for responsible citizenship,
responsible stewardship of the earth, and enlightened and productive lives. Faculty, staff,
students, and alumni serve as an intellectual resource to assist central Washington, the state,
and the region in solving human and environmental problems.
The Science Education Department promotes responsible citizenship, responsible stewardship of
the earth, and allows people to live enlightened and productive lives through the development of
scientific literacy. Scientifically literate graduates responsibly interact with the natural and
physical world, make informed and enlightened choices, and ultimately contribute to the
common good by solving problems relevant to the individual and society. The program produces
scientifically literate graduates in two ways; it provides interdisciplinary knowledge from
biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics, and it prepares students to promote scientific
literacy through inquiry-based instruction grounded in scientific research. Fundamental
knowledge of the major science disciplines and the interplay between them is important in
developing a scientific philosophy, in understanding the impact that humans have on the earth,
and in understanding life and the human body. The department offers courses to CWU students
in the application and teaching of biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics as a way to
engage with and understand the world. Faculty, students, and alumni actively participate in
solving human and environmental problems through scientific research in science education and
critical thinking.
Context
The Science Education Department works collaboratively with other science departments, the
mathematics department, and the department of education to deliver interdisciplinary, standardsbased programs in contemporary science education. The department has a long history of
collaboration with Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Geological Sciences, Mathematics, and
Physics in the College of the Sciences and the Department of Education in the College of
Education and Professional Studies. A central pillar of the Science Education Department’s
philosophy is to maintain the duality of science content discipline and education expertise.
Faculty members serve as pedagogical content knowledge experts to colleagues.
The Science Education Department is home to a dedicated and dynamic faculty whose primary
goal is to offer students diverse opportunities to develop knowledge and skills that support
scientific inquiry and scientific literacy. Inquiry, in the context of state and national standards,
provides the framework around which curriculum and teaching revolve.
Page 6
3/15/2010
The Science Education Program became the Science Education Department in Winter 2009 as a
consequence of the maturity exhibited, the contributions made, and the growth experienced by
the Science Education Program over the last 10 years. The Science Education Program was last
reviewed in the 2005-2006 cycle. The review cycle was accelerated in response to
recommendations from the last review that we evaluate ourselves in a timeframe similar to the
departments we work closely with to deliver programs. This review occurs in the same cycle as
Chemistry, Geological Sciences, and Physics. This self study document will include data and
reflections from the four years since the last review.
The Department currently offers one standalone degree program, the Bachelors of Science
General Science Teaching major, initiated in Fall 2008. An additional major, the Bachelors of
Arts in Middle Level Math and Science Teaching, is currently under review for approval by the
Higher Education Coordinating Board and is scheduled to begin Spring 2010. The Science
Education Department offers considerable service coursework required in a number of degree
programs including:





Bachelors of Science in Biology Teaching
Bachelors of Arts in Chemistry Teaching
Bachelors of Arts in Earth Science Teaching
Bachelors of Science or Arts in Physics with teaching endorsement
Bachelors of Arts in Elementary Education.
In addition, the Department offers several minors which lead to state teaching endorsements
(Broad Area Science Teaching, Middle Level Math/Science (until Aug. 2009), and Middle Level
Science (after Aug. 2009) and one minor (Elementary Education Science Education) that
supports Elementary Education majors who strive to become leaders in science education. The
Science Education Department supports degree programs at six University Centers: CWU-Des
Moines, CWU-Kent, CWU-Lynnwood, CWU-Pierce, CWU-Wenatchee, and CWU-Yakima.
We are a relatively small but growing interdisciplinary department that serves the College of the
Sciences as well as the College of Education and Professional Studies. The Department consists
of six tenure-track faculty representing 3.5 full time equivalents (FTE). An additional 0.5 FTE
faculty will begin in Winter 2010. As a whole, our faculty has expertise in all major science
content areas of endorsement: biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics. Most faculty
members in the Department hold a 0.5 FTE appointment in Science Education and a 0.5 FTE
appointment in one of the science content disciplines; one faculty member holds a full time
appointment in Science Education and is housed on the Des Moines campus to support Westside
science education programs. A 0.75 FTE secretary supports the Department. The Department
often relies on adjunct faculty to support programs at all locations.
The Department resides in a modern science facility with technology-rich offices, classrooms,
laboratories, and research space. Several hundred thousand dollars worth of scientific and
teaching equipment is used in support of science education activities and the pursuit of scholarly
work.
In addition to contributing to undergraduate and graduate science and education programs, the
Science Education Department engages in considerable work with hundreds of P-12 teaching
Page 7
3/15/2010
professionals across the region and the state. Science Education faculty regularly provide
professional development for local and regional teachers through institutes, high-needs grant
programs, graduate endorsement programs, in-service training, and undergraduate field
placements. Despite the relatively small size of the department, the Science Education faculty
has considerable professional impact across the region and state.
Governance
The Science Education Department consists of six faculty members, several adjunct faculty
members, and one three quarter time classified staff. Beginning Winter 2010 a seventh half-time
equivalent faculty member will join our ranks. The Department Chair oversees all personnel. The
Department Secretary assists the Chair and supports all aspects of the program. The Department
often employs one student worker who is supervised by the Secretary to help in the office and to
assist faculty in materials preparation. The following list depicts the Science Education
Department governance structure.
Department Chair/Program Director


Martha Kurtz
Department Chair, 2009 (Winter, Spring), 2009-2010
Program Director, 2005-2007; 2008 (Fall);
Bruce Palmquist Program Director 2008 (Winter and Spring)
Tenured Faculty



Martha Kurtz
Professor (0.5 Science Ed., 0.5 Chemistry)
Bruce Palmquist Professor (0.5 Science Ed., 0.5 Physics)
Ian Quitadamo
Associate Professor (0.5 Science Ed., 0.5 Biological Sciences)
Tenure-Track Faculty



Vanessa Hunt
Assistant Professor (1.0 FTE Science Ed.)
2008-2009, first year of appointment
Beth Pratt-Sitaula Assistant Professor (0.5 Science Ed., 0.5 Geological Sciences)
2005-2006, first year of appointment
Timothy Sorey Assistant Professor (0.5 Science Ed., 0.5 Chemistry)
2004-2005, first year of appointment
Non Tenure-Track and Adjunct Faculty
Adjuncts are hired as needed to support programs. Table 1 lists the adjunct faculty hired during
the review period and the quarters they taught.
Page 8
3/15/2010
Table 1. Adjunct Faculty by Quarters Taught
Adjunct Faculty
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
Fall Win Spr Sum Fall Win Spr Sum Fall Win Spr Sum Fall Win Spr Sum
Lee Plourde, Wenatchee
Kelly Hennesey, Yakima
Eric Wuersten, Pierce
Tara Affholter, Ellensburg
Torre Frampton, Ellensburg
Mary Whitfield, Lynnwood
Caitlyn Cornell, Ellensburg
Robert Sotak, Lynnwood
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Staff


Margo Alden
Denee Scribner
Secretary Senior, 2005-2008 (Winter)
Secretary Senior, 2008 (Spring)-present
Student Workers
The department hires one or two student workers each quarter to support teaching and
department administration.
Program Directors/Coordinators
Several programs within the Department require Program Directors/Coordinators to oversee
administration, program planning, program assessment, and advising. Table 2 shows the
directorships that are assigned specific workload units in faculty workload plans.
Table 2. Program Directors/Coordinators with Assigned Workload
Name
Title
Program(s)
Workload
Units
Vanessa Hunt CWU -Kent
Program
Director
Tim Sorey
Ian
Quitadamo
Elementary Education major
Middle Level Science minor (2009 - present)
Middle Level Math/Science (2008-2009)
Elementary Science Education minor (2005-2008)
Middle Level Middle Level Math/Science (2004-2009)
Program
Middle Level Science (2009 - present)
Coordinator
Assessment
All department programs and secondary science
Coordinator
programs
8
2
2
Committees
Due to the department’s small size, the faculty has flexibility in meeting program needs. The
Science Education Department faculty has adopted a round-table format for addressing important
Page 9
3/15/2010
issues.Committees in the traditional sense are de-emphasized; rather, all faculty members
collaboratively assist in formulating program policy and governing the work of the faculty and
staff. Furthermore, faculty members may be assigned to what is referred to as a ‘disappearing
task force’, where particular faculty members work on specific tasks until they are complete. As
new tasks arise, different combinations of faculty contribute their expertise. Each faculty
member collaboratively contributes not only to Science Education Department issues, but also
individually to their science content area departments. The following are areas of emphasis
within the department:
Department Administration and Planning – All Science Education faculty and staff meet weekly
to discuss program business. These meetings consist of information items, action items, reports
from program representatives (e.g., COTS Chairs, Elementary Education Program, Middle Level
Math/Science, CTL Advisory Council, Library, Professional Education Sequence Revision,
Assessment, and CESME), and professional development, as desired or needed. Business
includes strategic planning, curricular improvements, resource use, research and scholarly
activity, internal and external collaboration, service to university and community, department
policy, and prioritization of work. Program recommendations are discussed and approved or
revised for further discussion. The faculty feels strongly that staff should participate in
appropriate decisions. Staff do not vote on faculty or curricular issues and they do not participate
in Chair elections. The Department also typically holds quarterly half-day or day-long retreats to
focus on specific issues such as student portfolios, program assessment strategies, and particular
course curricula.
Personnel Tasks – Historically, when SCED had program status, tenure lines were not housed
within the unit; instead, Science Education faculty tenure resided solely in their content
department (Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Geological Sciences, or Physics). In the process of
gaining departmental status, a new structure was defined. The Science Education Department
Charter designates that the evaluation of Science Education Department faculty members who
are assigned to two departments will be based primarily on the Science Education Department’s
Reappointment, Tenure, Promotion and Post-Tenure Review criteria (see Appendix H).
Scholarship may be conducted in discipline or science education areas based on faculty interest
and expertise. Service expectations are typically greater in Science Education than in the content
discipline. The personnel committee for these types of reviews consists of two tenured faculty
members from the Science Education Department, two tenured faculty members from the
appropriate science department and a tenured faculty member from another COTS department.
Department Goals
The goals of the Science Education Department reflect short term and long term planning efforts
by program faculty and staff. The goals are intended to provide the direction necessary to
achieve high-quality science education for all students, to enable local and regional collaboration
and reform, and to promote a quality working environment for our faculty and staff so that we
may effectively carry out our mission.
Page 10
3/15/2010
SCED Department Goal 1: Increase scientific literacy for all students.
 Develop critical thinking skills in support of lifelong learning.
 Apply scientific principles to everyday life and teaching practice.
 Improve student ability to intelligently engage in scientific issues.
SCED Department Goal 2: Use best-practice pedagogy to improve student learning outcomes.
 Increase the use of inquiry in all science classrooms.
 Model and apply the learning cycle method in all Science Education courses.
 Stay abreast of current best practices in science education pedagogy.
SCED Department Goal 3: Promote quality training of pre-service science teachers.
 Recruit and retain diverse students with strong science and math aptitude to become
science teachers.
 Create challenging and engaging inquiry-based curriculum that improves pre-service
teacher content and pedagogical knowledge and skill.
 Inform student teaching placements that support continued pre-service teacher
development.
SCED Department Goal 4: Actively develop programs and curricula that support inquiry and
improved scientific literacy at all levels.
 Provide students with interdisciplinary experiences that integrate life, physical, and
earth sciences.
 Provide students with opportunity to apply inquiry skills to teaching experiences.
 Develop standards-aligned programs that meet local, state, and national needs.
SCED Department Goal 5: Develop and support a research program that contributes to the
body of knowledge in science education.
 Involve graduate and undergraduate students in faculty sponsored research.
 Develop a research program based on individual faculty member needs and interests
that supports collaboration and can inform P-12 and university teaching.
 Provide suitable materials, services, and facilities to conduct original science
education research.
SCED Department Goal 6: Develop a robust interdisciplinary graduate program.
 Develop strategies to improve local and regional education through graduate work in
science education.
 Recruit P-12 in-service teachers and undergraduate students into CWU Science
Education graduate programs.
 Support Masters of Education and Masters of Science degree programs as they relate
to science education.
Page 11
3/15/2010
SCED Department Goal 7: Contribute to the professional development of P-12 teaching
professionals across the region and state.
 Establish and maintain collaborative working relationships with P-12 and state
partners.
 Offer P-12 in-service, institute, and professional development opportunities based on
regional and state needs.
 Apply Science Education faculty research to the improvement of P-12 teaching
effectiveness.
SCED Department Goal 8: Engage in science education reform in the university, P-12, and
public sectors.
 Promote lifelong science learning among university faculty, graduate and
undergraduate students, P-12 science teachers, and the general public.
 Mentor faculty colleagues in content disciplines who wish to improve their teaching.
 Participate in outreach programs that promote access, equality, and opportunity for all
citizens to learn science.
Relationship of Department Goals to University Goals
All of the Science Education Department and program goals align with the University goals.
Appendix A contains a Department Goal Assessment Plan Matrix that indicates how the
department goals are aligned with University goals. Appendix C contains the Program Goal
Assessment Plan Matrix for each of the secondary science majors offered or supported through
the department. These matrices show how specific program goals align with University goals.
Promotion of University Strategic Goals within the Department
The Science Education Department faculty and staff work consistently and collaboratively to
promote all six of the University strategic goals.
CWU Goal I: Maintain and strengthen an outstanding academic and student life on the
Ellensburg campus.
Science Education offers programs designed to give students experience teaching in all areas of
the natural and physical sciences. The program excels at providing students with hands-on
inquiry and applied field experiences using state-of-the-art equipment. Field experiences provide
opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students to teach P-12 learners. Students have
ready access to expert faculty for undergraduate research experiences in their content field,
science education, or both. Department faculty members provide both academic and career
advising to all science teaching majors as well as various minors. Faculty members also serve as
advisors to student clubs including the National Science Teacher Association Student Chapter at
CWU.
Page 12
3/15/2010
CWU Goal II: Provide for an outstanding academic and student life at the university centers.
The Science Education Department currently offers teacher education programs at CWU-Kent
(Elementary Education major/Middle Level Science minor) and also offers science education
coursework through CWU-Des Moines, CWU-Lynnwood, CWU-Pierce, CWU-Yakima, and
CWU-Wenatchee. The CWU-Kent program began initially as a National Science Foundation
funded partnership between CWU Science Education and Green River Community College. The
program began as an elementary education major/science education minor and has recently
transitioned to a middle level science minor. In the future students will also be able to add a
middle level math minor. Typical offerings at other centers include Science Education in the
Elementary Schools (SCED 322), a required course for all Elementary Education majors.
Considerable work is done in local schools, including development of several after-school
science programs in the Auburn and Kent school districts that illustrates Science Education
department outreach at the university centers. The Science Education Program will continue to
support programs at university centers as the need arises and if appropriate resources are
available.
CWU Goal III: Strengthen and further diversify our funding base and strengthen infrastructure
to support academic and student programs.
Science Education Department faculty members have actively sought and are involved with a
number of externally funded initiatives at CWU. Faculty members have written several grants to
the National Science Foundation and Department of Education to obtain funding in support of
individual and group research efforts, curriculum reform across content departments, and
University priorities. Department faculty members have garnered nearly 7.5 million dollars in the
last four years (up from just over 2 million in the previous review period) as principle
investigators (PIs) or co-PIs on important grant initiatives that include NSF GK-12: Yakima
WATERS, NSF Earthscope: Teachers on the Leading Edge, Math Science Partnership with
Yakima School District, Math Science Partnership with Educational Service District 171, Higher
Education Coordinating Board Educators for the 21st Century, and others. Science Education
faculty members have also successfully garnered internal support for initiatives through the
Spheres of Distinction Program including the base funding of the Center for Excellence in
Science and Mathematics Education (CESME). Detailed information about faculty grant success
is located in their CVs in Appendix G.
Faculty members have also worked in less tangible ways to increase the funding base for
programs. They have worked on many occasions to recruit students into teaching in the natural
and physical sciences through many presentations and recruitment activities. Members of the
department have participated in the NSF STEP program as assessment and content experts, NSF
Yakima WATERS program as P-12 and community liaisons and as summer science institute
instructors. The department’s energetic faculty and broad expertise has also increased student
participation in research. The secondary science teaching majors are among the few majors on
campus that require a research experience for all students in the program.
Page 13
3/15/2010
CWU Goal IV: Build mutually beneficial partnerships with the public sector, industry,
professional groups, institutions, and the communities surrounding our campuses.
The Science Education department maintains partnerships with a wide variety of constituents
including state organizations, institutions of higher education, P-12 schools, professional groups,
and the local community. Program faculty serve on state standard setting boards, work with
regional institutes on environmental education, collaborate with multiple institutions of higher
education across the state and country, partner with many school districts across the region and
state, and contribute to the community through various activities and local news media. All
department faculty members collaborate with individual colleagues at academic institutions
across the region and the United States.
Faculty members are highly active in professional organizations. In the last four years faculty
members have served on the Boards of the Washington Science Teachers Association and the
Environmental Education Association of Washington. They attend (and present their work at)
annual National Science Teachers Association, Washington Science Teachers Association, and
other regional, national, and international meetings. Department faculty members belong to the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, the Association for Science Teacher
Education, the American Educational Research Association, and other professional groups in
science education and in their science discipline. They maintain professional relationships with
the Pacific Education Institute, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Kittitas
Environmental Education Network, and others (see Appendix I: Science Education Faculty Grant
Success).
Locally, the program faculty, staff, and students work with P-12 students and teachers by
participating in outreach activities as well as hosting on-campus events. Figure 1 provides the
locations across the state where Science Education faculty have partnerships with local P-12
school districts. The program annually hosts Expanding Your Horizons and other events
including Nature of Night and on-campus fieldtrips for school children. Faculty and students
have also hosted Science Nights for families at local school districts.
CWU Goal V: Achieve regional and national prominence for the university.
As stated in our vision, the Science Education department aspires to deliver the preeminent
program that students from the State of Washington choose to become outstanding science
educators. Department faculty and staff work together as a team to make this vision a reality. The
department’s programs are recognized as outstanding by students and colleagues across the
State. The department was the first in the State to deliver a program aimed at middle level math
and science teachers and is currently in the approval process for the first middle level math and
science major in the State. The high quality of the programs and faculty were recognized by the
Teachers of Teachers of Science, a statewide group of peers, when they voted unanimously to
transfer leadership of the group from Washington State University to CWU. Two Science
Education faculty members have received external honors: Washington Case Professor of the
Year and Washington Higher Education Science Teacher of the Year. In addition, faculty
members carry out nationally recognized scholarly work that is presented annually at national
and international conferences as well as in peer-reviewed scholarly journals.
Page 14
3/15/2010
CWU Goal VI: Build inclusive and diverse campus communities that promote intellectual
inquiry and encourage civility, mutual respect, and cooperation.
The Science Education department consists of dedicated, talented, and collegial faculty and staff
committed to the highest ideals of program quality and professional growth. From a faculty
perspective, the department is small (3.5 FTEF), but serves a large number of pre-service
teachers. Department faculty members participate widely in college and university decisionmaking bodies and influence pre-service teacher training at many levels including Faculty Senate
Curriculum Committee, CTL Advisory Board, CTL Assessment Committee, University
Assessment Committee, among many others. The department embraces a gender diverse
workplace, with 3 female and 3 male faculty members and a female staff member. A fourth
female faculty member will join the department in Winter 2010. Department faculty members
strongly value diversity at all levels and are committed to equitable education that meets each
student’s needs. The program hosts various activities during the year that appeal to
underrepresented groups including Expanding Your Horizons. Recently the faculty members
have forged strong relationships with secondary science teachers at A.C. Davis High School
which houses a large minority population. Star Lake Elementary School is now 40%+ Hispanic,
and some Federal Way middle schools in which SCED 323 students worked last Spring had a
student body that was predominantly African American. The cooperative nature of these
relationships provides a diverse learning opportunity for Science Education faculty and students.
Promotion of University Strategic Initiatives Within the Department
The Science Education Department promotes the achievement of the four major university
initiatives of critical thinking, quantitative and symbolic reasoning, information and technology
literacy, and writing through its innovative curriculum, hands-on inquiry experiences, teaching
practica, and assessment protocols. The specifics of how the Science Education Department
incorporates these core skills through the curriculum and program are discussed in the sections
below.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is a core value within Science Education, and is promoted by the use of inquiry
throughout the program. As a set of behaviors and skills, program faculty members recognize the
academic and professional benefits of critical thinking, and work to foster its development
through program courses and activities. Engagement in scientific inquiry promotes critical
thinking because both require similar skills; analysis, inference, and evaluation. During the
inquiry process, students analyze scientific topics in the life, physical, and earth sciences in an
attempt to understand systems, relationships, structure and function. Students develop inference
skills by making decisions based on applied prior knowledge. Students also evaluate data from
scientific analyses and draw conclusions based on evidence. By emphasizing inquiry the Science
Education department supports the development of critical thinking skills. Students then apply
these skills to contemporary issues in science and education so as to make informed decisions
and take productive actions that benefit the individual and society.
Quantitative and Symbolic Reasoning
The ability to create and interpret numerical and symbolic data is an inherent part of scientific
inquiry and the scientific enterprise. The development of quantitative and symbolic reasoning
Page 15
3/15/2010
occurs as students interpret graphs, charts, and data tables, apply measurement techniques, and
discern magnitude and significance. Both within the content disciplines as well as in the Science
Education Department, students are required to generate many kinds of numerical data through
science investigations, and must interpret the significance of graphs, symbols, and numerical
relationships in order to make supported conclusions. Part of the value of scientific thinking is to
help solve biological and physical problems that affect our society and our world. Successful
problem solving in science requires quantitative and symbolic reasoning. Students have many
opportunities to develop quantitative and symbolic reasoning as they navigate through the
program.
Information and Technology Literacy
Success in science also requires a working knowledge of technologies that help students to
access and acquire information, analyze data, determine the significance of results, and make
conclusions supported by existing bodies of knowledge. In the content disciplines and in science
education, students must apply a range of technologies to their pursuit of scientific knowledge,
including computers (wired and wireless), measurement tools like probeware and calculators
(data collection), computer software (data analysis, interpretation, and communication), and
online databases (literature support) to name but a few. Their ability to use contemporary
technology helps students to be critical consumers of information, which ultimately helps them
become better scientists and science educators. As students navigate through their science
education majors and minors, they have multiple opportunities to become competent users of
information and technology. Science Education faculty model information and technology skills
to the students and encourage their development through program curriculum and activities.
Writing
Within the scientific community, a premium is placed on the ability to effectively and efficiently
communicate scientific ideas and reasoning. This skill is equally important for science teachers.
Writing is a method that all scientists use to communicate their work and show their reasoning
process, and it is a primary tool used to assess student learning throughout the Science Education
Department. In the department, all students write to demonstrate understanding of content and
showcase their reasoning skills. Writing is also used to measure student progress relative to
learning objectives. While less emphasis is placed on mechanics per se, writing to clearly and
effectively communicate ideas to specific audiences is a desired skill for all students in the
program. All assignment rubrics shared across different sections of the same course include
specific sections about writing, including format, spelling, and grammar.
Relationship of Department Goals to College of the Sciences Goals
All of the Science Education Department and program goals align with the College of the
Sciences goals which are closely aligned to the University goals. Appendix A contains a
Department Goal Assessment Plan Matrix that indicates how the department goals are aligned
with the College goals. Appendix C contains the Program Goal Assessment Plan Matrix for each
of the secondary science majors offered or supported through the department. These matrices
show how specific program goals align with College goals.
Page 16
3/15/2010
Promotion of the College of the Sciences Strategic Goals
The Science Education Department faculty and staff work consistently and collaboratively to
promote all seven of the college strategic goals through programs and activities.
COTS Goal I: Provide for an outstanding academic and student experience in the College of the
Sciences.
See CWU Goal I.
COTS Goal II: Provide for an outstanding academic and student life in college programs and
courses at the university centers.
See CWU Goal II.
COTS Goal III: Provide for outstanding graduate programs that meet focused regional needs
and achieve academic excellence.
The Science Education Department’s Goal 6 is to develop a robust interdisciplinary graduate
program. Although a graduate program does not yet exist in the department, faculty support
graduate students and graduate programs in other departments. Faculty members have served as
the chair of thesis committees in the Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Education and Geological
Sciences departments. Biological Sciences and Chemistry have Masters of Science programs
where students can have an education emphasis and the Department of Education Master
Teacher program allows students to have a science education focus. The Science Education
department has several graduate courses in the catalog to support these programs. Faculty
members have worked with the Biological Sciences Department to develop a summer Master of
Science program for biology teachers which will be delivered for the first time in Summer 2010.
COTS Goal IV: Develop a diversified funding base to support curriculum and academic
facilities, student and faculty research and scholarships, as well as faculty development,
service and applied research in college disciplines.
See CWU Goal III.
COTS Goal V: Build partnerships that support academic program quality and student
experiences in the college of the sciences, including those with private, professional,
academic, government, and community-based organizations.
See CWU Goal IV.
COTS Goal VI: Strengthen the college’s contributions to the field of education.
The Science Education Department provides required coursework for all secondary science
teaching majors that lead to state endorsements, including Biology Teaching, Chemistry
Teaching, Earth Science Teaching, General Science, and Physics (with endorsement electives).
The department offers endorsable minors in Broad Area Science Teaching and Middle Level
Science. In addition, all elementary education majors are required to take science education
coursework offered through the department. The department is recognized by colleagues across
the state as providing excellent science teacher preparation programs. The department recently
took over the leadership of the Teacher of Teachers of Science group with a unanimous vote of
its members.
Page 17
3/15/2010
On campus, department faculty serve in leadership roles in CWU’s Center for Teaching and
Learning (CTL), including the CTL Advisory Council, the CTL Assessment Committee, the
Professional Education Revision Team, the Elementary Education Advisory Council, and the
CTL Scholarship Committee. Members of the department have served on statewide committees
working on test development and standards setting for the new WEST-E, writing endorsement
competencies, and articulation between 2-year and 4-year institutions. As part of the Central
Washington University Center for Teaching and Learning, the department is an important
contributor to NCATE accreditation. Department faculty lead the university in development and
implementation of electronic portfolios used to assess student learning. Finally, department
faculty scholarship contributes cutting-edge research to understanding how educational
innovation affects changes in student critical thinking performance.
COTS Goal VII: Create and sustain productive, civil, and pleasant learning environments.
See CWU Goal VI.
Assessment of Department Goals
This document serves as a means for the department to assess itself overall. Formal assessment
of department goals is not yet part of the annual procedures. The current department goals were
created in 2004 and have been revisited in subsequent years. The faculty believes that these goals
still do an excellent job of encompassing what we do and what we want to do. We have created a
department goal assessment plan matrix (see Appendix A) that shows: 1) alignment of
department goals with college and university goals, 2) how, who, and when each goal is
assessed, and 3) the criteria of mastery for each goal. In future years we will include department
goal assessment as part of our annual assessment process.
Over the last four years we have worked hard to be campus leaders in programmatic assessment,
just one aspect of evaluating the department as a whole. In particular, we have developed and
implemented a robust system of assessment for student learning outcomes tied tightly to
institutional, state, and national standards. Outcomes data collected through the assessment
system has been continuously used to make improvements to programs (see Program Assessment
section and Appendix E).
Curricula
Description of Degree Programs
The Science Education Department supports multiple department programs across CWU
including programs in the College of the Sciences and the College of Education and Professional
Studies. The catalog description for the Science Education Department can be found in Appendix
B: Catalog Description of Science Education Department.
The Science Education Department offers one degree program that was initiated in the 20082009 academic year, the General Science Teaching major. A second major, Middle Level Math
and Science is currently proceeding through the HECB approval process. The department
Page 18
3/15/2010
supports four majors housed in science departments and is responsible for assessing the program
goals and student learning outcomes associated with them. These are the biology teaching major,
chemistry teaching major, earth science teaching major, and physics major with endorsement
electives. Table 3 shows the degree programs offered by location, the number of students in the
programs, the number of students earning degrees, and the number of students who earned a
science teaching endorsement but did not complete a degree at CWU. The following descriptions
summarize the department programs and those supported by the department.
Majors Offered or Supported Through the Science Education Department
General Science Teaching Major
The general science teaching major is housed in the Science Education Department and prepares
students to teach science at the high school, middle or junior high levels. It is particularly
appropriate for students who want to teach integrated science, in a small district, or at the middle
level (with the Middle Level Science Minor). It, along with a passing score on the appropriate
WEST-E exams, meets the Washington State Endorsement Competencies for Science and one
Designated Science of the student’s choosing. This major is offered at Ellensburg and students at
Edmonds Community College will begin working on this major Fall 2009 to enter CWULynnwood in Fall 2011. Academic Advisors: Martha Kurtz, Bruce Palmquist
Biology Teaching Major
The biology teaching major is housed in the Biological Sciences Department and supported
through the Science Education Department. It qualifies students to teach biology at the high
school or middle level and satisfies the criteria for a Washington State Endorsement in Biology.
Students must pass the WEST-E in Biology and should consider working toward endorsement in
a second area such as chemistry, earth science, physics, broad area science, middle level science,
or mathematics. This program is offered at Ellensburg. Academic Advisor: Ian Quitadamo
Chemistry Teaching Major
The chemistry teaching major is housed in the Chemistry Department and supported through the
Science Education Department. It qualifies students to teach chemistry at the high school or
middle level and satisfies the criteria for a Washington State Endorsement in Chemistry.
Students must pass the WEST-E in Chemistry and should consider working toward endorsement
in a second area such as biology, earth science, physics, broad area science, middle level science
or mathematics. This program is offered at Ellensburg. Academic Advisors: Martha Kurtz, Tim
Sorey
Earth Science Teaching Major
The earth science teaching major is housed in the Geological Sciences Department and supported
through the Science Education Department. It qualifies students to teach earth and space science
at the high school or middle level and satisfies the criteria for a Washington State Endorsement
in Earth and Space Science. Students must pass the WEST-E in Earth and Space Science and
should consider working toward endorsement in a second area such as biology, chemistry,
physics, broad area science, middle level science, or mathematics. This program is offered at
Ellensburg. Academic Advisor: Beth Pratt-Sitaula
Page 19
3/15/2010
Table 3. Programs Offered in Department
Degree Program
Delivery
Location(s)
General Science Teaching
Degree Program Supported
Eburg, Lynn
Delivery
Location(s)
Biology Teaching
Chemistry Teaching
Earth Science Teaching
Physics (w/endorsement
electives)
Minor Programs
Elem Ed Science Education
Broad Area Science
Middle Level Math/Science
Middle Level Science
Minor Program Supported
Biology Teaching Elementary
Biology Teaching Secondary
Chemistry Teaching
Earth Science Teaching
Physics (w/endorsement
electives)
Page 20
Eburg
Eburg
Eburg
Eburg
Delivery
Location(s)
Eburg, Kent
Eburg
Eburg
Eburg, Kent
Delivery
Location(s)
Eburg
Eburg
Eburg
Eburg
Eburg
# Students in Major
# Degrees Awarded
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09
NA
NA
NA
NA
# Students in Major
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09
NA
NA
NA
# Degrees Awarded
05-06
NA
06-07
NA
07-08
NA
08-09
NA
05-06
10
8
10
1
05-06
4
0
0
0
05-06
0
0
0
0
06-07
0
0
0
0
07-08
0
0
0
0
08-09
0
0
0
1
06-07
12
9
11
0
07-08
11
10
5
0
08-09
15
8
8
1
06-07
3
0
3
0
07-08
0
3
2
0
08-09
5
1
2
1
Endorsement Only
# Students in Minor
#Minors Completed
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09
48
51
50
48
3
5
8
10
24
30
53
38
NA
NA
NA
NA
# Students in Major
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09
24
26
31
26
1
0
1
4
3
21
17
23
NA
NA
NA
NA
# Degrees Awarded
05-06
0
0
33
NA
06-07
0
0
4
NA
07-08
0
1
5
NA
08-09
0
1
2
NA
05-06
3
0
5
0
0
05-06
2
0
2
0
0
05-06
0
0
0
0
0
06-07
0
0
0
0
0
07-08
0
0
0
0
0
08-09
0
0
0
0
0
06-07
1
0
6
0
0
07-08
1
1
6
0
0
08-09
0
1
7
1
1
3/15/2010
06-07
2
0
1
0
0
07-08
1
0
0
0
0
08-09
0
0
3
0
1
Physics Major, BA (w/endorsement electives)
The BA in physics major is housed in the Physics Department and supported through the Science
Education Department. The teaching version of this major qualifies students to teach physics at
the high school or middle level and satisfies the criteria for a Washington State Endorsement in
Physics. Students must pass the WEST-E in Physics and should consider working toward
endorsement in a second area such as biology, chemistry, earth science, broad area science,
middle level science or mathematics. This program is offered at Ellensburg. Academic Advisor:
Bruce Palmquist
Minors Offered or Supported Through the Science Education Department
Broad Area Science Teaching Minor
The broad area teaching minor is housed in the Science Education Department and prepares
students with majors in biology teaching, chemistry teaching, earth science teaching or physics
teaching to teach in other science fields at the secondary or middle level. It, along with a passing
score on the Science WEST-E exam, meets the Washington State Endorsement Competencies
for Science. This minor is particularly appropriate for students who hope to teach in small
districts that may only hire one science teacher. This program is offered at Ellensburg. Academic
Advisors: see science teaching major advisors.
Middle Level Math/Science Minor (2003-2009)
This minor no longer meets state endorsement competencies. It was housed in the Science
Education Department and designed for students who wish to teach mathematics and science at
the middle level (grades 4 – 9). Completion of this minor, along with a passing score on each of
the Middle Level Mathematics and Middle Level Science WEST-E exams, met the old
Washington State Endorsement Competencies in Middle Level Math/Science. This minor was
open only to students in elementary education or in secondary biology, chemistry, earth science,
physics, or mathematics. This minor was offered at Ellensburg and once at CWU-Kent.
Academic Advisors: Martha Kurtz, Tim Sorey; CWU-Kent: Vanessa Hunt
Middle Level Science Teaching Minor (starting Fall 2009)
The middle level science teaching minor is housed in the Science Education Department and is
designed for students who wish to teach science at the middle level (grades 4-9). Completion of
this minor, along with a passing score on the Middle Level Science WEST-E exam, meets the
Washington State Endorsement Competencies in Middle Level Science. This minor is open only
to students in elementary education or in secondary biology, chemistry, earth science, physics, or
mathematics. This minor is offered at Ellensburg and at CWU-Kent. Academic Advisors: Martha
Kurtz, Tim Sorey; CWU-Kent: Vanessa Hunt
Science Education—Elementary Education Minor
The elementary science minor is housed in the Science Education Department and provides
students with a strong background in teaching science. Students who complete this minor will
develop a deeper understanding of the earth, life and physical sciences; build a toolkit of a
variety of instruction and assessment methods in science; and acquire skills and knowledge
leading to the teaching of standards-based inquiry science. Washington State does not have an
elementary science endorsement; however, the background this minor provides is highly sought
Page 21
3/15/2010
after by school districts. This minor has been offered at Ellensburg and to seven cohorts of
student at CWU-Kent. Academic Advisors: Martha Kurtz, Bruce Palmquist
Biology Teaching Secondary Minor
The biology teaching secondary minor is housed in the Biological Sciences Department and
supported through the Science education Department. It provides students with background to
teach biology at the secondary or middle level. It is restricted to students working on a teaching
major in chemistry, earth science, physics or general science. It, along with a passing score on
the Biology WEST-E exam, meets the Washington State Endorsement Competencies for
Biology. This program is offered at Ellensburg. Academic Advisor: Ian Quitadamo
Chemistry Teaching Minor
The chemistry teaching minor is housed in the Chemistry Department and supported through the
Science Education Department. It provides students with background to teach chemistry at the
secondary or middle level. It is restricted to students working on a teaching major in biology,
earth science, physics or general science. It, along with a passing score on the Chemistry WESTE exam, meets the Washington State Endorsement Competencies for Chemistry. This program is
administered by the Department of Chemistry and is offered at Ellensburg. Academic Advisors:
Martha Kurtz, Tim Sorey
Earth Science Teaching Minor
The earth science teaching minor is housed in the Geological Sciences Department and
supported through the Science Education Department. It provides students with background to
teach earth and space science at the secondary or middle level. It is restricted to students working
on a teaching major in biology, chemistry, physics or general science. It, along with a passing
score on the Earth and Space Science WEST-E exam, meets the Washington State Endorsement
Competencies for Earth Science. This program is administered by the Department of Geological
Sciences and is offered at Ellensburg. Academic Advisor: Beth Pratt-Sitaula
Physics Minor (w/endorsement electives)
The physics minor is housed in the Physics Department and supported through the Science
Education Department. The teaching version of this minor provides students with background to
teach physics at the secondary or middle level. It is restricted to students working on a teaching
major in biology, chemistry, earth science, or general science. It, along with a passing score on
the Physics WEST-E exam, meets the Washington State Endorsement Competencies for Physics.
This program is administered by the Department of Physics and is offered at Ellensburg.
Academic Advisor: Bruce Palmquist
Degree Program Goals
The Science Education Department faculty has worked in collaboration to develop three program
goals that span all degree programs offered or supported through the department. Since the
number of students acquiring these degrees is small, this strategy allows for aggregate analysis of
data across programs. This provides us with more meaningful data and serves to improve all
science education programs.
Page 22
3/15/2010
All courses and programs are aligned to meet the CWU Center for Teaching and Learning,
Washington State, National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), National Science Education,
and National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards. The
coursework and experiences offered as part of each degree program are specifically designed to
help students meet the following program goals:
SCED Program Goal 1: Teacher candidates will have a comprehensive, modern knowledge
base of concepts, principles, and methods in science.
SCED Program Goal 2: Teacher candidates will be effective teachers of secondary science
students.
SCED Program Goal 3: Teacher candidates will actively engage in science education reform
and reflect and grow throughout their careers.
Assessment of Degree Program Goals
Formal assessment of program goals is not yet part of the annual procedures. The current
program goals were created in 2009 to distinguish between department goals and goals specific
to degree programs. The faculty believes the program goals encompass the knowledge, skills and
dispositions expected of our graduates. We have created a program goal assessment plan matrix
(see Appendix C) that shows: 1) alignment of program goals with department goals, college, and
university goals, 2) how, who, and when each goal is assessed, and 3) the criteria of mastery for
each goal. In future years we will include program goal assessment as part of our annual
assessment process.
Degree Program Student Learning Outcomes
The programs offered by the Science Education Department are designed to provide students
with challenging and engaging curriculum that improves their content and pedagogical
knowledge and skill. All courses and programs are aligned to meet the CWU Center for
Teaching and Learning standards, Washington State Competencies, National Science Teachers
Association (NSTA) standards, National Science Education Standards for Teaching, and
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards.
In addition to its own major, the General Science Teaching major, the Science Education
Department faculty members serve as the program evaluators for the secondary science teaching
programs delivered by the Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Geological Sciences, and Physics
Departments. These include the Biology Teaching major, Chemistry Teaching major, Earth
Science Teaching major, and the Physics major with endorsement electives. The student learning
outcomes for each program were collaboratively developed by the Science Education faculty to
address State and National standards. The consistent nature of the secondary science program
student learning outcomes allows aggregate data analysis across programs. The coursework and
experiences offered as part of each degree program are specifically designed to help students
meet the following student learning outcomes:
Page 23
3/15/2010
Student Learning Outcome 1: Demonstrate an ability to individually and collaboratively
engage in inquiry and integrate the nature of science.
Student Learning Outcome 2: Explain and apply fundamental science content concepts,
principles, and methods.
Student Learning Outcome 3: Demonstrate an ability to effectively facilitate learning for all
students.
Student Learning Outcome 4: Create safe, effective learning environments that support inquiry,
collaboration, intellectual risk-taking, ethical decision-making, and student construction of
knowledge.
Student Learning Outcome 5: Demonstrate an ability to assess teaching and learning outcomes
using multiple methods, effectively evaluate teaching and learning effectiveness, and improve
practice based on reflection and data.
Student Learning Outcome 6: Demonstrate an ability to make science personally and socially
relevant to individual and community by incorporating current events within collaborative and
social networks.
Student Learning Outcome 7: Participate in a variety of activities that enhance professional
development and improve teaching effectiveness.
Student Learning Outcome 8: Demonstrate open-mindedness and curiosity that leads to
continuous improvement as a scientist and a teacher.
Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes
The student learning outcomes for each science education degree program are assessed primarily
through an end-of-program electronic portfolio (for an example, see Appendix D). Appendix E
contains the Student Learning Outcome (SLO) Assessment Plan for the secondary science
programs and the relation of the SLOs to program, department, college, and university goals. The
plans also indicate how, when, and for whom each SLO will be assessed and the criterion for
mastery.
Each student learning outcome is assessed annually through the numerous methods depicted in
the Student Learning Outcome Assessment Plan. At least once a year the Science Education
faculty reviews the assessment data and completes an assessment report. Since no students have
completed the General Science Teaching major yet, these reports are generated for the science
departments that offer secondary science programs. The science education generated reports are
included as part of each science department’s annual assessment reports. These reports can be
found in Appendix F.
Specific results for the student learning outcomes assessed are included in the assessment
reports. Our process of continual review and program revision indicated the need to add Student
Learning Outcome 8, for which we have no existing assessment data. This outcome was created
Page 24
3/15/2010
in 2009 to address student dispositions and will be assessed in the coming year. Informal
dispositional data has been collected via entry and exit program surveys. End-of-program
portfolios have been modified to include an artifact that directly demonstrates competency of
SLO 8.
Overall, student achievement is high. One concern noted in the reports for some of the programs
is the pass rate on the content exit exam required by the State (WEST-E). It is clear that it is
more difficult for secondary science teaching minors to achieve a passing score on the WEST-E.
Because of this, we have added a biochemistry requirement to the chemistry teaching minor and
have increased the number of science courses required for a middle level science endorsement
(middle level science minor). We have instituted a common advising period each week staffed
by Science Education faculty where students can come to get support in studying for the exam.
We have worked with the science department faculty to align their coursework with state
standards, thus, better addressing the needs of teacher candidates. We will continue to monitor
the success of our students and make changes as needed.
Other Curricular Contributions
The science education department offers specific courses that support other programs in the
College of the Sciences and the College of Education and Professional Studies.
General Education
The Science Education Department does not offer any courses in the General Education
Program; however, faculty members regularly teach general education courses offered by their
science department. These include BIOL 101, CHEM 101, CHEM 111/111Lab, CHEM
181/181Lab, GEOL 101/101Lab, PHYS 101, PHYS 102, PHYS 106, PHYS 111/111Lab, PHYS
181/181Lab, STEP 103. Faculty members feel strongly that their expertise in pedagogy is put to
the greatest advantage in these courses taken mostly by non-science majors. Elementary and
middle level pre-service teachers take these courses for their science content so it is critical that
the Science Education faculty play a role in determining curriculum.
In addition to teaching general education courses, science education faculty members have
offered faculty development workshops to improve teaching and learning in general education
courses. For example, Quitadamo and Kurtz have offered two critical thinking workshops to help
faculty explicitly teach for critical thinking, Quitadamo has offered numerous technology
workshops, and Palmquist has offered a faculty development workshop demonstrating the use of
student-created video assignments.
Professional Education Courses
The science education department supports CWU’s teacher preparation programs through active
involvement in the Center for Teaching and Learning and by offering state-of-the-art, standards
aligned courses for teacher candidates. Table 4 shows the professional educator contributions of
the department, where they are delivered, and how many students were served each year. These
courses are all service courses for majors outside the science education department. The
following brief descriptions outline these courses.
Page 25
3/15/2010
SCED 322: Science Education in the Elementary Schools – This course builds upon general
education science courses to give pre-service elementary education teachers practice in inquiry
and assessment in science. The course includes a practicum component. All Elementary
Education majors take this course.
SCED 323: Teaching Middle School Mathematics and Science – This course provides an
opportunity for students working on science and mathematics teaching endorsements at the
middle level to gain pedagogical content knowledge through inquiry. The course includes a
practicum experience. All pre-service teachers who wish to be endorsed for middle level science
must take this course.
SCED 324: Science Education in the Secondary Schools – This course provides an opportunity
for students working on science teaching majors to gain pedagogical content knowledge through
inquiry. The course includes a practicum experience. All pre-service teachers who wish to be
endorsed for secondary science must take this course.
SCED 487: Teaching Secondary Science Seminar – This course allows students to compile
knowledge, skills, and dispositions evidence and reflect on performance relative to professional
standards. Students discuss current secondary science education issues, participate in program
assessment, prepare for endorsement exam, and complete an electronic portfolio. Most secondary
science majors require this course.
SCED 495: Undergraduate Research – This course is offered as an option to all secondary
science teaching majors. Students may participate in one of two ways: 1) Students are mentored
through the design and implementation of their own science education research project or 2)
They work with a faculty member on an on-going project where they get in-depth exposure to
one or more of the aspects of scientific inquiry (experimental design, data collection, data
analysis, drawing conclusions, writing a scientific paper).
Service Courses
All of the courses offered in support of the professional education courses are in service to other
departments (see Table 4).
Currency of Curricula
Curricula in science education courses and programs conform to the state and national education
standards as well as to the standards set by CWU’s Center for Teaching and Learning. Within the
science departments all secondary teaching majors (biology, chemistry, earth science, and
physics) reflect national trends and standards prepared by the NSTA, NCATE, and the State of
Washington.
Page 26
3/15/2010
Table 4: Courses, Contributions, Locations
Contributing area
Delivery Location
General Education Courses
Location(s)
Not applicable
Professional Education
Location(s)
Courses
SCED 322
Ellensburg, Des Moines, Kent,
Lynnwood, Pierce, Wenatchee,
Yakima
SCED 323
Ellensburg, Kent
SCED 324
Ellensburg
SCED 487
Ellensburg
SCED 495
Ellensburg, Kent
Service Courses
Location(s)
See professional education
courses
# Students (Headcount)
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09
NA
NA
NA
NA
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09
352
349
17
19
11
14
0
0
35
41
05-06 06-07
352
318
17
13
7
26
07-08
34
8
7
34
08-09
Science Education faculty members are dedicated to ensuring the currency of the curriculum. As
standards and endorsement requirements change, course curriculum is adapted to address the
new need. For example, in response to new State endorsement criteria addressing the middle
level, the Science Education faculty proposed the first program in the state to meet the
competencies, the Middle Level Math/Science minor. Then when the competencies changed, the
faculty revised the curriculum to address these changes and proposed the Middle Level Science
minor.
Involvement in fundable scholarly activity and professional meetings allow faculty to remain
current on curricular trends. Science Education faculty members attend the professional meetings
of such organizations as the Teachers of Teachers of Science, National Science Teachers
Association, Association for Science Teacher Education, Washington Science Teachers
Association, Regional and National Meetings of the American Chemical Society, and
Washington College Chemistry Teachers Association.
Effectiveness of Instruction
The science education department is, by definition, concerned with the effectiveness of
instruction. Effectiveness of instruction is measured similarly for all courses and instructors.
Faculty members in
science education tend to use innovative and sometimes experimental teaching methods based on
inquiry. Most faculty members also produce scholarly work describing teaching pedagogies
Page 27
3/15/2010
determined to be effective. For example, Quitadamo and Kurtz have published on using writing
to improve critical thinking and using community-based inquiry to improve critical thinking and
the faculty jointly published a manuscript on the use of electronic portfolios to assess students’
mastery of state and national standards.
Each faculty member participates at least annually in peer evaluation both by being evaluated
and by serving as an evaluator. All faculty members embrace reflective practice and continually
self-evaluate their teaching effectiveness. During the last week of every course each faculty
member has a colleague or staff member administer a Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI).
These evaluations consist of 29 questions that are rated using a Likert scale of 1 to 5 (with 5
being excellent and 1 being very poor) as well as written comments under the headings: "What
aspects of the teaching of this course do you feel were especially good?" and "What changes
could be made to improve learning in this course?" A summary of this data is provided to the
instructor, the Department Chair, and the Dean.
Departmental Teaching Effectiveness
Science education faculty use Student Evaluation of Instruction as one measure of teaching
effectiveness. Students generally rate the faculty at or above the college and university means on
teaching effectiveness.
Table 5: Four Year History of Department Teaching Effectiveness SEOI Means
2005-2006
Department Mean
College Mean
University Mean
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
Fall
Win
Spr
Fall
Win
Spr
Fall
Win
Spr
Fall
Win
Spr
4.18
3.88
4.24
4.40
4.54
4.58
4.61
3.84
4.22
4.36
4.47
4.27
4.28
4.29
4.35
4.27
4.30
4.30
4.24
4.30
4.34
4.30
4.24
4.33
4.31
4.31
4.35
4.30
4.33
4.33
4.30
4.33
4.35
4.31
4.31
4.36
Other Evidence of Effectiveness of Instruction
Another important source of data is the end-of-program portfolios that students complete for
each major and most minors. As part of the exit survey in the portfolio students are asked to
reflect on their coursework including listing courses that helped them gain knowledge, skills, and
dispositions and those that were less useful. All methods courses offered in the department
culminate with a course portfolio where students provide evidence and reflect on their progress
toward meeting standards. Faculty members regularly review course portfolio data as a team and
disaggregate it by instructor. They take a collegial approach to discussing discrepancies and
anomalies to maximize teaching effectiveness across the department. Beginning in Fall 2005
faculty teaching effectiveness across the programs is also assessed by evaluating results from
standardized exit exams (WEST-E) that all teacher candidates must take. Regular department
retreats (at least two annually) allow time for detailed and focused review of teaching
effectiveness data.
Tenure-track faculty members are evaluated annually by the personnel committee using material
supplied by the faculty member. These materials include course syllabi, exams, and assignments.
Results of student evaluations and peer evaluation of instruction are also included. Until science
education reached department status, the appropriate science department chair and personnel
Page 28
3/15/2010
committee reviewed this file to evaluate the faculty member's teaching as a whole, commenting
on teaching effectiveness as well as recommendations for improvement. The Science Education
Department Retention, Promotion, Tenure and Post-Tenure Evaluation Criteria (see Appendix G)
call for a personnel committee consisting of two science educators, two members of the
appropriate science department, and one other person. This committee, the Science Education
Department Chair, and the appropriate science department chair make independent evaluations.
Instructional Methods Used
The Science Education faculty has been trained in diverse teaching strategies that they regularly
employ depending on individual student needs. They exemplify the scholarship of teaching by
assessing student learning and publishing successful teaching methodologies and learning
activities. All courses delivered by Science Education faculty use inquiry-based teaching
methodologies. When multiple faculty members teach a particular course, they collectively
discuss the curricula and teaching methods that will maximize student learning. Although
individual teaching styles vary, collaborative agreement on the essential methodologies used for
each course assures consistency. Table 6 shows the range and consistency of the methods used in
teaching science education courses. Most science education courses incorporate integrated
lecture/discussion/laboratory activities. Typically, instructors and students use a high degree and
wide variety of information and measurement technologies in their coursework. Some courses
use a seminar-style approach in which students read, present and discuss current research articles
or other readings. Students regularly participate in small group projects that culminate in written
and/or oral presentations. Most courses employ a portfolio assessment strategy.
The use of LiveText as an e-portfolio assessment tool is an effective instructional method that
allows students to address science content and teaching standards using a consistent format. The
course and end-of-program portfolios are used to assess specific courses and each program
against established performance goals as well as NCATE, NSTA, and CWU CTL standards.
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
Literature Review
Field Trips
A
B
A
B
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Notes: A = modes of instruction used in all sections of the course offered during the review period
B = modes of instruction used in some sections of the course during the review period
Page 29
3/15/2010
Practicum
A
A
A
A
Measurement Technology
Integrated Laboratory
Information Technology
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Portfolio Assessment
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
Individual projects
A
A
A
Collaborative Learning
B
A
A
A
Interactive Lecture
Title
Interdisciplinary Science Inquiry
Science Education in the Elementary School
Teaching Middle School Math and Science
Science Education in the Secondary Schools
Science, Society, and the Teaching Community
Inquiry Activities for Elementary School Science
Advanced Teaching Strategies in Elem. Science
Science Education Research
Interdisciplinary Science Inquiry for Teachers
Chemistry Concepts for Teachers*
Faculty-Student Research
SCED
301
322
323
324
354
420
422
495
501
541
Academic Service Learning
Table 6: Modes of Instruction Used in Science Education Courses.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
In the Science in the Secondary Schools (SCED 324) course, students are required to construct a
portfolio that provides evidence demonstrating their ability to meet national science teaching
standards. Using this portfolio to showcase their knowledge and skills, students are then
interviewed
by at least two department faculty members during an oral final exam. This oral exam format
gives students the opportunity to practice their interview skills and allows department faculty a
chance to assess student knowledge at the end of their course of study.
Distance Education Technology Used
Use of Interactive Television
Interactive Television (ITV) has been used to a lesser extent in the past four years than in the
previous review period. There are several reasons for this. 1) Faculty members have experienced
an increased demand on their time to do assessment including significant electronic course
components. Many of our courses now require each student to complete a course portfolio
demanding considerable individual mentoring effort on the part of the faculty. The increased
class size and lack of one-on-one face time related to ITV instruction results in less effective
teaching. 2) We have hired a full-time faculty member who resides in Des Moines and teaches
the majority of the Westside offerings, thus reducing the need for ITV. 3) We have employed inservice teachers who share our philosophy and bring the strength of classroom experience to our
courses at distant sites.
Two members modeled a novel use of ITV during Spring 2009 by connecting two sections of the
same course (SCED 354: Science, Society, and the Teaching Community). Student teams from
each section participated in debates on scientific issues through ITV. This appears to be an
effective way to use ITV and we will continue to explore this as an option.
Use of Online Instruction
The Science Education Department does not offer solely online courses; however, all courses are
hybrids and require on-line components through BlackBoard and/or LiveText.
Additional University Required Measures of Efficiency
The University required measure of efficiency for this review period is the number of instruction
staff in the department. Table 7 shows the number of instructional staff specific to the science
education department. The adjunct faculty full time equivalents (FTE) include summer session. It
should be noted that five of the six faculty members in science education have a half time
appointment in a science department and; thus, the headcount is significantly greater than the
FTE Tenure Track. Headcount is included in Table 7 to give a clearer description of the
department.
Table 7: Number of Institutional Staff in Department
Degree Program Instructional Staff
Faculty FTE: Tenure Track
Headcount FTE Tenure Track
Faculty FTE: Non-Tenure Track
Grad Assistant FTE
Page 30
# Staff each year
05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
5
5
5
6
0.2
0.27
0.47
0.53
0
0
0
0
3/15/2010
The Faculty section of this document outlines the qualifications and accomplishments of the
science education faculty. In using instructional staff FTE as a measure of efficiency, the overall
accomplishments of the department, its faculty, its students, and its staff must be considered. The
science education faculty members are extremely productive in the context of a joint
appointment which adds substantially to service expectations. For details, see Faculty section and
Appendix G: Faculty Vitae.
Faculty
Overview
The Science Education Department has high quality faculty members who are dedicated to
improving education at all levels. Through best-practice teaching, applied pedagogical and
scientific research, and extensive service to university, region, and state, the Science Education
faculty works to establish CWU as the pre-eminent place in Washington for people to learn
science teaching. The diversity of experience and training the faculty bring to the department
represents a balance between science education expertise and the four major fields of scientific
study in the public schools: biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics. Science Education
faculty members provide extensive service to stakeholders at all levels.
Table 8 summarizes a number of performance measures for Science Education tenure-track
faculty members over the past four years. The program is particularly strong in its service to the
university, region, and state through student field experiences, various aspects of teacher
preparation and administration, in-service teacher training, and state- and national-level
committee work. In general, faculty members excel in teaching, research, and service.
Summaries of faculty work in each of these areas follow.
Teaching
The Science Education faculty members naturally focus on effective teaching. The Currency of
Curriculum and Effectiveness of Instruction sections of this document provide a detailed
description the efforts of department faculty to improve teaching and learning. Importantly,
much faculty scholarship is also focused on effective teaching and learning pedagogies.
Scholarship
The Science Education Department faculty values scholarship in the biology, chemistry, earth
science, and physics content disciplines as well as in science education pedagogy. Scholarship
measures from Appendix G: Faculty Vitae, indicate that department faculty members are
actively engaged in various forms of scholarship, including peer-reviewed manuscripts, state and
federal external grants, presented papers, abstracts, numerous conference and invited
presentations, and mentored student research. Table 8 summarizes these accomplishments as
well as service contributions. Over the past four years, all tenure-track faculty members have
presented abstracts or papers at regional, national, and international conferences, have authored
peer-reviewed publications in high impact journals, and have received external and/or internal
research grants. These accomplishments are even more impressive when one considers the large
service requirements for all science education faculty members. Grant funding covers a range of
topics from content and pedagogical research to state-based reform initiatives. Over the four
Page 31
3/15/2010
years of this review, the total amount of new and continued funding from external grants is over
$7,300,000 and nearly $140,000 for internal grants (see Appendix G: Faculty Vitae. A
considerable proportion of the scholarship activities involve students at various levels.
Service
One of the largest contributions made by Science Education faculty is in the area of service.
Science Education faculty members conduct disproportionately more service than most CWU
faculty members because of the joint nature of the appointments and the natural outreach
extension of overseeing teacher preparation. Service activities in the science education
department include student advising, program governance, supervision of practicum students and
undergraduate researchers, mentoring of graduate students, numerous university committees,
Center for Teaching and Learning committees, professional development of K-12 teachers
through in-service training and summer institutes, work with regional and state agencies, and
service to state and national professional organizations. Each Science Education faculty member
contributes to their content department through various personnel, research, graduate,
curriculum, and facilities committee work. In addition, Science Education faculty members make
significant contributions to the community via public science demonstrations, classroom visits
and newspaper articles. In several cases, Science Education faculty members chair university
committees and are involved in change initiatives that shape the quality of undergraduate and
graduate education and influence the culture of the university. The department faculty averages 8
college committees and 11.5 university committees per year. They work on an average 6.5
professional organization committees per year and have leadership positions in an average of 2.5
professional organizations per year. Impressively, the service numbers presented in Table 8
include work performed by department members who have served in administrative positions for
part of the review periods. For example, Kurtz served as the Chair of Chemistry from 2005-2007
(0.5 FTEF), Palmquist served as Chair of Physics from 2005 – 2007 (0.25 FTEF), Kurtz (20052006), Palmquist (2006-2008), and Hunt (2008-2009) served as the Kent Program Director,
Kurtz served as the Interim Dean of COTS (2007-2008), and Kurtz (2005-2007) and Palmquist
(2007-2008) served as Science Education Program Director (0.25 FTEF), Kurtz served as
Science Education Department Chair from 2008-2009 (0.33 FTEF) and Kurtz served as Center
of Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education Director from 2008-2009 (0.4 FTEF). The
service contributions of Science Education faculty are quite substantial and are
disproportionately high relative to the number of faculty members in the program.
Faculty Vitae
Copies of all science education faculty curriculum vitae are included in Appendix G.
Faculty Awards
The Science Education Department houses several award winning faculty members. During the
four year review period faculty members earned the following awards:
 Palmquist – Washington State Case Professor of the Year (November 2005)
 Quitadamo – CWU Crystal Apple Outstanding Teacher Educator (2008)
 Kurtz - CWU Distinguished Professor: Service (2008)
 Kurtz – Washington Higher Education Science Teacher of the Year (2009)
 Palmquist – CWU Crystal Apple Outstanding Teacher Educator (2009)
Page 32
3/15/2010
Faculty Performance Expectations
The Science Education Retention, Tenure, Promotion, and Post-Tenure Review Performance
Evaluation Criteria are included in Appendix H along with the College of the Sciences
Performance Standards and the University Performance Standards. The department criteria are
unique across the university in articulating two levels of criteria for all three areas of faculty
work. The university criteria delineate Category A and B for scholarly products. We have
delineated similar levels for teaching and service. The document clearly defines criteria for
positive tenure, promotion, and post-tenure reviews.
Students
Overview of Accomplishments
Student accomplishments in Science Education are many and varied. Students working with
Science Education faculty have presented posters at SOURCE, been co-authors in peer-reviewed
publications with department faculty members, and presented at regional and national
professional meetings. Science Education students are also recognized by the University as being
outstanding; two of the ten Outstanding Student Teacher awards in 2006 and one in 2008 were
awarded to science education students.
Science Education students successfully gain employment as elementary, middle level and
secondary science teachers. Even though it is not an endorsable area, students earning the
Elementary Science – Science Education minor have been able to market their science
experience to their advantage. The middle level minors are new since the last review. Students
from this program are in high demand. All middle level graduates have garnered a teaching job
and districts such as Tukwila School District have asked to review the resumes of all of our
middle level graduates. Table 9 shows all secondary science and middle level science graduates
and their employment status, if known. This table shows the variety of placements with respect
to population, ethnic diversity, and subject area.
Evidence of Successful Student Advising
All Science Education faculty members participate in undergraduate advising. Primary advisors
are assigned for each program (see brief descriptions under Curricula. Faculty members advise
the teaching majors and minors in their content department plus the students in the programs
offered in science education. Students must select an official department advisor when they
apply to their major or minor. Two faculty members have served as UNIV 101 instructors and
advisors during the review period. In 2008-2009 the faculty decided to schedule an open
advising session each week. A subset of the faculty meets for at least one hour per week to
advise students on a drop-in basis. Students come to get help with their end-of-program
portfolios and in studying for their WEST-E exams. One department member serves on the
University Academic Advising committee.
Other Student Services
CWU has a student chapter of the National Science Teachers Association that is supervised by
the Science Education faculty. Student interest in the club has fluctuated since it received initial
Page 33
3/15/2010
recognition in 2003. The club provides opportunities for student to engage in the teaching
profession through delivery of science nights at local districts and participation in other outreach
events such as Get Intimate with the Shrub Steppe, a day-long event hosted by the Kittitas
Environmental Education Network to educate the community about the local ecosystem.
Students also have opportunities for service learning experiences that are regularly scheduled
through program faculty. Each year program faculty members organize and host several
community and public events for which science education students volunteer as part of an
academic service learning experience. Events include Expanding Your Horizons, a conference
for middle school girls, and Nature of Night, a community event to learn about night time
science.
Page 34
3/15/2010
Table 8: Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty Profile
Total faculty incl. in data
# of
items
2005-2006
5
#
% of
faculty
faculty
TT - T
3
60
# of
items
# of
items
11
2007-2008
5
#
% of
faculty
faculty
TT - T
5
100
# of
item
s
9
2008-2009
6
#
% of
faculty
faculty
TT - T
5
83
4-yr
faculty
total
16
Annual
avg
% of
faculty
4
100
Abstracts presented
6
Add'l conferences attended
Peer-reviewed publications
Peer-reviewed publications w/ undergrads
Books written
Book chapters and monographs written
Published manuals
8
4
80
5
3
60
7
3
60
8
4
67
14
3.5
83
3
2
40
3
3
60
3
2
40
1
1
17
8
2
67
1
1
20
3
2
40
1
1
20
2
2
33
6
1.5
50
1
1
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
.25
17
1
1
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
17
2
.50
33
0
0
0
3
1
20
3
1
20
3
1
17
3
.75
17
External grants not funded
External grants funded research
Ext. grants not funded curric.-infrastructure
Ext. grants funded curriculum-infrastructure
Internal grants not funded
Internal grants funded research
2
2
40
1
1
20
0
0
0
3
3
50
6
1.5
50
0
0
0
1
1
20
2
1
20
1
1
17
3
.75
17
2
2
40
4
2
40
4
2
40
11
3
50
9
2.25
50
2
2
40
2
1
20
1
1
20
4
4
67
8
2
67
2
1
20
1
1
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
.5
17
1
1
20
1
1
20
0
0
0
3
2
33
4
1
33
Int. grants not funded curric.-infrastructure
Int. grants funded curriculum-infrastructure
Department committees
College committees
University committees
Community service
1
1
20
1
1
20
1
1
20
0
0
0
3
.75
17
2
2
40
3
3
60
3
2
40
2
2
33
9
2.25
67
15
5
100
17
5
100
19
5
100
17
5
83
20
5
100
8
4
80
7
4
80
8
5
100
9
6
100
19
4.75
100
8
4
80
13
5
100
12
4
80
13
5
83
18
4.5
100
79
4
80
83
4
80
76
4
80
90
5
83
17
4.25
83
Professional organization committee
Leadership position in prof. org.
State Committees
Participation on proposal review panel
Invited seminars
Manuscripts/textbooks/grant prop. reviewed
5
1
20
8
2
40
9
2
40
4
2
33
7
1.75
33
1
1
20
3
1
20
3
1
20
3
1
17
4
1
17
1
1
20
0
0
0
3
2
40
3
2
33
5
1.25
50
0
0
0
2
1
20
1
1
20
1
1
17
3
.75
33
2
2
40
2
1
20
12
3
60
2
2
33
8
2
83
2
2
40
9
5
100
3
2
40
11
4
67
13
3.24
100
Supervision of SOURCE presentations
Undergraduate student projects
Grad student committee chair
Grad student committee member
6
3
60
5
3
60
9
3
60
7
5
83
14
3.5
83
7
3
60
9
4
80
7
2
40
12
3
50
12
3
83
1
1
20
1
1
20
2
2
40
1
1
17
5
1.25
33
12
5
100
12
4
80
13
4
80
14
5
83
18
4.5
100
Page 35
4
2006-2007
5
#
% of
faculty
faculty
TT - T
3
60
3/15/2010
Table 9: Secondary Science Education Graduate Employers
2005-2006
Student
Program
Placement (Grade)
Bearup, Jennifer
ML Math Science
Wapato School District (K-8)
Bell, Theresa
Biology, Science
Wapato School District (6-12)
Elliott, Jill
Biology, Chemistry
Fernandez, Jared
Physics
Bellevue School District (HS)
Giedd, Catherine
Biology, Chemistry Bio-Rad Biotechnology Education
Nisse, Anthony
ML Math Science
BYU Graduate School
Olsufka, Jamie
Biology
W.Valley School District (2)
Pitts, Jonathan
Biology
Rerecich, Sarah
Biology, Science
Ephrata School District (2)
Rivard, James
Chemistry
Kittitas County Health Department
Ryan, Brittainy
Biology
Cle Elum/Roslyn School District (HS)
Stephens, Randall Biology, Science
Mabton School District (2)
Sullivan, Derek
ML Math Science
Puyallup School District (K-8)
Werner, Lacey
Biology
Puyallup School District (4-12)
2006-2007
Student
Program
Placement
Brokaw, David
Biology
Steilacoom SD (HS)
Duff, Lindsay
ML Math Science
Battleground SD (K-12)
Dunn, Sara
ML Math Science
Auburn SD (K-8)
Dunnagan, Danny
ML Math Science
Royal SD (9)
Gradwohl, Kimberly
ML Math Science
Walla Walla SD (7-8)
Griffin, Lindsay
Biology
Selah SD (HS)
Hall, Greg
ML Math Science
Selah SD (HS)
Holstad, Julie
Biology
Bellevue SD (7-8)
Huddleston, Kimberly
Biology
Eatonville SD (HS)
Hunter, Brandi
Biology
Kent SD (HS)
Kelly, Tralana
Earth Science
N. Franklin SD (4-12)
Lewis, Devan
ML Math Science
MacLean, John
ML Math Science
Federal Way SD (ML)
Miller, Amanda
ML Math Science
Moses Lake SD (6-12)
Millie, Erin
ML Math Science
Oak Harbor SD (ML)
Olson, Donna
ML Math Science
Sequim SD (K-8)
Ramey, Timothy
ML Math Science
Wahluke SD (7)
Schultz, Jennifer
ML Math Science
Wapato SD (K-8)
2007-2008
Student
Program
Placement
Anderson, Merrill
ML Math Science
Bjorge, Krista
Chemistry
Lake Washington SD (HS)
Donahoe, Michaela
ML Math Science
Issaquah SD
Flajole, Seth
ML Math Science
Prosser SD (K-8)
Heid, Joshua
ML Math Science
Page 36
3/15/2010
Keen, Rachel
Lindquist, Traci
Mask, Sarah
Meyer, Hannah
Parnell, Matthew
Quilter, Jeremy
Reykdal, Nickalous
Rhodes, Glenn
Rivers, Robyn
Romero, Enrique
Schletzbaum, Cara
Simms, Rachael
Warren, Cassandra
2008-2009
Student
Anderson, Amanda
Broome, Dusty
Burger, Charles
Faiola, Celia
Forrester-Shipman, Devlin
Grabenhorst, Kiel
Hansen, Charles
Helland, Terry
Legg, Pamela
Longenecker, Amy
Maras, Seth
Mason-Schaefer, Mikala
McKenna, Claire
Mendoza, Ofelia
Nelson, Alyssa
O'Brien, Heather
Ozuna, Meliza
Parker, Christopher
Perrault, Danae
Raforth, Emily
Richards, Nathan
Rosenthal, Stephanie
Sandbo, Emily
Schiro, Alenda
Shaw, Daniel
Torrez, Duran
Woods, Byron
Young, Evan
Page 37
Earth Science
Earth Science
ML Math Science
Chemistry
ML Math Science
ML Math Science
ML Math Science
ML Math Science
ML Math Science
Earth Science
ML Math Science
ML Math Science
Chemistry
Program
ML Math Science
ML Math Science
Biology, Science
Biology, Science
Biology, Chemistry
ML Math Science
ML Math Science
Chemistry, Biology
Biology, Science
ML Math Science
ML Math Science
Earth Science, Science
Biology
ML Math Science
ML Math Science
ML Math Science
ML Math Science
Physics
ML Math Science
Biology, Chemistry
ML Math Science
Biology, Science
Earth Science, ML
Math Science
Chemistry
ML Math Science
ML Math Science
Biology
Biology
Ellensburg SD (subbing)
Bremerton SD
Evergreen SD (K-8)
Yakima SD (HS)
Shelton SD (ML)
Moses Lake SD (ML)
Federal Way SD (ML)
Vancouver SD (ML)
Toppenish SD (HS)
Yakima SD
Moses Lake SD (HS)
Placement
Renton SD (ML)
Naches SD (HS0
WSU PhD Program
Ellensburg SD (subbing)
Yakima SD (K-12)
CWU MS Program
Yakima SD (HS)
Federal Way SD (4-12)
Selah SD
Lake Washington SD
Educational Consultant
Wapato/Yakima SD (6-12)
Kotilik, AK (5)
Tahoma SD (2-7)
Bremerton SD
Lake Washington SD (9)
Pasco SD (ML)
Wenatchee SD
3/15/2010
Facilities, Equipment, and Instrumentation
Overview
The science education department is housed in an attractive, relatively new building. The space
is functional; however, does not meet the needs of our program in facilitating the sense of
community necessary for 21st Century teaching and learning. The following terms and
definitions are used in this document:




Facilities – departmental building space and furniture (layout, location, size,
functionality, lighting, ventilation, finishes, plumbing, electrical outlets, storage cabinets,
office furniture, etc.)
Resources – books, journal, videos, and curricular “kits”
Equipment & Instrumentation – non-computer materials and devices used to undertake
scientific investigations
Technology – computer, internet, and instructional technology devices
Description of Facilities
The department’s primary space is 5000 ft2 on the first floor of CWU’s Science Building in
Ellensburg. The space is divided into 11 rooms which include: 2 classrooms (SCI 111 and 115),
1 wet chemistry and research prep area (SCI 114), 1 conference room and library (SCI 116), 1
dedicated storage space for large items (SCI 112), 2 rooms for reception and secretarial support
(SCI 107), and 4 faculty/staff offices (SCI 107a-d). Additional departmental space is located at
CWU’s Des Moines Center on the Highline Community College campus (south of Seattle) in the
form of one faculty office and modest shared storage space. See Appendix I for details on room
usage.
CWU’s Science Building was constructed just over 10 years ago and many components of the
science laboratory facilities are good quality. The plumbing, finishes, cabinetry, lighting, and
furniture are fine. Other aspects of the building construction are less ideal.
The biggest hindrance to effective teaching and overall departmental efficiency is the physical
layout of the space. It is not conducive to integrated learning or easy access. The office reception
is disconnected from the library and storage facilities, which effectively makes these spaces
inaccessible because the library and storage spaces are usually locked. Therefore students do not
have ready access to the departmental holdings in a way that can be browsed, while still
remaining secure. There are no openly available group spaces in which students can meet to
study and work towards developing learning communities. Storage space is just barely adequate
for current holdings and not conducive to growth.
The overall building ventilation system, while somewhat effective, is very loud and sometimes
hinders students’ ability to hear what the instructor is saying. Temperature control between
rooms is sporadic. Also, Science Education does not have a hood to use in the preparation of
chemical education activities. This leads to decreased efficiency and possibly to less safe
practices as chemistry education students move materials between Science Education’s SCI 114
and Chemistry Department laboratories that are hood-equipped. Science Education does not have
Page 38
3/15/2010
sufficient chemical storage facilities. In fact, the room currently used for chemical storage and as
a wet lab was originally designed as a workroom and practice teaching venue where students
could video tape themselves teaching. It was not designed to house chemicals or to do wet
chemistry. There are flammable chemicals stored in a portable flammable cabinet with no
ventilation and many non-compatible chemicals are stored too close to one another.
The location of electrical outlets is a routine problem. The centrally located outlets on the floor
of SCI 111 and 115 (classrooms) are nearly inaccessible as Facilities has taped over them (to
prevent dust build-up?). Students end up having to plug in laptops along the wall and work
standing up or drape extension cords around the room and create potential trip hazards. SCI 116
(conference room/library) has only a few outlets are accessible around the walls (others are
behind bookshelves). Science Education regularly uses this room for laptop-oriented work
meetings and this power access deficit limits efficiency and in some cases prohibits effective
learning. This room was originally designed as a computer laboratory and converted to a much
needed conference/workshop/library room.
The projection systems in SCI 111, 115, and 116 are outdated but generally fine; however, the
location of the projection screens – partially or completely covering the white boards –
significantly impairs the ability of the instructor to combine spontaneous or incremental writing
(white board) with prepared images and lecture notes (screen).
Facilities Needs
The current facilities were designed well over a decade ago when Science Education was a
Program, not a Department as it is now. During this time it has grown from 3 half-time faculty
members (1.5 FTE) to 7 faculty members (4 FTE). The only growth in space has been the
addition of one faculty office (in Des Moines). However, the biggest overall issue with Science
Education’s facilities is not the overall size (although somewhat more space will be necessary to
facilitate the growth in the number of K-12 STEM educators mandated by the legislature) but the
layout. As detailed above, the separation of the department reception from library and storage
spaces and the distinct lack of student workroom and community space hinders the development
of learning groups and limits use of resources (books, journals, instruments, etc.).
Space designed to facilitate student learning, faculty collaboration, integrated research, and
department outreach is needed, as is additional storage and office space. The Science Education
space is not sufficient to absorb all the math education materials, so the Center for Excellence in
Science and Math Education (CESME) has remained fragmented (math education materials are
stored in Hertz Hall). The vision for bringing these two disciplines into closer collaboration has
been imperfectly realized. With the addition of grant-funded program staff (ex. Yakima
WATERS) and additional TT and adjunct faculty members, the office space for Science
Education is full with nowhere to expand.
As part of our new vision for space that supports teaching and learning at all levels, Science
Education is also interested in an outdoor learning laboratory to facilitate modeling of the use of
the schoolyard to supplement kit-based inquiry science curricula which are becoming standard in
Washington elementary schools. This space could be a native plant garden, vegetable garden,
butterfly garden, pond, or any number of other possibilities. Ideally, we would also like the use
Page 39
3/15/2010
of a greenhouse space that may or may not be connected to an outdoor space, which would
facilitate outdoor learning throughout the year. Environmental education is a critical aspect of
best-practice science teaching, and directly informs our University mission to produce stewards
of the earth.
The Science Education Department truly needs a new home and the proposed Science Phase II
building (currently in pre-design) offers a fantastic opportunity to:
1. Address all the inadequacies listed above (lack of community space, no room for growth,
poor room layout, lack of chemistry facilities, poorly placed electrical plugs and screens,
etc.) and
2. Design a facility that will be a showcase for forward thinking and action in
teaching/learning science and help the department realize its goal of being the preeminent
science education institution in Washington State (living library community space,
cutting edge energy and environmental standards, outdoor learning space integrated with
other sciences, highly functional multiuse classrooms, office space for grant funded staff,
etc.)
Needs Specific to the Westside Programs
The Westside program in middle-level science is ideally situated for modeling quality inquiry
experiences in environmental science that employ and utilize core science concepts from all
disciplines. Full realization of this vision is substantially handicapped by lack of facilities,
resources, equipment and instrumentation, and technology. This program is in urgent need of
funding for equipment, including laptops, probeware, microscopes, and basic lab supplies
suitable to middle school science activities. Books required by the students for independent
projects have either to be shipped from Ellensburg, or borrowed from the personal library of the
faculty member. No laptops are available for class use, and students requiring internet access
during class time must physically leave class and locate an available computer lab. Thus a
considerable amount of class time is wasted as students regroup.
Offering quality science education experiences to our students has been made possible recently
only by space, equipment, and technician time generously made available by Highline
Community College and its associated Marine Science and Technology Center, and by loans of
equipment from the Ellensburg campus and Washington State University. While appreciated,
equipment loans from institutions across the state are expensive in terms of shipping, and of
faculty and staff time in negotiating and documenting such loans. Additionally, equipment from
loan programs has been extensively used by a variety of classes, and such items as probes are
liable to failure, causing considerable frustration to the student investigator. Much faculty time is
also consumed by canvassing the campus in search of individuals willing to loan items such as
electronic balances, streak plates, sieves, glass beakers, binoculars etc.
The NSTA recommends that a minimum of 80% of science instruction at the middle level be
hands-on inquiry experiences, and we wish to model this for our teacher candidates. A low
estimate for fully equipping a science lab that could meet the majority of learner expectations for
the middle level science standards would be $40,000 to $50,000. Replacement and repair would
Page 40
3/15/2010
average $3,000 per year. This does not include the provision of laptop computers. However, any
sort of designated budget for the west side would be an improvement!
Library and Technological Resources
Library Requirements
The library needs to provide access to a range of resources to meet Science Education
requirements. These include the following and are listed in order from most to least immediate
need: periodicals in the collection or available online in full text format; databases to search for
literature resources; access to literature in larger collections; means to add appropriate texts and
periodicals to the collection; and expertise in applying library resources to the teaching,
scholarship, and service missions of the program. The library currently meets these needs in the
following ways:
Periodicals in the Collection
The journal titles most closely related to Science Education Department needs are listed below in
Table 10. This collection has proven inadequate in supporting the scholarship needs of the
department. Note that most of the journals are available online from only the mid-1990s onward.
Our most extensive collections are bound journals on site, but there are very few of these. And,
two of the most important journals in our field, Science Education and Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, have large gaps in their availability. A variety of factors are recognized as
contributing to this, including trends of rapidly rising costs of periodical literature coupled to a
library budget that has not kept pace, and the diverse and changing scholarship needs of the
Science Education Department faculty. Over the past few years faculty members have
experienced some difficulty in carrying out their scholarship roles due to the difficulties of
accessing current literature given the limited nature of the collection. Some of the gaps in this
support are filled by other library resources that are identified below, though it still should be
noted that this is an incompletely resolved problem.
Databases to Search for Literature Resources
The library provides access to a variety of databases in support of most teaching, scholarship and
service missions. The library maintains excellent internet access for these databases through the
library website from on-campus computers, and also supports log-in internet access to the
databases from off-campus. Further, the library has maintained an excellent record of providing
support for these databases. However, the years available are limited. And, the specific journal
list on a given database can change from year to year leaving gaps in the record.
Access to Literature in Larger Collections
The library has two very effective programs for providing access to literature in larger
collections: Summit and Inter-Library Loan. In particular, Science Education faculty members
have found Summit, which provides rapid access to collections of higher education libraries
across the Pacific Northwest, absolutely invaluable. We have high praise for the service provided
by Summit with one caution: Summit currently has no feature that allows it to serve the
“browsing” role of a physical collection, something that we consider a very important aspect of
Page 41
3/15/2010
library support for both faculty and students. We encourage the library to pursue this, perhaps
developing an innovative approach to this problem. Inter-Library Loan has also proven useful.
Means to Add Texts and Periodicals to the Collection
Science Education faculty makes recommendations to add to the collection through a library
representative from the department. Given the diminished use of books in science education
research, in general, this approach for making recommendations has proven satisfactory and the
library has proven responsive within the limited resources available. However, this work is
processed on paper rather than electronically. The library should investigate an online method of
making requests for texts and periodicals.
Expertise in Applying Library Resources
Science Education faculty has found the support by library personnel to be generally satisfactory.
Their expertise is delivered through individual interaction with librarians (for instance students
asking questions of librarians, faculty members meeting individually with librarians) and also
through library curriculum (for instance, librarians will conduct a class or classes on using
library resources as part of a course in one of the science education programs).
Future Needs
Future needs revolve around two areas: access to electronic resources and access to and support
for emerging web applications. Faculty members require access to newly available traditional
electronic resources such as access to full-text research publications and database searches from
both government and private sources. Limited access to research journals is a significant
hindrance to CWU faculty and student research. Researchers at UW and WSU have direct access
to many more journals. All university faculty and students in the state should have the same
access to information. Additionally, faculty need access to and support for using existing and
newly emerging web 2.0 applications including mashups based on student interest, blogs, wikis,
and podcasts. More and more, effective teaching practice is moving toward more student-created
content. The library can be a center for facilitating this including a) providing courses and
tutorials on how to use these technologies in the classroom, b) assistance in producing the
content, and c) making server space available for storing the content.
Information Technology Used
Course management and hybrid course design are used across all courses to provide students
with 24 hour access to learning materials, group spaces, assignments and evaluation criteria, and
test taking. The major challenge will be to review and implement suitable learning platforms to
replace Blackboard, which is insufficient in nearly every aspect. A faculty information collection
and management system will be critical to improving workflow efficiency and ability to
aggregate/disaggregate performance at the individual, department, unit, and university levels.
Assessment of student learning remains a need without sufficient tools to support ready
collection and analysis of learning trends. Future platforms will need to address these needs
explicitly.
Page 42
3/15/2010
Table 10: Science Education journal holdings directly available through Brooks Library
Journal Title
American Biology Teacher
American Journal of Education
American Journal of Physics
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching
Astronomy Education Review
Australian Science Teachers' Journal
BioScience Education e-journal
Cell Biology Education
Chemical Educator
Chemical Education International
Chemistry Education Research and Practice
Chemistry Education Research and Practice in Europe
Chemistry Education. Research and Practice in Europe
Electronic Journal of Science Education
Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education
Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education
International Journal of Environmental & Science Education
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science
and Technology
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education
International Journal of Science Education
Journal of Biological Education
Journal of Chemical Education
Journal of College Science Teaching
Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching
Journal of Elementary Science Education
Journal of Geoscience Education
Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Journal of Science Education and Technology
Journal of Science Teacher Education
Latin-American Journal of Physics Education
Physics Education
Physics Education Research
The Physics Teacher
Research in Science & Technological Education
Research in Science Education
School Science and Mathematics
Science & Education
Science and Children
Science Education
Science Scope
The Science Teacher
Teaching Science
Page 43
Availability (Online unless noted)
1938-present
1978-present
1940-present
2000-present
2002-present
1995-2003
2003-present
2002-2005
1997-2002
2000-2004
2003-2004
2000-2002
2005-present
1996-present
2007-present
2009-present
2005-present
2006-present
1998-2008
2005-present
1999-2008
1990-present
1925-2001
1972-1992 (bound), 2003 present
1989-2000 (bound), 1996-2008
1998-2007
1996-present (bound)
2002-present
1963-1992, 2005
1997-present
1997-present
2007-present
1966-present
2005-present
1963-1968, 1970-2000 (bound)
1990-2008
1997-present
1927-2001 (bound), 1999present
1997-present
1963-1970 (microfilm), 1971-present
(bound). 2005-present
1931-2006 (bound)
2002-present (bound), 2005-present
1950-present (bound), 2005-present
2004-present
3/15/2010
Information Technology Used
Course management and hybrid course design are used across all courses to provide students
with 24 hour access to learning materials, group spaces, assignments and evaluation criteria, and
test taking. The major challenge will be to review and implement suitable learning platforms to
replace Blackboard, which is insufficient in nearly every aspect. A faculty information collection
and management system will be critical to improving workflow efficiency and ability to
aggregate/disaggregate performance at the individual, department, unit, and university levels.
Assessment of student learning remains a need without sufficient tools to support ready
collection and analysis of learning trends. Future platforms will need to address these needs
explicitly.
LiveText, the online portfolio and outcomes management system used in CTL courses, is
adequate but hardly revolutionary. It is difficult to compare data across faculty, courses, and
departments related to science education. Future course management, information management,
and teaching tools will need to not only be used by faculty to assess students in courses, they will
need to be integrated into teacher education so that candidates graduate with the ability to
quickly collect, reflect, and respond to student learning data trends.
Whatever new technologies are added, it will be important to address faculty training. Currently,
faculty training is lacking. For example, the one Blackboard trainer is not sufficiently familiar
with science teaching or innovative pedagogies. Also, certain technology tools are not available
unless one goes through “training” even if the faculty member has proven they are able to use
similar tools.
Technology Available, Its Adequacy and Future Needs
The Science Education faculty members have access to significant technological resources and
use them heavily. Several faculty members lead the university not only in use of technology but
in training others to use technology. Palmquist and Quitadamo have delivered workshops for
faculty through the Education Technology Center and Sorey has trained teachers on using
technology in the science classroom. Current computer technology in use by Science Education
faculty members includes:



Each faculty office has an up-to-date PC running recent versions of Windows and
Microsoft Office. All faculty members have access to a large format printer, scanner,
copier, and networked color printer. Some faculty members have specialized software
such as SPSS.
Each classroom has a projector; computer; wireless capability; and an AV stack including
VCR, DVD player, and inputs for a laptop. We have a stack of 16 Dell Laptop
computers.
Additional technology includes a web-based Polycom video conferencing system in one
classroom and a variety of calculator-based lab probeware. We use the videoconferencing
to include our Westside faculty member in all department meetings and for interactions
between different sections of Ellensburg and Westside classes.
Page 44
3/15/2010
Supporting faculty on the cutting edge of instructional technology use continues to be a
challenge for the department. Future needs can be classified into four categories.
Office technology: Periodic office computer hardware and software upgrades and better wireless
connectivity. Wireless access in many faculty offices is poor. This makes it difficult to work with
students who come in with their laptops asking for help on an assignment that requires access to
Blackboard or LiveText. The department is concerned by the loss of the Win-Win program; an
excellent program that helped defray the cost of computer hardware upgrades which are
absolutely necessary for faculty and staff to be productive.
Classroom technology: The most pressing classroom technology need is an upgrade to the laptop
stack. Half of the funds needed to make this upgrade had been saved by the science education
department as of June 2009 but this carry forward was swept by the Administration at the end of
the last fiscal year without an opportunity for the department to rationalize the savings.
Currently, at any given time, about half of the laptops will boot up and/or log into the campus
network. This significantly hinders our ability to use and teach methods of field science. Also,
the Science Education classrooms do not have document cameras. Most of the classrooms that
our students do their practica in have document cameras. We would like to model their
appropriate use in a science classroom.
Networking and Distance Education technology: A more robust video conferencing system with
more functionality for our interactions with the Westside centers and a more universal way to
interact with classrooms around the state and the world (e.g., a deluxe version of Skype). The
CWU Writing Center uses Skype to provide writing tutoring over the internet.
Software: We need a simple to use yet robust database to input faculty work records such as
Data180 or similar. Faculty members spend an inordinate amount of time compiling the same
information for various administrative and institutional reports. As the university works toward
functioning more efficiently, a faculty relational database is absolutely essential for consistency
and accuracy of reporting.
Analysis of the Review Period
Departmental Successes
Accomplishments
The following table lists the accomplishment of the department in the last five years in three
categories: department, curricula, and faculty.
Table 11: Department Successes During the Review Period
Department
Moved from Program status to Department status based on increasing faculty numbers,
implementation of a major degree program, and overall productivity of the faculty.
Founded the Center for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education (CESME) with
internal funding through a Spheres of Distinction grant.
Page 45
3/15/2010
Garnered significant financial resources for the department through the Higher Education
Coordinating Board (HECB) High Demand grant adding an additional $9K to the
department’s goods and services budget.
Increased faculty from four in 2004-2005 to six in 2008-2009 through HECB High
Demand grant funding. Hired our first full-time Science Education faculty member to
support Westside programs.
Increased staffing from 0.5 FTE secretary to .75 FTE in Science Education and 0.25 in
CESME
Improved partnerships with community groups, Educational Service Districts (especially
Yakima ESD and North Central ESD) and community colleges (especially Edmonds
Community College at Lynnwood, Wenatchee Community College, and Yakima Valley
Community College. Other partnerships established or improved are with the Kittitas
Environmental Education Network, the Kittitas County Public Health Department, the City
of Ellensburg, and Puget Sound Energy.
Worked to increase faculty contributions to in-service teachers resulting in two state
Math/Science Partnerships funded, one with the Yakima School District and one with the
North Central ESD. Faculty members have delivered science content workshops in
summer institutes and during the academic year.
Served on more national and state level committees and work groups in this review period
compared to the last including Washington Science Teachers Association Board,
Leadership and Assistance in Science Education Reform Steering Committee,
Environment and Sustainability Education Specialty Endorsement Standards Writing
Team, North American Association for Environmental Education Standards Writing Team,
and State content exam (WEST-E) development and validation committees.
Increased community events beyond Expanding Your Horizons by taking on organization
of Nature of Night, Star Parties, and Bubble Planetarium shows.
National Science Teachers Association Student Affiliate Chapter (Science Education Club)
has become visible and active by providing activities for community events, family science
nights, and school programs.
Curricula
Developed and began delivering General Science Teaching major in Ellensburg and will
begin delivery in Lynnwood in Fall 2011.
Separated the Middle Level Math/Science minor in to a Middle Level Science minor and a
Middle Level Math minor in response to changes in the state endorsements. Began
delivering the Middle Level Science minor at CWU-Kent as an add-on endorsement in
Spring 2009 and will offer it as the program minor in Fall 2009. Initiated curriculum
paperwork for a Middle Level Mathematics and Science major.
Used program assessment data to improve programs. For example, developed a course
(SCED 354) focusing on science education in the community, the nature of science, and
the social context of science to better address these competencies.
Used program assessment data to improve programs. For example, SCED 487 was added
Page 46
3/15/2010
to each secondary science major to assist students in selecting and reflecting on artifacts in
their end-of-program portfolio and give them greater exposure to literature.
Used program assessment data to improve programs. For example, an additional credit was
added to SCED 322 (from 3 to 4) in response to feedback on Student Evaluation Of
Instruction.
Added Biochemistry and lab (CHEM 431, 432Lab) to the Chemistry Teaching minor in
response to changing endorsement criteria
Implemented pedagogies in introductory science courses in biology and chemistry
designed to improve critical thinking skills. Pedagogies include writing, community-based
inquiry and case study analysis
Added graduate course (SCED 511) to support Yakima WATERS, an interdisciplinary
program to increase watershed research in the schools. Faculty members have also been
very active in supporting this grant in other ways with three faculty serving as PIs.
Taught several graduate courses in support of the Master Teacher Program. These courses
allow faculty to address science concepts for teachers at a higher level and in a more
focused way than our undergraduate offerings. Faculty members are able to incorporate
advanced science education concepts.
Faculty
Provided continuing data record that documents the assignment of faculty to half-time
appointments in science education and half-time in a science department is a successful
model of developing excellent faculty, programs, and graduates.
Developed clear tenure, promotion, reappointment and post-tenure review criteria for
faculty including two levels of performance outputs in teaching and service to parallel the
two levels the university already differentiates in scholarship.
Worked as a collaborative team to accomplish greater productivity with better quality than
individuals could alone.
Led the university in program assessment. For example, one faculty member is the co-chair
of the university assessment committee.
Served as model across the university in exemplifying the teacher-scholar.
Delivered an increased number of faculty development workshops.
Directly impacted quality of Science Education in K-12 schools by implementing practica
in all science methods course, delivering K-12 outreach programs, and providing cutting
edge science education programs
Directly impacted of quality of teacher performance in K-12 schools across the region and
state by delivering professional development workshops and providing cutting edge
science education programs
Awarded leadership of the statewide Teachers Of Teachers Of Science (TOTOS) by
unanimous vote of the membership.
Increased participation in state wide STEM leadership
Page 47
3/15/2010
Awarded honors including Washington State Case Professor of the Year, CWU Crystal
Apple Outstanding Teacher Educator (2), CWU Distinguished Professor: Service, and
Washington Higher Education Science Teacher of the Year.
Attended conferences and disseminated work to peers at regional and national conventions
Increased connections with the Geological Sciences Department and gained Earth Science
expertise by hiring a faculty member in a joint appointment with Geological Sciences.
Increased connections with the Westside Centers, primarily Des Moines, Kent, and Pierce
by hiring a faculty member in a fulltime appointment in Science Education to be based at
CWU-Des Moines.
Support Through External and Internal Resources
During the last four years, the science education has garnered support from both external and
internal resources. Externally, the political climate calling for an increased number of
mathematics and science teachers and for Science Technology Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) students, in general, has helped the department in garnering resources. Two faculty
members were hired in the 2004-2006 biennium from funds acquired through the Higher
Education Coordinating Board’s High Demand Grant Program. The department wrote two
grants: one for transfer students that supported Green River Community College students in
transferring to an Elementary Education major/Science Education minor program in Auburn
(now CWU-Kent) and the other to support the middle level math and science program. Although
these were written during the previous review period, the benefit from them was realized in this
review period. A third position was supported internally through high demand money given
directly to the university to increase STEM enrollments.
Successful funding of external grants has allowed faculty members to become more involved in
teacher professional development workshops. Specifically, the funding directed to CWU from
the Math Science Partnership grants (one with Yakima School District and one with North
Central ESD) has paid for faculty travel and time in the summer to deliver week-long summer
institutes.
In addition to the external support, the science education department has received significant
financial support internally. In a highly competitive process, the science education department
was awarded funds to support the creation of the Center for Excellence in Science and
Mathematics Education ($65K). This funding allows for a director, a 0.25 time secretary, a small
goods and service budget, and some faculty workload units awarded by CESME through a
competitive grant.
The department has received very good support from the Dean of the College of the Sciences
during the review period and from the Dean of the College of Education and Professional Studies
with whom we work closely. Even though COTS has seen three deans, CEPS two deans, and we
had two Provosts during the last four years, the intellectual and financial support has remained
high. The department faculty and staff appreciate this support.
Page 48
3/15/2010
Departmental Challenges
Challenges, Likely Causes, and Suggestions
The following table lists the challenges of the department in the last five years in three
categories: department, curricula, and faculty.
Table 12: Continuing Department Challenges, Likely Causes and Suggestions
Department
Challenges
Likely Causes
Suggestions for Overcoming
Challenges
The faculty recognizes the
need to become more active
in recruitment especially by
expanding our K-20 network
and visiting K-12 schools
and community colleges.
The faculty lacks the time to
engage in specific recruiting
activities beyond what is
offered on campus. The
department does not have
cohesive, attractive marketing
materials
The faculty needs to be given
time in their workload to travel
for recruiting purposes. A one
quarter partial reassignment
would allow a faculty member
to focus on developing
marketing materials.
Because the science
education department works
with students getting degrees
in five other departments it is
extremely difficult to track
our students as they leave
our courses and programs. In
addition, we serve students
who do not get a major from
CWU but come instead for
teacher certification only.
These students are very
difficult to track.
Lack of a comprehensive list
of our students. Data from
Certification does not match
with data from Institutional
Research which does not
match with our department
records. Safari does not track
Certification or Endorsement
Only students.
Develop a better system of
tracking our students within the
department. Work with the
Certification Office and the
Registrar’s Office to try to see
if Safari can track Certification
or Endorsement Only students.
The department faces the ongoing challenge of upgrading
technology. The laptops used
in classroom instruction are
outdated and not functional
for classroom use anymore.
The department lacks
financial resources to upgrade
expensive equipment. Money
that was saved to cover
approximately half of the cost
of replacing the laptop stack
was swept by the
administration at the end of
the 2008-2009 academic year.
Work with the dean to help the
President understand that carry
forward does not necessarily
mean unencumbered. Work
with the University to develop
a better way for departments to
have resources to purchase,
maintain and upgrade
equipment.
Lack of support staff. The
Lack of funding.
department has grown and
has digital equipment
including balances,
probeware and
electrophoresis machines that
Page 49
This position has been in our
budget requests for several
years. Continue to request the
position and make sure the
dean understands the critical
nature of this support.
3/15/2010
need routine maintenance.
The equipment checkout and
loan program is gaining
exposure outside the
university and monitoring
they system is more than our
secretary can do while trying
to keep up with the rest of
her duties. We need a
technician to support us in
maintaining our equipment.
Curricula
Initiating a robust
interdisciplinary science
education graduate program
has been a department goal
for over five years. We have
offered stand alone graduate
course in support of the
Master Teacher Program but
have yet to implement a full
program. See Table 14.
Lack of faculty FTE to cover
the courses and the research
mentoring necessary for a
graduate program. Lack of
articulation on the part of the
University about the role of
graduate education and
criteria necessary for
proposing a program.
Use recent documents on the
role of graduate studies at
CWU to justify a graduate
program in science education.
Survey teachers and students to
determine need and interest
We have excellent programs
for students who come to
CWU to learn about teaching
science; however, we do not
have a program for existing
teachers who would like to
add science endorsements.
Large numbers of teachers
have inquired about
endorsement only
opportunities at CWU. These
programs would need to be
offered in the summer.
Even though the total
inquiries are high, the
inquiries within one of the
four sciences endorsed
through the state are too low
to run a course and cover the
faculty salary. It is difficult to
cover all the competencies in
one content area through
interdisciplinary courses.
Also, faculty members are
currently at maximum load in
the summer working on
scholarly work, teaching
courses, and running grant
funded teacher workshops.
Consider evening courses and
survey teachers for their
interest in evening vs. summer
courses. Write grants that
would help to cover faculty
salary. Work with Continuing
Education to find a solution to
the small number of students
per class. Explore the
possibility of on-line
instruction for some of the
coursework.
Faculty members have
served on the committee to
restructure the Professional
Education Program that all
our students must take.
However, this committee has
not effectively addressed
Lack of a neutral facilitator
hinders the process. The
Professional Education
Program is delivered out of a
department that has no majors
so they appear to be
protecting FTES rather than
Continue to meet with the
secondary teaching program
directors to articulate the issues
and concerns. Continue to
serve on the restructuring
committee. Work with the
Center for Teaching and
Page 50
3/15/2010
content faculty concerns
especially with regard to the
total number of credits
required for the program.
Currently 54 credits are
required in addition to a
student’s science major.
working to provide the most
efficient program to meet the
competencies.
Learning Director to find a
neutral facilitator.
Although the faculty work
hard and have demonstrated
success in their joint
appointments, the
inefficiency of data reporting
and the almost double
service loads remain a
challenge.
No effective relational
database system is employed
on campus to assist faculty
and administrators in
collecting consistent, coherent
data on faculty work.
Purchase a University-wide
relational database to keep
track of faculty work (e.g.,
Data180) to generate reports
with consistent formatting and
data.
Balancing teaching, research,
and service continues to be a
challenge for Science
Education faculty. We have
strong records as
teacher/scholars but we do
much work that is not part of
our workload plan. Some
faculty members have
received overload for
teaching; however, there is
no mechanism to provide for
overload if it is in the area of
scholarship or service.
Science education faculty
members, to a person, invest a
significant amount of time
above and beyond the
workload plan in supporting
students and accomplishing
tasks necessary to achieve the
university and state reputation
that we currently enjoy. The
university does not have a
mechanism to pay faculty for
all the work they do measured
in workload units.
Seek funding for additional
faculty members to lighten the
load. Serve on committees that
deal with faculty workload
issues and performance
adjustments. With more faculty
members earning tenure and
full professor, set up a
mentoring program. Work in
interdisciplinary teams to
accomplish scholarship.
Faculty members in the
Science Education
Department apply for
sabbatical and one quarter
research leaves to a lesser
extent than faculty members
in other science departments.
Only one faculty member in
science education has had a
sabbatical and one has taken
a quarter research leave.
Faculty members are
dedicated to the team and are
overwhelmed with the amount
of work required to succeed at
CWU. As a small department,
there is too little faculty
resource to cover the gaps left
by a research leave. Faculty
salaries are too low for young
faculty especially those
supporting a family to take
the cut in pay required for a
year long sabbatical.
Encourage faculty members to
take advantage of the benefits
of sabbatical or research leave.
Work with the dean to
accommodate leaves without
having to cancel classes or
overload remaining faculty
members.
Faculty
Page 51
3/15/2010
We have successfully hired a
faculty member to support
our Westside programs,
however, we now face the
challenge of supporting her
in feeling connected to the
rest of the team on the
Ellensburg campus. The
matter is complicated by the
fact that she is the only one
of us to be full time in
science education.
The ITV interface is function
but clearly not ideal for
including all faculty. The
system has some glitch about
25% of the time. Faculty
members do not have time
and the department does not
have the resource to send
faculty members back and
forth over the mountains
regularly.
Better, more consistent
distance education technology
is required. The department
would like to pursue better
internet-based video
conferencing system.
Past Review Recommendations
Implemented Recommendations
During our last program review, the external reviewer provided a ranging narrative discussion of
issues rather than a focused set of recommendations. Thus, the dean at that time, Meghan Miller,
used the reviewer’s report to identify issues that needed to be addressed and developed
recommendations in consultation with the College of Education and Professional Studies dean at
that time, Rebecca Bowers. Dean Bowers was very familiar with the work of the Science
Education Program so she provided an effective sounding board for Dean Miller’s ideas. Table
13 lists each implemented recommendation, actions taken to date relating to the
recommendation, and planned future actions.
Table 13: 2004-2005 Program Review Recommendations Implemented
Recommendation
Actions Taken
Future Actions
Strengthen
Continued SCED participation on CTL
Maintain participation on CTL
communication
committees including the Advisory
committees. Better inform
channels (including
Council.
science departments about
a commitment to
relevant CTL decisions.
communication from Promoted our use of the LiveText
CTL, Department of portfolio as an effective method of
Continue to meet with the
Education (DOE),
developing standards-based assignments, secondary teaching program
and the science
evaluating student work and motivating
directors to articulate the
disciplines, as well
curricular change.
issues and concerns. Continue
as from Science
to serve on the restructuring
Education (SCED)
Facilitated a CTL-wide discussion about committee.
who currently is
revising the Professional Education
proactive in this
Program (PEP) and served on the
Continue to promote the
regard).
restructuring committee.
revision of the elementary
education major via
Served on the elementary education
participation in the elementary
program committee to represent science education director/committee
education in rethinking the elementary
structure.
education major.
Page 52
3/15/2010
Through the
governance structure
of the CTL, COTS
and CEPS need to
explore the addition
of a tenure-track
science educator,
whose primary
responsibility is
supervision of
secondary and
middle school
science teachers.
Science Education
program review
needs to be set in
context with DOE
and science
department’s
program review,
allowing a
coordinated
evaluation of
program
complementarity and
integration.
Alignment needs to
include quarterly
meetings with DOE
core faculty and with
the Director of Field
Experience.
Requested two fulltime SCED faculty
members for the Westside centers to
support middle level science and general
science programs (received one).
Request a Westside position to
be housed at Lynnwood to
support the General Science
Teaching major.
Requested two new joint appointment
faculty members for Ellensburg to
address emerging needs (received one).
Develop a plan to involve all
Science Education faculty
members in field supervision
with responsibility for at least
some of the pedagogy
assessment.
For this program review cycle SCED is
aligned with Chemistry, Geological
Sciences, and Physics. It is impossible to
do much more in COTS without
completely unbalancing the distribution
of departments working on program
review each year.
Invite the new Teaching
Elementary, Adolescent, And
Young Children Department
(TEACH) chair to at least one
SCED staff meeting (or
meeting involving issues of
concern to SCED) per year.
SCED faculty participates fully in their
home science department’s review.
Participate in the program
review process for the
education and science
departments that we serve.
SCED faculty members meet with DOE
core faculty on specific CTL committees
not related to program review.
SCED chair worked with the Director of
Field Experience to make successful
completion of the SCED portfolio a
prerequisite for student teaching.
Invited CTL Director, Director of Field
Experience, Certification Officer, Chair
of Educational Foundation and
Curriculum, CEPS Dean, COTS Dean,
Provost, and President to various SCED
staff meetings
Page 53
3/15/2010
Use program
assessment to guide
curriculum revision.
Completed annual reviews of SCED
portfolios and associated data.
Developed a middle level science minor
to better match state competencies.
Developed a new course (SCED 354) to
address revised state competencies
dealing with the social aspect of science.
Enhance technical
(0%) and secretarial
(50%) support staff.
Added a capstone course to all
secondary science majors (the course is
an elective for chemistry teaching
majors)
Received funding for and hired a 75%
SCED/25% Center for Excellence in
Math and Science Education secretary.
Utilize existing
campus support for
grant writing
Requested technical support staff in
budget request since the last program
review.
All five SCED faculty members received
CESME grants during either the 2006-7
AY or the 2007-8 AY.
Continue to review portfolio
data, revise curriculum as
needed and revise portfolio
assessment as needed.
Develop a middle level
math/science major to better
meet state competencies.
Continue to request technical
support staff position or
develop a plan to share biology
and chemistry department
technical staff.
Continue to apply for CESME
reassigned time grants.
Encourage faculty members to
Faculty members have participated in
apply for SOAR grants and
grant writing workshops and have taken research leaves.
advantage of the assistance provided by
the Graduate Office in finding funding
sources and preparing proposals (the
latter mostly with respect to submission).
The department chair has met with both
the COTS Development Officer and the
Foundations Grant Writer to
communicate needs for funding.
Develop a strategic
Applied for and received Sphere of
plan for CESME that Distinction funding for CESME.
articulates a mission, Funding included goods and services
develops goals and
budget, administrative assistance and
identifies the steps
funding for a half-time director.
that are needed to
reach these goals.
Continue to develop CESME
based on its articulated mission
and goals.
Recommendations Not Implemented
In addition to the recommendations implemented the program review process resulted in several
recommendations that were not implemented.
Page 54
3/15/2010
Table 14: 2004-2005 Program Review Recommendations Implemented
Recommendation
Reason Not Implemented
A proposal for a SCED graduate program should Lack of faculty FTE to cover the courses and
be preceded by a needs assessment
the research mentoring necessary for a
graduate program. Lack of articulation on the
part of the University about the role of
graduate education and criteria necessary for
proposing a program.
Comparison Between Last Program Review and Current Status
The department has progressed significantly down the path to achieving its vision of delivering
the preeminent program that students from the State of Washington choose to become
outstanding science educators. Our service on statewide committees and in professional
organizations, our innovative interdisciplinary courses and programs, our increasing work with
K-12 teachers, and our nationally recognized scholarship has led to an enhanced reputation for
the science education programs at CWU. It is clear that the department enjoys greater human and
financial resources than it did four years ago. Despite our growth and enhanced reputation, we
still have work to do to further our mission and goals and to reach our vision.
Future Directions
Aspirations for Next Three to Five Years
The primary ambition of our program faculty is simple; we aspire to be the preeminent
institution that students from the State of Washington choose to become outstanding science
educators. As noted above, we have moved decidedly toward that vision during the last review
period. Our faculty and programs have strong reputations across the state, so much so that we
were voted unanimously to take over the leadership of the state Teachers of Teachers of Science
group and we were asked by the National Science Decathlon program to host their national
competition in 2010. Our students are key to our reputation as they will carry the torch into their
classrooms and impact thousands of P-12 students. Our students and our faculty possess a desire
to make a difference. We will take advantage of this desire to propel our department farther
along the trajectory to reaching our goals and achieving our vision. Specific aspirations for the
department, the curricula, and the faculty and the department goals addressed follow.
Department
Enhanced Recruiting (Goal 3)
A continuing challenge is improving recruiting of students into science teaching. We will
implement a multi-pronged approach to recruitment including increased visits to K-12 schools
for explicit recruiting, collaboration with CWU’s STEP program that already focuses on
recruiting STEM majors especially from underrepresented populations, creation of marketing
materials designed to attract today’s students, and establish future teacher academies in regional
high schools to foster a passion for teaching science.
Science Faculty Professional Development and Mentoring (Goals 1, 2, 8)
Many of the strategies we have articulated to accomplish our department goals revolve around
supporting our science faculty colleagues in developing and incorporating more research-based,
Page 55
3/15/2010
student-centered teaching strategies. Several of our colleagues in COTS have expressed interest
in learning more about student-centered teaching and assessment techniques. Science Education
Program faculty members are in a unique position to be able to facilitate professional
development for our content discipline colleagues at many levels. This is a major opportunity to
improve STEM education at CWU. We have offered several professional development
opportunities in the past but would like to expand these offerings and develop a plan with
CESME for regular offerings.
Improved advising (Goal 3)
We have made many curricular changes in the past four years, some in response to assessment
data and some in response to changes in state standards. We need to spend some extended time
together to ensure that our advising materials, end-of-program and course electronic portfolios
and rubrics are up-to-date, accurate, and consistent.
Build on Existing Relationships and Extend to Business/Industry (Goal 7, 8)
We have built strong relationships with many K-12 teachers, administrators, and Educational
Service District staff in the last four years. We have also improved our relationships with science
and mathematics faculty at Highline Community College, Yakima Valley Community College,
and Wenatchee Valley College and with other four-year program faculty including staff of the
UW Institute for Science Education. We would like to continue expanding our K-20 network and
begin to build relationships with local and regional businesses and industry that can help us
incorporate engineering and technology into our curriculum.
Plan for Science Phase II (Goals 3, 4, 5)
As noted in the Facilities section, science education is in need of new space to better facilitate the
community of learners we strive to foster. We intend to work in collaboration with the physics
and geological science departments to design and construct a state-of-the-art science teaching
and learning space.
Develop a System for Tracking Majors, Minors, and Graduates (Goal 2)
The program review process has reemphasized for us the need to implement a better system for
tracking our students. We will work with the five departments whose majors we support along
with the Certification Office, the Office of Institutional Research, Career Services, and the
Alumni Relations to develop and implement an effective system. We will investigate the use of
Connect and Retain software to communicate with potential and existing students.
Curricula
Implement Graduate Program (Goal 6)
Many of our alumni are interested in coming back for a Master of Science in Science Education
or in their content field with an education emphasis. We are committed to addressing this need.
We have already offered several courses that support the Master Teacher Program in the
Education Department; however, these offerings have been irregular. In the summer of 2010, we
will deliver a pilot three summer MS in Biology Education for biology teachers. We have also
had numerous requests for a career switcher program and for an efficient certification program
for students with a BA or BS in a science field. We will explore these options.
Page 56
3/15/2010
Expand Programs to University Centers (Goals 1, 3, 4))
As CWU grows, emphasis continues to be placed on programs at the CWU Centers. We already
offer courses that support the Elementary Education major at five Center locations, the middle
level science minor to an elementary education cohort at CWU-Kent, and will begin offering the
General Science Teaching major at Lynnwood beginning Fall 2011. We have developed a
Middle Level Mathematics and Science Teaching major that will go through the approval
process during the 2009-2010 academic year. The middle level science endorsement program
appears to be in high demand across the state. Several community colleges have asked us about
offering this program. We need to evaluate the need and carefully plan expansion so as not to
overburden our faculty and staff.
Become Involved in Field Experience Supervision (Goal 3)
Lack of content faculty participation in student teaching supervision and pedagogy assessment
has been a concern in recent University accreditation. Science education has long been interested
in participating, at least in part, to student teaching and other field experience supervision. We
have mitigated the problem to date by incorporating practical experiences in our methods
courses. Given additional resources, we are very interested in taking on a larger role in field
experience supervision. Without additional faculty resources, this will be difficult without
overburdening already taxed faculty.
Explore Ways to Incorporate STEM in to Curricula (Goals 1, 2, 4)
Leaders in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education across the
State of Washington are working to create a statewide infrastructure to support ‘STEM literacy.”
Our K-12 partners are beginning to ask how to incorporate more engineering and technology into
their science instruction. CWU faculty can and should play a primary role in modeling what this
looks like in the classroom and facilitating reform in K-20. Science Education faculty will work
with the Industrial Engineering and Technology department to accomplish this objective.
Develop Environment and Sustainability Education Specialty Endorsement Program (Goal 4)
Several Science Education faculty members have interest and expertise in environmental
education. Kurtz has worked on teams to develop national environmental education standards for
NCATE and at the state level to develop the Environment and Sustainability Education (ESE)
competencies. With CWU’s new Environmental Studies major and new Center for the
Environment, we are posed to develop one of the first ESE programs for teachers in the state.
Continually Update Curriculum Based on Assessment Data (Goal 3, 4)
As leaders in the university in program assessment, this is an on-going aspiration of the
department.
Faculty
Increase Scholarship (Goal 5)
We are actively involved in meaningful research-based scholarship. Our main challenge is the
time deficit our service load puts on us. This has a negative impact on the time we can spend
writing grants and publications. We would like to collaborate on projects of mutual interest and
find ways to provide more time for faculty members to produce scholarship because we value
this aspect of our positions.
Page 57
3/15/2010
Encourage Collaboration and Professional Development for Department Faculty (Goals 2, 8)
One of the biggest challenges to science education faculty is balancing teaching, scholarship, and
service duties. We believe in life-long learning and strive to find time to continue our own
professional development. We enjoy a positive, open atmosphere and actively promote
collaboration as a means to support each other and to efficiently address the total workload. We
will encourage research leaves and sabbaticals and work with the Dean to ensure that program
delivery can occur without undue stress on the remaining faculty members.
Interdisciplinary Grant Writing (Goal 5)
We have written many large external proposals involving collaboration within our program and
across departments in COTS and have had some success (e.g, NSF: STEP, NSF: GK-12). In the
current economic climate, we expect to focus even more effort on garnering external funding for
programs and scholarly pursuits. In particular, we feel poised to take advantage of our successes
of the past four years to garner an external grant for scholarships for science teacher candidates.
Plans to Increase Quality, Quantity, Productivity, and Efficiency
We Science Education faculty and staff hold ourselves and each other to high standards for
quality, quantity, productivity and efficiency. We expect to deliver efficient, effective programs
and hold our students to high standards of quality and productivity. All of the aspirations for the
next three to five years delineated above are design to help us produce great quality and quantity
with less time and financial resource investment. In addition to those aspirations, we can achieve
greater efficiency by accomplishing the following.
Leverage the Center for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education (CESME) Resources
An advantage for Science Education in leveraging CESME resources is that the Director is one
of our faculty members so communicating our needs is straightforward. We view the CESME
Faculty Workload and CESME Equipment Grants as essential support mechanisms to our work.
At least one Science Education faculty member will apply for each of these grants each year. We
will also use the CESME Track Em inventory and check out system to support our outreach
efforts and in-service teacher workshops.
Increase Number of Science Teaching Majors
Increasing the number of science teaching majors will by definition increase quantity. It will also
increase efficiency, especially in our secondary science programs where more students could be
accommodated into existing courses without having to add sections. Increasing the number of
students in our programs will require that we accomplish several of the aspirations listed above
including enhanced recruiting, improved advising, developing a system of tracking students, and
expanding Center offerings.
Construct New Facilities
Successful planning and construction of Science Phase II to increase functionality of Science
Education space and foster a sense of community among faculty and students will increase
productivity and efficiency. The new facility will increase department visibility.
Page 58
3/15/2010
Increase Faculty and Staff
Although the faculty and staff have the personal motivation to work as efficiently as possible to
generate the greatest amount of quality product, we are limited by our numbers. Additional
faculty members would allow creation of a science education graduate program, expansion of
programs to University Centers, faculty participation in student teaching supervision, and
increased scholarship including peer-reviewed publication and external grant submission. An
additional staff technician will give faculty members more time to focus on teaching,
scholarship, and service.
Resources
The resources required to accomplish our aspirations and plans to increase productivity and
efficiency fall into two obvious categories: time and money. Of course, time and money are
related. The specific resources required are:





An additional faculty line at CWU-Lynnwood with a half-time appointment in Science
Education and half-time in either Biology or Chemistry to support the General Science
Teacher major and the science methods course for the elementary education major
cohort. This would also be an ideal place to expand the middle level programs.
Reopening of the cancelled search for an Earth Science Educator at Ellensburg to support
middle level programs, student teaching supervision, flexibility to allow implementation
of graduate program or research/sabbatical leaves.
An additional staff member to serve as the department technician to maintain equipment
and instructional technology resources.
Creation of a COTS or department fund to support repair and replacement of large ticket
items such as our laptop stack, office computing systems, and probeware for instruction.
Purchase of specific software to support faculty in being more efficient including: 1) a
relational database for recording faculty work, 2) better internet video conferencing
capability, 3) a comprehensive electronic portfolio and course management system.
LiveText is insufficient and Blackboard doesn’t have the capabilities that we need.
Suggestions for Future Program Review
The format in the template for program review is not logical and is unnecessarily repetitive. It
does not flow well from one topic to the next. The language is confusing. Items requiring a
response have been added haphazardly and meshed in places that prevent overall document flow.
For example, the only required measure of efficiency is requested in the Curriculum section;
however, the actual measure required is the number of instructional staff which doesn’t have
anything to do with curriculum. The Science Education Department faculty decided to outline
this document in a more logical fashion. We hope that the Office of Undergraduate Studies will
consider a format similar to ours in future iterations of program review.
The university needs to decide whether this process is a department review and strategic
planning document or whether this process is intended solely to assess degree programs. Because
the intent is not clear, the language used is confusing. Departments should have goals that have
nothing to do with degree programs such as making sure there is enough money in the budget to
Page 59
3/15/2010
support the work of faculty and the delivery of programs. Reference to “program goals” in the
template is confusing. As a result, the Science Education faculty has articulated three levels of
goals/outcomes: department goals, program goals for each degree program, and student learning
outcomes for each program.
Acquiring data to support the program review process is next to impossible and extremely
frustrating. Every source of data gives a different answer, if the data can be retrieved at all. The
Office of Institutional Research, while admittedly understaffed, provided the data for Table 3
only and that data finally came on Feb. 1, 2010 even though the section that table appears in was
due from the department on June 8, 2009.
Page 60
3/15/2010
Appendices
Appendix A: Department Goal Assessment Plan Matrix
Appendix B: Catalog Description of Science Education Department
Appendix C: Program Assessment Plan Forms
General Science Teaching Major
Biology Teaching Major
Chemistry Teaching Major
Earth Science Teaching Major
Physics Major with Endorsement Electives
Appendix D: End of Program Portfolio Example
Appendix E: Student Learning Outcome Assessment Plan
General Science Teaching Major
Biology Teaching Major
Chemistry Teaching Major
Earth Science Teaching Major
Physics Major with Endorsement Electives
Appendix F: Department Assessment Reports
2008 Biology Teaching Major
2009 Biology Teaching Major
2008 Chemistry Teaching Major
2009 Chemistry Teaching Major
2008 Earth Science Teaching Major
2009 Earth Science Teaching Major
2008 Physics Major with Endorsement Electives
2009 Physics Major with Endorsement Electives
Appendix G: Faculty Vitae
Vanessa Hunt
Martha Kurtz
Bruce Palmquist
Beth Pratt-Sitaula
Ian Quitadamo
Tim Sorey
Appendix H: Faculty Performance Criteria
Science Education Retention, Tenure, Promotion, and Post-Tenure Review Performance
Evaluation Criteria
College Faculty Performance Criteria
University Faculty Performance Criteria
Appendix I: Facilities
Page 61
3/15/2010
Appendix A: Department Goal Assessment Plan Matrix
CWU Department Assessment Plan Matrix
Department: Science Education
Department Goal Alignment with University and College Goals
Department Goals
Increase scientific literacy for all students.
Use best-practice pedagogy to improve student learning outcomes.
Promote quality training of pre-service science teachers.
Actively develop programs and curricula that support inquiry and improved scientific literacy at all levels.
Develop and support a research program that contributes to the body of knowledge in science education.
Develop a robust interdisciplinary graduate program.
Contribute to the professional development of P-12 teaching professionals across the region and state.
Engage in science education reform in the university, P-12, and public sectors.
Related College
Goals
COTS 1, 2, 6, 7
COTS 1, 2, 6, 7
COTS 1, 2, 6, 7
COTS 1, 2, 6
COTS 4, 5
COTS 1, 2, 3
COTS 4, 5, 6
COTS 1, 2, 4, 5, 6
Department Goal Assessment Strategies
Department
Method(s) of Assessment (What is the
Goals
assessment?)
Criterion of Achievement (Expectation of how
good things should be?)
Increase
scientific
literacy for all
students.




Page 62
Science Program major/minor teaching
portfolio, WEST-E content
assessment, entry to and exit from
program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Who/What
Assessed
(population, item)
 All Science
Teaching
majors, science
teaching minors,
and science
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
3/15/2010



Related University
Goals
CWU 1, 2, 6
CWU 1, 2, 6
CWU 1, 2, 6
CWU 1, 2
CWU 3, 4, 5
CWU 1, 2
CWU 3,4
CWU 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Minimum requirement is proficiency for all
dimensions of end of program portfolio.
Candidates must provide suitable evidence
and reflect on performance relative to
professional standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Department
Goals
Use bestpractice
pedagogy to
improve student
learning
outcomes.
Method(s) of Assessment (What is the
assessment?)





Peer evaluation of instruction
Use of common syllabi framework
Evaluation of course portfolio
# of pedagogy workshops attended
# of pedagogy workshops instructed
Who/What
Assessed
(population, item)
 Science
Education
faculty
When Assessed
(term, dates)

Annually
Criterion of Achievement (Expectation of how
good things should be?)




Promote quality
training of preservice science
teachers.




Science Program major/minor teaching
portfolio, WEST-E content
assessment, entry to and exit from
program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation,
performance rubric
WA pedagogy assessment

All Science
Teaching
majors, science
teaching minors,
and science
endorsement
students



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching




Actively develop
programs and
curricula that
support inquiry
and improved
scientific
literacy at all
levels.
Page 63





Science Program major/minor teaching
portfolio, WEST-E content
assessment, entry to and exit from
program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Professional development workshops

All Science
Teaching
majors, science
teaching minors,
and science
endorsement
students



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
3/15/2010



100% of faculty members participate in peer
evaluation and syllabus redesign annually
90% of students demonstrate proficiency in
course portfolios
50% of faculty members attend pedagogy
workshops annually
50% of faculty members instruct pedagogy
workshops annually
Minimum requirement is proficiency for all
dimensions of end of program portfolio.
Candidates must provide suitable evidence
and reflect on performance relative to
professional standards.
Practicum evaluation rubric at proficiency
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is proficiency for all
dimensions of end of program portfolio.
Candidates must provide suitable evidence
and reflect on performance relative to
professional standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Department
Goals
Develop and
support a
research
program that
contributes to
the body of
knowledge in
science
education.
Develop a
robust
interdisciplinary
graduate
program.
Method(s) of Assessment (What is the
assessment?)








Contribute to
the professional
development of
P-12 teaching
professionals
across the
region and
state.
Page 64


Number of grants submitted
Number of peer reviewed publications
Number of graduate and undergraduate
student researchers
Number of research presentations
Partnerships formed
Who/What
Assessed
(population, item)
 Departmental
faculty
 Graduate and
undergraduate
students
Number of graduate students
associated with science educationsupported programs
Number of student presentation at
professional meetings and other
venues
Employment success via alumni
survey

Number of P-12 teachers participating
in faculty-taught professional
development workshops and institutes
Number of collaborative partnerships


Graduate
students in
programs
supported by
science
education
Number of
teachers who
participate in
graduate courses
and/or programs.
K-12 teachers,
administrators,
and district
personnel
When Assessed
(term, dates)
Criterion of Achievement (Expectation of how
good things should be?)

Annually in
Spring or
corresponding
with RTP
guidelines

See criteria specified in RTP document

Annually in
Spring

Employment success greater than 75%

Annually in
Spring

Evaluation of workshop/institute teaching
effectiveness greater than 80%.
3/15/2010
Department
Goals
Engage in
science
education
reform in the
university, P-12,
and public
sectors.
Page 65
Method(s) of Assessment (What is the
assessment?)



Number of leadership and supporting
positions on state organizations
Number of grant-funded change
initiative
Number of peer-reviewed publications
Who/What
Assessed
(population, item)
 Faculty
colleagues,
department
chairs,
university
administration
 K-12 teachers,
administration,
and district
personnel
 Professional
organizations
When Assessed
(term, dates)

Annually in
Spring
3/15/2010
Criterion of Achievement (Expectation of how
good things should be?)

100% of department faculty members
participate in reform initiatives
Appendix B: Catalog Description of Science Education Department
SCIENCE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Ellensburg
Science Bldg., Room 107
509-963-2929
Fax 509-963-1222
www.cwu.edu/~scied
See the Web site for how these programs could be used for educational and career
purposes.
Faculty
Chair
Martha J. Kurtz, PhD
Professors
Martha J. Kurtz, PhD, chemistry and science education
Bruce Palmquist, PhD, physics and science education
Associate Professor
Ian J. Quitadamo, PhD, biological sciences and science education
Assistant Professors
Jennifer Dechaine, PhD, biological sciences and science education
Vanessa Hunt, PhD, science education
Beth Pratt-Sitaula, PhD, geological sciences and science education
Tim Sorey, PhD, chemistry and science education
Program Information
The primary function of the science education department is preparing people to
teach science. Coursework in science pedagogy is offered for students in the teacher
preparation programs as well as for teachers in the schools. The science education
department works with science departments in the design and operation of degree
programs for students who are preparing to teach in the secondary schools. We believe
Page 66
3/15/2010
that students learn via the active construction of knowledge. To facilitate that process,
all of our instruction follows the learning cycle model.
Our program seeks to help students become facilitators of learning in a diverse
world. To that end, the science education department has the following goals for an
effective science teacher:
•
Demonstrate an ability to individually and collaboratively engage in inquiry and
integrate the nature of science
•
Explain and apply fundamental science content concepts, principles, and
methods
•
Demonstrate an ability to effectively facilitate learning for all students
•
Create safe, effective learning environments that support inquiry, collaboration,
intellectual risk-taking, ethical decision-making, and student construction of
knowledge
•
Demonstrate an ability to assess teaching and learning outcomes using multiple
methods, effectively evaluate teaching and learning effectiveness, and improve
practice based on reflection and data
•
Demonstrate an ability to make science personally and socially relevant to
individual and community by incorporating current events within collaborative and
social networks
Students seeking endorsement for certification to teach a specialized science at the
high school level must satisfactorily complete the teaching major within the specific
science department. Students desiring to become middle or junior high school
specialized teachers of science are encouraged to obtain a teaching major in one or more
of the following areas: biology, chemistry, Earth sciences, general science, or physics.
All students are advised to work toward a second major or minor endorsement.
All students enrolled in science majors leading to certification are required to have an
approved schedule on file with a science education advisor as early as possible and
before endorsement for student teaching.
Bachelor of Science
General Science Teaching
The general science teaching major prepares students to teach science at the high
school, middle, or junior high levels. It is particularly appropriate for students who
want to teach integrated science. It meets the Washington State endorsement
Page 67
3/15/2010
competencies for science and one designated science of the student’s choosing: biology,
chemistry, earth science, or physics. Students wishing to apply for this major must
demonstrate mathematical competency equivalent to MATH 153. Students must pass
the WEST-E in science and their designated science emphasis area to receive
endorsements in both. Students taking this major are required to complete the
professional education program offered through the educational foundations and
curriculum department. Students must also demonstrate competencies through a
program portfolio prior to student teaching.
Science Core
BIOL 181, 182, 183 - General
Biology I, II, III
15
CHEM 181, 181LAB, 182, 182LAB, 183, 183LAB - General Chemistry I, II, III
GEOL 101 - Physical Geology
4
OR
GEOL 102 - Geology of National Parks (4)
GEOL 101LAB - Physical Geology
Laboratory
1
GEOL 350 - Northwest Geology 4
PHYS 101 - Introductory Astronomy I 5
PHYS 111, 111LAB, 112, 112LAB,
113, 113LAB - Introductory Physics
15
OR
PHYS 181, 181LAB, 182, 182LAB,
183, 183LAB - General Physics (15)
SCED 324 - Science Methods in the
Secondary Schools
5
SCED 354 - Science, Society, and the Teaching Community 3
SCED 401 - Interdisciplinary Science Inquiry in the Secondary Schools
5
SCED 487 - Teaching Secondary Science Seminar
2
15
Total Core Credits: 74
Page 68
3/15/2010
Designated Science Endorsement Area
(pick one)
Biology
BIOL 321 - Genetics
5
BIOL 360 - General Ecology 5
BIOL 470 - Mechanisms of Evolution
3
Total Credits: 13
OR
Chemistry
CHEM 361 - Organic Chemistry 3
CHEM 361LAB - Organic Chemistry Lab
CHEM 362 - Organic Chemistry 3
Select one of the following:5
CHEM 431, 431LAB - Biochemistry (5)
OR
CHEM 345 - Environmental Chemistry (5)
2
Total Credits: 13
OR
Earth Science
GEOL 200 - Earth Evolution and Global Change
5
GEOL 320 - Rocks and Minerals 5
GEOL 302 - Oceans and Atmosphere
4
GEOL 380 - Environmental Geology and Natural Hazards
4
Total Credits: 18
OR
Physics
PHYS 317 - Modern Physics I
PHYS 318 - Modern Physics II
PHYS 363 - Optics
MATH 172 - Calculus I
MATH 173 - Calculus II
4
4
4
5
5
Total Credits: 22
Total Credits: 87-96
Page 69
3/15/2010
Science Education - Broad Area Science Teaching Minor
This minor is restricted to students working on a major in biology, chemistry, earth
science, or physics. Science teaching majors must complete the appropriate courses in
the three disciplines shown below that are outside their major. For example, a biology
major would need to fulfill the chemistry, earth science and physics requirements.
Students interested in this minor need to see a science education advisor as soon as
possible. This program may result in students taking more than four years to complete
their degree. Students completing this minor are required to demonstrate proficiency of
student learning outcomes through a program portfolio prior to student teaching. In
addition, students must pass the WEST-E exam for science to receive the science
endorsement.
Required Courses
(Complete all three areas not covered in major program)
Biology
BIOL 181 - General Biology I5
BIOL 182 - General Biology II
BIOL 183 - General Biology III
5
5
Subtotal Credits: 15
Chemistry
CHEM 181, 181LAB - General Chemistry I
CHEM 182, 182LAB - General Chemistry II
CHEM 183, 183LAB - General Chemistry III
5
5
5
Subtotal Credits: 15
Earth Science
GEOL 101 - Physical Geology
4
OR
GEOL 102 - Geology of National Parks (4)
GEOL 101LAB - Physical Geology
Laboratory
1
GEOL 350 - Northwest Geology 4
GEOL 210 - Introduction to Geologic Field Methods (4)
OR
PHYS 101 - Introductory Astronomy I (5)
4-5
Subtotal Credits: 13-14
Page 70
3/15/2010
Physics
PHYS 111, 111LAB, 112, 112LAB,
113, 113LAB - Introductory Physics
OR
PHYS 181, 181LAB, 182, 182LAB,
183, 183LAB - General Physics (15)
15
Subtotal Credits: 15
Total Credits: 43-45
Science Education - Elementary Education Minor
Admission to this minor is limited to students majoring in elementary education,
early childhood education or special education. This minor does not lead to
endorsement as a specialized science teacher.
There are three main goals for this minor. Students who complete this minor will:
1.
Develop a deeper understanding of the earth, life, and physical sciences
2.
Build an appreciation for the variety of methods in different fields of science
3.
Acquire skills and knowledge leading to quality teaching of a variety of science
subjects
Required Courses
Three lower-division science courses
with labs (select a course from three
of the following five areas: biology, chemistry, physics, Earth
science, and astronomy)13-15
SCED 301 - Interdisciplinary K-8 Science
Inquiry
5
SCED 322 - Science Education in the Elementary School
4
SCED 420 - Inquiry Activities for
Elementary School Science 3
SCED 422 - Advanced Teaching Strategies
in Elementary Science
3
Total Credits: 28-30
Middle Level Science Teaching Minor
This minor is designed for students who wish to teach science at the middle level
Page 71
3/15/2010
(grades 4-9). Completion of this minor results in a middle level science endorsement.
The coursework provides experiences in science content and pedagogy including field
experience and addresses the Washington State competencies for middle level science
teachers. This minor is open only to students working on or currently holding teaching
endorsements in elementary education or in secondary biology chemistry, earth science,
general science, physics, or mathematics. Students working on or currently holding an
endorsement in secondary mathematics must complete SCED 324 prior to finishing this
minor. Students must be admitted into the Teacher Preparation Program prior to
acceptance into this minor. Students completing this minor are required to demonstrate
proficiency of student learning outcomes through a program portfolio prior to student
teaching. In addition, students must pass the West-E exam for middle level science to
receive the middle level science endorsement.
Required Courses
BIOL 101 - Fundamentals of Biology
5
CHEM 101 - Contemporary Chemistry
and Contemporary Chemistry Lab
5
OR
CHEM 111/CHEM 111LAB - Introduction to Chemistry and Laboratory (5)
PHYS 106 - Physics by Inquiry
5
OR
PHYS 111/111LAB - Introductory Physics and Laboratory (5)
GEOL 101/101LAB - Physical Geology and Laboratory
OR
GEOL 102/101 LAB - Geology of National Parks and Physical Geology Laboratory
5
PHYS 101 - Introductory Astronomy I (5)
4-5
OR
PHYS 102 - Introductory Astronomy II (4)
SCED 301 - Interdisciplinary K-8 Science Inquiry
5
SCED 323 - Teaching Middle School Mathematics and Science
3
EDEL 477 - Middle School Students and Their Environment 4
EDEL 478 - Developmentally Responsive Curriculum in the Middle Grades
3
SCED 354 - Science, Society, and the Teaching Community 3
Total Credits: 42-43
Page 72
3/15/2010
Science Education Courses
SCED 301. Interdisciplinary K-8 Science Inquiry (5) Interdisciplinary investigation of
applied life, physical, and Earth science concepts applicable to K-8 classrooms using
integrated contexts. Applied inquiry processes are used to increase student
knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Prerequisites, three lower-division science courses
with labs (select a course from three of the following five areas: biology, chemistry,
physics, Earth science, and astronomy). Six lecture/lab hours per week.
SCED 322. Science Education in the Elementary School (4) Techniques, selection of
materials, and appropriate subject matter for the various grade levels. Demonstrations
and student investigative activities for use in classroom science teaching. Enrollment is
subject to being fully admitted to the Teacher Education Program.
SCED 323. Teaching Middle School Mathematics and Science (3) Prospective teachers
will learn and use the methods and materials needed to teach middle school students
mathematics and science with emphasis on the use of experiments, manipulatives,
problems solving, cooperative learning, and communication of understanding.
Prerequisites: MATH 324 or EDEL 323 and SCED 324 or SCED 322. SCED 323 and
MATH 323 are equivalent courses. Students may not receive credit for both.
Enrollment is subject to being fully admitted to the Teacher Education Program.
SCED 324. Science Education in Secondary Schools (4) Methods, techniques, and
material appropriate for teaching science in secondary schools. Demonstration and
experiments for use in teaching. Enrollment is subject to admission to the Professional
Education Program. Prerequisite, EDCS 311.
SCED 354. Science, Society, and the Teaching Community (3) Teacher candidates will
learn the nature and context of science, compare science with other ways of knowing,
describe the relationship between science and the community, and gain skills in
integrating community resources with the classroom. Prerequisite, admission to the
Teacher Preparation Program.
SCED 398. Special Topics (1-6)
SCED 401. Interdisciplinary Secondary Science Inquiry (5) Interdisciplinary
investigation of applied, physical, and Earth science concepts applicable to secondary
school classrooms using integrated contexts. Applied inquiry processes are used to
increase student knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Prerequisite, one laboratory
course from each of biology, chemistry, geology and physics.
SCED 420. Inquiry Activities for Elementary School Science (3) An inquiry-based
course which approaches science teaching from the standpoint of the processes of
science and their utilization. Prerequisite, SCED 322.
Page 73
3/15/2010
SCED 422. Advanced Teaching Strategies in Elementary Science (3) This course is
designed to give students experience and training in the preparation of unique
materials and teaching strategies in the area of science, as well as perfect techniques
already possessed by the teacher. Prerequisite, SCED 322 or permission of instructor.
SCED 487. Teaching Secondary Science Seminar (2) Students compile knowledge,
skills, and dispositions evidence and reflect on performance relative to professional
standards. Students discuss current secondary science education issues, participate in
program assessment, prepare for endorsement exam, and complete an electronic
portfolio. Students must plan to student teach within a year of enrolling in this course.
SCED 491. Workshop (1-6)
SCED 495. Science Education Research (1-3) This course introduces pre-service science
teachers to qualitative and quantitative methods of action research. Course requires
completion of a research project of the student’s design. Prerequisite, SCED 324 or
concurrent enrollment.
SCED 496. Individual Study (1-6) Prerequisite, permission of instructor.
SCED 498. Special Topics (1-6) May be repeated.
Page 74
3/15/2010
Appendix C: Program Assessment Plan Forms
CWU Program Assessment Plan Matrix
Department: Science Education
Program: General Science Teaching Major/Broad Area Science Minor
Program Goal Alignment with Department, College, and University Goals
Program Goals
1. Teacher candidates will have a comprehensive, modern knowledge base of
concepts, principles, and methods in science.
2. Teacher candidates will be effective teachers of secondary science students.
3. Teacher candidates will actively engage in science education reform and
reflect and grow throughout their careers.
Program Goal Assessment Strategies
Program Goals
Method(s) of Assessment (What is the
assessment?)
1. Teacher
candidates will
have a
comprehensive,
modern
knowledge base
of concepts,
principles, and
methods in
science.
Page 75




Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, WEST-E content
assessment, entry to and exit from
program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Related Departmental
Goals
SCED Department Goal
(DG) 1, 3, 4, 5
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
Related University
Goals
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED DG 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 5, 6, 7
CWU Goal 1, 2, 4, 6
SCED DG 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
Who/What
Assessed
(population, item)
 All General
Science
Teaching
majors, Broad
Area Science
minors, and
Science
endorsement
students
Related College Goals
When Assessed
(term, dates)



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student teaching
Criterion of Achievement (Expectation of
how good things should be?)



3/15/2010
Minimum requirement is proficiency for
this outcome. Student must provide
suitable evidence and reflect on
performance relative to associated NSES,
NSTA, and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Program Goals
2. Teacher
candidates will
be effective
teachers of
secondary
science students.
3. Teacher
candidates will
actively engage
in science
education reform
and reflect and
grow throughout
their careers.
Page 76
Method(s) of Assessment (What is the
assessment?)







Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
Who/What
Assessed
(population, item)
 All General
Science
Teaching
majors, Broad
Area Science
minors, and
Science
endorsement
students

All General
Science
Teaching
majors, Broad
Area Science
minors, and
Science
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student teaching
Criterion of Achievement (Expectation of
how good things should be?)





End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
3/15/2010


Minimum requirement is proficiency for
this outcome. Student must provide
suitable evidence and reflect on
performance relative to associated NSES,
NSTA, and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is proficiency for
this outcome. Student must provide
suitable evidence and reflect on
performance relative to associated NSES,
NSTA, and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
CWU Program Assessment Plan Matrix
Department: Biological Sciences/Science Education
Program: Biology Teaching
Program Goal Alignment with Department, College, and University Goals
Program Goals
1. Teacher candidates will have a comprehensive, modern knowledge base of
concepts, principles, and methods in science.
2. Teacher candidates will be effective teachers of secondary science students.
3. Teacher candidates will actively engage in science education reform and
reflect and grow throughout their careers.
Program Goal Assessment Strategies
Program Goals
Method(s) of Assessment (What
is the assessment?)
1. Teacher
 Science Program major/minor
candidates will
teaching portfolio, WEST-E
have a
content assessment, entry to
comprehensive
and exit from program survey
modern
 SCED 324 course portfolio
knowledge based
 Practicum field observation
on concepts,
principles, and
 WA pedagogy assessment
methods in life
 Major Field Test - Biology
science.
2. Teacher
candidates will be
effective teachers
of secondary life
science students.
Page 77




Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and
exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Related Departmental
Goals
SCED Department Goal
(DG) 1, 3, 4, 5
Related College Goals
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
Related University
Goals
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED DG 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 5, 6, 7
CWU Goal 1, 2, 4, 6
SCED DG 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
Who/What Assessed
(population, item)
 All Biology
Teaching major,
minor, and
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)
 End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
 SCED 324
 Student
teaching
Criterion of Achievement (Expectation of how
good things should be?)
 Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative to
associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
 SCED 324 portfolio performance benchmark
proficiency
 All standards met for WA Pedagogy Assessment



All Biology
Teaching major,
minor, and
endorsement
students


End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
3/15/2010


Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative to
associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance benchmark
proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy Assessment
Program Goals
3. Teacher
candidates will
actively engage in
science education
reform and reflect
and grow
throughout their
careers.
Page 78
Method(s) of Assessment (What
is the assessment?)
 Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and
exit from program survey
 SCED 324 course portfolio
 Practicum field observation
Who/What Assessed
(population, item)
 All Biology
Teaching major,
minor, and
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)
 End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
 SCED 324
3/15/2010
Criterion of Achievement (Expectation of how
good things should be?)
 Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative to
associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
 SCED 324 portfolio performance benchmark
proficiency
CWU Program Assessment Plan Matrix
Department: Chemistry/Science Education
Program: Chemistry Teaching
Program Goal Alignment with Department, College, and University Goals
Program Goals
1. Teacher candidates will have a comprehensive, modern knowledge base of
concepts, principles, and methods in science.
2. Teacher candidates will be effective teachers of secondary science students.
3. Teacher candidates will actively engage in science education reform and
reflect and grow throughout their careers.
Program Goal Assessment Strategies
Program Goals
Method(s) of Assessment
(What is the assessment?)
 Science Program
1. Teacher
major/minor teaching
candidates will have
portfolio, WEST-E content
a comprehensive,
modern knowledge
assessment, entry to and
base of concepts,
exit from program survey
principles, and
 SCED 324 course portfolio
methods in chemistry.
 Practicum field observation
 WA pedagogy assessment
 American Chemical
Society Content Exam
Page 79
Who/What Assessed
(population, item)
 All Chemistry
Teaching major,
minor, and
endorsement
students
Related Departmental
Goals
SCED Department Goal
(DG) 1, 3, 4, 5
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
Related University
Goals
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED DG 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 5, 6, 7
CWU Goal 1, 2, 4, 6
SCED DG 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
When Assessed
(term, dates)
 End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
 SCED 324
 Student
teaching
3/15/2010
Related College Goals
Criterion of Achievement (Expectation of how
good things should be?)
 Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative to
associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
 SCED 324 portfolio performance benchmark
proficiency
 All standards met for WA Pedagogy Assessment
Program Goals
2. Teacher
candidates will be
effective teachers of
secondary chemistry
students.
3. Teacher
candidates will
actively engage in
science education
reform and reflect
and grow throughout
their careers.
Page 80







Method(s) of Assessment
(What is the assessment?)
Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, WEST-E content
assessment, entry to and
exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
Who/What Assessed
(population, item)
 All Chemistry
Teaching major,
minor, and
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)
 End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
 SCED 324
 Student
teaching
Criterion of Achievement (Expectation of how
good things should be?)
 Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative to
associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
 SCED 324 portfolio performance benchmark
proficiency
 All standards met for WA Pedagogy Assessment



All Chemistry
Teaching major,
minor, and
endorsement
students

End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
3/15/2010

Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative to
associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance benchmark
proficiency
CWU Program Assessment Plan Matrix
Department: Geological Sciences/Science Education
Program: Earth Science Teaching
Program Goal Alignment with Department, College, and University Goals
Program Goals
1. Teacher candidates will have a comprehensive, modern knowledge base of
concepts, principles, and methods in science.
2. Teacher candidates will be effective teachers of secondary science students.
3. Teacher candidates will actively engage in science education reform and
reflect and grow throughout their careers.
Program Goal Assessment Strategies
Program Goals
Method(s) of Assessment (What
is the assessment?)
1. Teacher
 Science Program major/minor
candidates will
teaching portfolio, WEST-E
have a
content assessment, entry to
comprehensive,
and exit from program survey
modern knowledge
 SCED 324 course portfolio
base of concepts,
 Practicum field observation
principles, and
methods in Earth
 WA pedagogy assessment
science.
2. Teacher
candidates will be
effective teachers
of secondary Earth
science students.
Page 81




Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, WEST-E
content assessment, entry to
and exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Who/What Assessed
(population, item)
 All Earth Science
Teaching major,
minor, and
endorsement only
students

All Earth Science
Teaching major,
minor, and
endorsement only
students
Related Departmental
Goals
SCED Department Goal
(DG) 1, 3, 4, 5
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
Related University
Goals
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED DG 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 5, 6, 7
CWU Goal 1, 2, 4, 6
SCED DG 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
When Assessed
(term, dates)
 End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
 SCED 324
 Student
teaching
 End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
 SCED 324
 Student
teaching
Related College Goals
Criterion of Achievement (Expectation of how
good things should be?)
 Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Teacher candidate must provide
suitable evidence and reflect on performance
relative to associated NSES, NSTA, and WA
Comp standards.
 SCED 324 portfolio performance benchmark
proficiency
 All standards met for WA Pedagogy Assessment



3/15/2010
Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Teacher candidate must provide
suitable evidence and reflect on performance
relative to associated NSES, NSTA, and WA
Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance benchmark
proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy Assessment
Program Goals
3. Teacher
candidates will
actively engage in
science education
reform and reflect
and grow
throughout their
careers.
Page 82
Method(s) of Assessment (What
is the assessment?)
 Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to
and exit from program survey
 SCED 324 course portfolio
 Practicum field observation
Who/What Assessed
(population, item)
 All Earth Science
Teaching major,
minor, and
endorsement only
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)
 End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
 SCED 324
Criterion of Achievement (Expectation of how
good things should be?)
 Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Teacher candidate must provide
suitable evidence and reflect on performance
relative to associated NSES, NSTA, and WA
Comp standards.
 SCED 324 portfolio performance benchmark
proficiency
3/15/2010
CWU Program Assessment Plan Preparation Form
Department: Science Education
Program: Physics Teaching
Program Goal Alignment with Department, College, and University Goals
Program Goals
1. Teacher candidates will have a comprehensive, modern knowledge base of
concepts, principles, and methods in science.
2. Teacher candidates will be effective teachers of secondary science students.
3. Teacher candidates will actively engage in science education reform and
reflect and grow throughout their careers.
Program Goal Assessment Strategies
Program Goals
Method(s) of Assessment (What
is the assessment?)
1. Teacher
 Science Program major/minor
candidates will
teaching portfolio, WEST-E
have a
content assessment, entry to
comprehensive,
and exit from program survey
modern knowledge
 SCED 324 course portfolio
base of concepts,
 Practicum field observation
principles, and
methods in science.  WA pedagogy assessment
 Major Field Test - Physics
2. Teacher
 Science Program major/minor
candidates will be
teaching portfolio, WEST-E
effective teachers
content assessment, entry to
of secondary
and exit from program survey
science students
 SCED 324 course portfolio
 Practicum field observation
 WA pedagogy assessment
Page 83
Related Departmental
Goals
SCED Department Goal
(DG) 1, 3, 4, 5
Related College Goals
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
Related University
Goals
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED DG 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 5, 6, 7
CWU Goal 1, 2, 4, 6
SCED DG 2, 3, 4, 7, 8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
Who/What Assessed
(population, item)
 All Physics BA
students seeking
teaching
endorsement,
endorsement only,
and minor
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)
 End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
 SCED 324
 Student
teaching
Criterion of Achievement (Expectation of how
good things should be?)
 Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative to
associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
 SCED 324 portfolio performance benchmark
proficiency
 All standards met for WA Pedagogy Assessment



All Physics BA
students seeking
teaching
endorsement,
endorsement only,
and minor
students


End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
3/15/2010


Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative to
associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance benchmark
proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy Assessment
Program Goals
3. Teacher
candidates will
actively engage in
science education
reform and reflect
and grow
throughout their
careers.
Page 84
Method(s) of Assessment (What
is the assessment?)
 Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to
and exit from program survey
 SCED 324 course portfolio
 Practicum field observation
Who/What Assessed
(population, item)
 All Physics BA
students seeking
teaching
endorsement,
endorsement only,
and minor
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)
 End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
 SCED 324
3/15/2010
Criterion of Achievement (Expectation of how
good things should be?)
 Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative to
associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
 SCED 324 portfolio performance benchmark
proficiency
Appendix D: End of Program Portfolio Example
Note: The Biology Teaching Major Portfolio is used as an example. All science teaching major
portfolios use a common framework, with the exception of the content dimension.
Biology Portfolio Guidelines
Biology Teaching Portfolio Guidelines
This standards-aligned professional portfolio will be used to assess and evaluate candidate
development in the Biology Teaching major or certification program in the Department of
Biological Sciences. Standards from the National Science Teacher Association (NSTA), the
Washington State Endorsement Competencies (WA-COMP) for Biology Teaching, and the
National Science Education Standards for Teachers (NSES-T), have been used to develop the
framework for this portfolio. Candidate performance in the Biology Teaching major or
certification program will be evaluated using the Biology Teaching Portfolio and benchmarked
relative to state and federal science teaching standards. Biology Teaching majors and
certification-only students may complete their portfolio as part of the SCED 487: Teaching
Secondary Science Seminar course. Please note that candidates seeking endorsement in another
science field (e.g. Chemistry) must complete the portfolio in that area as well.
Student Instructions for Completing the Biology Teaching Portfolio
Here's an overview of what you'll need to do to complete the Biology Teaching Portfolio:
1. Create a copy of the Biology Teaching Portfolio in LiveText from the Biology Teaching
Portfolio template and share it with the Biology Teaching advisor as a reviewer.
2. Complete the Entry-to-Program Assessment in LiveText when you first sign up for the
Biology Teaching program.
3. Assemble evidence of your knowledge and skill proficiency using artifacts (e.g. lab
reports, exams, field notebooks, teaching evaluations, etc) from your coursework. It is
important that you retain all course materials and assignments (paper and/or
electronic). Biology Teaching majors must provide evidence from their CWU
coursework; certification-only students must provide evidence from coursework taken at
other institutions. Electronic artifacts can be attached to the appropriate section of the
Biology Teaching Portfolio; paper artifacts will need to be digitally scanned and then
similarly attached.
4. Select artifacts that showcase your knowledge, skill, and disposition and and complete
the sections (called dimensions) of the Biology Teaching Portfolio. For each dimension,
you will need to provide evidence of your knowledge, skill and/or disposition in that area
using artifacts from your coursework and other relevant experiences. For ideas on what
artifacts to use and more specifics on the state criteria that you need to meet, please refer
to the Biology Endorsement Criteria pdf document that is attached below.
5. Remove the artifact and reflection instructions and replace with a few sentences that
provide an overview of the artifact.
Page 85
3/15/2010
6. Complete the reflections for each portfolio dimension. Each reflection should connect
your chosen evidence to your progress relative to the associated professional standards
(indicated in each dimension).
7. Complete an exit program evaluation and comparative reflection in LiveText prior to
student teaching.
Completion of the Biology Teaching Portfolio is required prior to student teaching. You
must demonstrate proficiency in each portfolio dimension in order to meet minimum
endorsement criteria.
For more information, please contact your Biology Teaching advisor, Dr. Ian J. Quitadamo
(iq@cwu.edu).
Attachments Instructions_for_Com...ortfolio_Biology.pdf,
WA_BiologyEndorsment...ompetencies_2007.pdf, WEST_E_Test_Strategies.pdf,
WEST_E_TestFramework_Biol.pdf, WEST_E_SampleQuestions_Biol.pdf
Academic Plan
Instructions for Completing Your Academic Plan
An academic plan is a comprehensive look at what courses each candidate must take to meet
major and minor program requirements and when they will be taken. A well-developed
academic plan is necessary to ensure each candidate progresses through their major or
endorsement programs in an efficient manner.
Each candidate must complete an academic plan for their science teaching major and minor
program(s). Refer to the most recently updated "Typical Course Offerings" sheets that are
available in the Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Physics, and Science Education offices to
determine when specific courses are offered. It is each candidate's individual responsibility to
know when courses are offered and to plan accordingly.
Please see the faculty advisor appropriate to your discipline for assistance with developing your
academic plan.
Academic Plan
Please attach your completed academic plan using the template provided by your science
teaching advisor.
Entry to Program
Completing the Entry to Program Assessment
The goal of the Entry to Program survey is to ensure that candidates have a minimum set of
knowledge, skills, and disposition to begin coursework in a science teaching major or
certification program. As part of the initial sign up process for the Professional Education
Page 86
3/15/2010
Program, degree-seeking and certification-seeking students must pass the WEST-B entrance
exam and must meet with the Biology Teaching advisor to discuss various aspects of the Biology
Teaching program and to complete the Entry to Program assessment. A similar survey must be
taken again at the end of your program prior to student teaching.
Student Instructions
To complete the survey, enter your responses directly into the window below.
IF you already completed an Entry to Program Form prior to Sept 2009, then skip to the lowest
window on this page and follow the instructions attached here to make that older version of the
form visible.
Attachments
Instructions_for_OLD...to_Program_Form_.pdf
SCED Entry to Program Survey
Embedded online survey.
Entry to Program Survey - OLDER form version
Form data unavailable.
Dimension 1: Inquiry and Nature of Science
Description for Dimension 1: Inquiry and Nature of Science
Outcome: Candidates demonstrate an ability to individually and collaboratively engage in
inquiry and show they understand the nature of science.
Inquiry refers to the flexible application of the scientific method, which involves observation,
questioning, experimental design, data collection and analysis, and interpretation based on
evidence. The processes of questioning and formulating solvable problems, collaboratively
reflecting on and constructing knowledge from data, and developing concepts and relationships
from empirical experience are central to the scientific endeavor. It is important for candidates to
understand how the processes of inquiry and nature of science influence the development of
scientific knowledge. Candidates should be able to apply the processes of inquiry to solving
novel problems and be able to make reasoned judgments based on a balanced analysis and
evaluation of evidence. Candidates should understand the nature of science and be able to
contrast science with other ways of knowing. Candidates should also be able to conduct original
research by applying the inquiry process.
Artifact 1: Inquiry
Identify evidence from courses and relevant experiences that suitably showcase your knowledge,
skills, and/or dispositions in this area. Write a brief introduction that provides a overview of the
key elements of your evidence and summarizes where (courses, experiences) the evidence came
Page 87
3/15/2010
from. Attach or include your chosen evidence. At least one piece of evidence is required; more
than one piece of evidence is recommended. See the Standards for Inquiry section below and the
WA Biology Endorsement Criteria in the Portfolio Guidelines for help identifying appropriate
knowledge and/or skill evidence. This may come from any course within your Biology Teaching
program.
Standards for Artifact 1: Inquiry
NSTA.3
INQUIRY: The program prepares candidates to engage students regularly
and effectively in science inquiry and facilitate understanding of the role
inquiry plays in the development of scientific knowledge. Inquiry refers to
questioning and formulating solvable problems; reflecting on, and
constructing, knowledge from data; collaborating and exchanging
information while seeking solutions; and developing concepts and
relationships from empirical experience.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.2
Inquiry - The Biology teacher knows and understands:
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.2.1
Scientific inquiry.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.2.2
Application of science knowledge and skills to solve problems or meet
challenges.
Artifact 2: Nature of Science
Identify evidence from courses and relevant experiences that suitably showcase your knowledge,
skills, and/or dispositions in this area.Write a brief introduction that provides a overview of the
key elements of your evidence and summarizes where (courses, experiences) the evidence came
from. Attach or include your chosen evidence. At least one piece of evidence is required; more
than one piece of evidence is recommended. See the Standards for Nature of Science section
below and the WA Biology Endorsement Criteria in the Portfolio Guidelines for help identifying
appropriate knowledge and/or skill evidence. This may come from any course within your
Biology Teaching program.
Standards for Artifact 2: Nature of Science
NSTA.2
NATURE OF SCIENCE: The program prepares teachers to engage students
in activities to define the values, beliefs and assumptions inherent to the
creation of scientific knowledge within the scientific community, and
contrast science to other ways of knowing. Nature of science refers to
characteristics distinguishing science from other ways of knowing;
characteristics distinguishing basic science, applied science, and technology;
processes and conventions of science as a professional activity; and
standards defining acceptable evidence and scientific explanation.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.3
Nature and Context of Science - The biology teacher knows and
understands:
Page 88
3/15/2010
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.3.1
The nature of scientific inquiry in the context of life sciences including
intellectual honesty, limitations of science and technology, dealing with
inconsistencies, evaluating methods of investigation, and evolution of
scientific ideas.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.3.2
That science and technology are human endeavors, interrelated to each other,
to society, and to the workplace in the context of the life sciences (e.g. all
peoples contribute to science and technology, science and technology are
interrelated, many careers and occupations use science, mathematics, and
technology).
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.3.3
The unifying themes common to all science, including systems, order and
organization; evidence, models and organization; constancy, changes and
measurement; evolution and equilibrium; and form and function.
Artifact 3: Independent Research
Identify evidence from courses and relevant experiences that suitably showcase your knowledge,
skills, and/or dispositions in this area.Write a brief introduction that provides a overview of the
key elements of your evidence and summarizes where (courses, experiences) the evidence came
from. Attach or include your chosen evidence. At least one piece of evidence is required; more
than one piece of evidence is recommended. See the Standards for Independent Research section
below and the WA Biology Endorsement Criteria in the Portfolio Guidelines for help identifying
appropriate knowledge and/or skill evidence. This may come from any course or experience
within your Biology Teaching program.
Standards for Artifact 3: Independent Research
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.10
The biology teacher is able to:
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.10.1
Conduct limited but original research in biology, demonstrating the
ability to design and conduct open-ended investigations and report
results.
Reflection for Dimension 1: Inquiry and the Nature of Science
Once you have chosen an artifact for Inquiry, an artifact for Nature of Science, and an artifact for
Independent Research, write a thoughtful and insightful reflection of how these artifacts provide
evidence of progress for this dimension. This reflection should establish a clear relationship
between your evidence and achievement of this dimension by citing met standards within your
text. The reflection for this dimension should authentically summarize strengths developed
during your program as well as remaining weaknesses. Summarize how you plan to address these
weaknesses during the rest of your program and as a professional in the field. Ultimately, your
reflection should provide portfolio evaluators with significant insight into your progress in
meeting dimension standards and your professional growth and development in this area.
Page 89
3/15/2010
Inquiry
Nature of Science
Independent Research
Dimension 2: Content
Description for Dimension 2: Content
Outcome: Candidates describe and apply fundamental biological concepts, principles, and
methods.
Content knowledge and skills provide a foundation for science teaching excellence. Candidates
must master basic biology content in order to be able to teach it. Biology Teaching program
coursework and experiences prepare candidates to be state-certified biology teachers.
Candidates demonstrate mastery by providing evidence of their learning experiences within the
Biology Teaching program.
Washington State requires that prospective biology teachers meet knowledge and skill criteria
from representative topics within the larger field of biology that include mathematics, strategies
of life, molecules of life, the living cell, genetics, evolution, and ecosystems. Content mastery
also requires candidates to demonstrate basic mathematical, measurement and quantitative skills,
critical thinking, and the use of biological methods and investigative techniques. The Biology
Teaching program requires candidates to provide evidence of content mastery in several ways;
through evidence produced from coursework, from the Major Field Test in Biology, and from the
WEST-E test for Biology.
Since biology is a broad field, it is impractical for candidates to provide artifacts from every
course in their program. Instead, candidates must provide a knowledge and/or skill artifact for
each of the major areas of biological study listed below. To meet biology certification criteria,
candidates must provide evidence that demonstrates proficiency in the following areas:
1. Basic Biology provides an introduction to fundamental biological concepts. Topics
include molecules of life, cells, plant and animal life forms, basic life processes,
phylogeny, and evolution.
2. General and Organic Chemistry includes states of matter, atoms, bonding and structure,
atomic and molecular forces, measurement and solutions, organic molecules and
reactions.
3. Cell and Molecular Biology involves biomolecular and cellular structure and function,
cell division and communication, genetics, inheritance, and applied biotechnology.
4. Microbiology focuses on bacterial life forms, metabolism, and applied techniques for
growing bacteria. Viruses and protists may also be included.
5. Physiology provides a more in-depth look at metabolic and physiological processes in
plants and animals.
Page 90
3/15/2010
6. Ecology focuses on natural resources, energy and nutrient cycling, life communities and
interdependence, and conservation.
7. Evolution provides an integrating theme for all biology, and is of central importance.
Topics include evidence for change over time, genetic variation within populations,
adaptation and natural selection.
Student Instructions
Obviously, one knowledge and/or skill artifact per area is not enough to show complete mastery
of geological content. So, choose your artifacts wisely. Pick items that show synthesis of a
number of concepts or that illustrate mastery of a number of subtopics within that area. Possible
artifacts students may choose include research papers, projects, homework assignments, and lab
or field notebooks among others. In addition to the possible artifacts listed, student are required
to include at least one lab or field project write-up, one exam, and one item from a research
project (such as a research abstract, research poster, or research paper that includes a literature
review). For example, you may include a lab report as evidence of mastery of Basic Biology, a
research poster for Cell and Molecular Biology, a field notebook for Ecology, and an exam as
evidence of mastery of Evolution.
Be sure to include a title brief description for each artifact (not just an attached file) so that a
reader is given a basic idea of what it contains.
Artifact 1: Basic Biology
Identify evidence from courses and relevant experiences that suitably showcase your knowledge,
skills, and/or dispositions in this area. Write a brief introduction that provides a overview of the
key elements of your evidence and summarizes where (courses, experiences) the evidence came
from. Attach or include your chosen evidence. Include two pieces of evidence that demonstrates
your progress toward knowledge and skill competency in basic biology. One artifact should be
taken from BIOL 181, BIOL 182, and/or BIOL 183 courses; the other artifact should be taken
from BIOL 213.
Standards for Artifact 1: Basic Biology
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1
Common Core – Content:
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1
The Biology teacher knows and understands scientific concepts and
principles that are needed to advance student learning as defined by state
and national standards developed by the science education community,
including major unifying themes. Content includes the big ideas of
science and mathematics underlying them. This includes basic principles
of earth and space science, chemistry, physics, and mathematics as they
relate to biology.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.1
Mathematics – Applications of mathematics in life science research,
including:
Page 91
3/15/2010
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.1.1
Algebra.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.1.2
Probability and statistics.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.2
Knowing – Science is a way of asking and answering questions about the
physical universe.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.2.1
Scientific Investigation.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.2.2
Other ways of knowing.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.3
Ecosystems – Ecosystems, interdependent communities of living things,
recycle matter while energy flows through them.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.4
Strategies of Life – Living things use many strategies to deal with the
problems of acquiring and using matter and energy.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.5
Animal Biology with an emphasis on human anatomy and physiology –
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.6
Molecules of Life – A cell’s major parts are constructed from a few
simple molecular building blocks.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.7
The Living Cell – Life is based on chemistry, and chemistry takes place
in cells.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.8
Genetics – All living things use the same genetic code to guide chemical
reactions in every cell.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.9
Evolution – All life of Earth evolved from single-celled organisms by the
process of natural selection.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.10.2
Classify organisms into distinct groups according to structural, cellular,
biochemical, and genetic characteristics.
Artifact 2: General and Organic Chemistry
Include at least one piece of evidence that supports your progress toward meeting this
dimension. This artifact should be taken from CHEM 181, CHEM 181LAB, CHEM 182,
CHEM 182LAB, CHEM 183, CHEM 183LAB, CHEM 361, 361LAB and/or CHEM 362.
Standards for Artifact 2: General and Organic Chemistry
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1
Page 92
The Biology teacher knows and understands scientific concepts and
principles that are needed to advance student learning as defined by state
and national standards developed by the science education community,
including major unifying themes. Content includes the big ideas of science
and mathematics underlying them. This includes basic principles of earth
3/15/2010
and space science, chemistry, physics, and mathematics as they relate to
biology.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.4
Strategies of Life – Living things use many strategies to deal with the
problems of acquiring and using matter and energy.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.6.1
Characteristics of organic molecules.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.7
The Living Cell – Life is based on chemistry, and chemistry takes place in
cells.
Artifact 3: Cell and Molecular Biology
Include at least one piece of evidence that supports your progress toward meeting this
dimension. This artifact should be taken from BIOL 182, BIOL 321, and/or BIOL 427 courses.
Standards for Artifact 3: Cell and Molecular Biology
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.6
Molecules of Life – A cell’s major parts are constructed from a few
simple molecular building blocks.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.6.1
Characteristics of organic molecules.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.6.2
Amino acids and the structure of proteins.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.6.3
Nucleotides
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.6.4
Carbohydrates
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.6.5
Lipids
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.6.6
Vitamins and minerals
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.7
The Living Cell – Life is based on chemistry, and chemistry takes
place in cells.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.7.1
The nature and variety of cells.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.7.2
How a cell works.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.7.3
Metabolism and energy transfer: photosynthesis, glycolysis,
respiration.
Page 93
3/15/2010
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.8
Genetics – All living things use the same genetic code to guide
chemical reactions in every cell.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.8.1
Classical genetics: qualitative and quantitative.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.8.2
DNA and RNA.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.8.3
Cell division: mitosis and meiosis.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.8.4
The genetic code.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.8.5
Genetic engineering, gene therapy.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.10.3
Explain that specific genes regulate the functions performed by
structures within the cells of multicellular organisms.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.10.4
Describe how genetic information (DNA) in the cell is controlled at
the molecular level, and provides genetic continuity between
generations.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.10.8
Explain how organisms can sustain life by obtaining, transporting,
transforming, and releasing matter and energy.
Artifact 4: Microbiology
Include at least one piece of evidence that supports your progress toward meeting this
dimension. This artifact should be taken from BIOL 322 or BIOL 323 courses.
Standards for Artifact 4: Microbiology
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.4
Strategies of Life – Living things use many strategies to deal with the
problems of acquiring and using matter and energy.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.4.1
The organization of living things.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.4.2
Strategies of fungi.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.7
The Living Cell – Life is based on chemistry, and chemistry takes
place in cells.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.7.1
The nature and variety of cells.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.7.2
How a cell works.
Page 94
3/15/2010
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.9.2
The diversity of life on earth.
Artifact 5: Physiology
Include at least one piece of evidence that supports your progress toward meeting this
dimension. This artifact should be taken from BIOL 355/356, BIOL 441 or BIOL 455 courses.
Standards for Artifact 5: Physiology
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.4
Strategies of Life – Living things use many strategies to deal with the
problems of acquiring and using matter and energy.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.5
Animal Biology with an emphasis on human anatomy and physiology
–
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.5.1
Organ systems; structure.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.5.2
Organ systems; function.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.5.3
Organ systems; interdependencies.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.5.4
Comparative anatomy.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.5.5
Regulation of living systems.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.10.5
Compare and contrast the specialized structural and functional
systems that regulate growth and development, and maintain health.
Artifact 6: Ecology
Include at least one piece of evidence that supports your progress toward meeting this
dimension. This artifact should be taken from the BIOL 360 course.
Standards for Artifact 6: Ecology
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.3
Ecosystems – Ecosystems, interdependent communities of living
things, recycle matter while energy flows through them.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.3.1
The interdependence of life: populations, communities, and
ecosystems.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.3.2
Mechanisms of environmental change.
WA-COMP-
Flow of matter and energy in the environment.
Page 95
3/15/2010
2007.BIO.1.1.3.3
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.4
Strategies of Life – Living things use many strategies to deal with the
problems of acquiring and using matter and energy.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.4.1
The organization of living things.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.4.2
Strategies of fungi.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.4.3
Strategies of plants.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.4.4
Strategies of animals.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.10.9
Compare and contrast the complex factors (biotic and abiotic) that
affect living organisms, interactions in biomes, ecosystems,
communities, and populations.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.10.10
Analyze the effects of natural events and human activities on the
earth’s capacity to sustain biological diversity.
Artifact 7: Evolution
Include at least one piece of evidence that supports your progress toward meeting this
dimension. This artifact should be taken from the BIOL 470 course.
Standards for Artifact 7: Evolution
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.9
Evolution – All life of Earth evolved from single-celled organisms by
the process of natural selection.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.9.1
Basis of biological diversity.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.9.2
The diversity of life on earth.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.9.3
Genetic variation within a species.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.9.4
Evidence of evolution.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.9.5
Adaptation and natural selection.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.9.6
Changes in diversity over time.
Page 96
3/15/2010
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.1.10.7
Investigate and examine the scientific evidence used to develop
theories for evolution, speciation, adaptation, and biological diversity.
MFT
Insert your scaled total score (between 120-200) and subscale scores (0-100) for the Biology
Major Field Test (MFT) here. The MFT is typically taken during the SCED 487 course.
MFT Biology Exam Scores
MFT Categories
Candidate Score
Cell Biology
Molecular Biology and Genetics
Organismal Biology
Population Biology, Evolution, and Ecology
X of 200
Overall Score
WEST-E Results
Insert your overall score and subscale scores for the WEST-E Biology test here. Successful
passing of the the WEST-E is required for a state endorsement in Biology. Students must take
the WEST-E prior to student teaching. Further information about the WEST-E may be found at
www.west.nesinc.com/.
WEST-E Biology Exam Scores
WEST-E Content Domains
Domain I: Communities and Ecosystems
Candidate Score
X
Domain II: Strategies of Life
X
Domain III: Cells and the Chemistry of Life
X
Domain IV: Genetics and Evolution
X
Domain V: Scientific Processes and Inquiry
X
Overall Exam Score
X of 300
Attachments WEST_E_Test_Strategies.pdf,
WEST_E_SampleQuestions_Biol.pdf
WEST_E_TestFramework_Biol.pdf,
Reflection for Dimension 2: Content
Once you have chosen an artifact for each of the content areas listed above, write a thoughtful
and insightful reflection of how these artifacts provide evidence of progress for this dimension.
This reflection should establish a clear relationship between your evidence and achievement of
this dimension by citing met standards within your text. The reflection for this dimension should
Page 97
3/15/2010
authentically summarize strengths developed during your program as well as remaining
weaknesses. Summarize how you plan to address these weaknesses during the rest of your
program and as a professional in the field. Ultimately, your reflection should provide portfolio
evaluators with significant insight into your progress in meeting dimension standards and your
professional growth and development in this area.
Basic Biology
General and Organic Chemistry
Cell and Molecular Biology
Microbiology
Physiology
Ecology
Evolution
Standards for Dimension 2: Content
CWUCTL.1.1
STANDARD: Candidates demonstrate subject matter knowledge in areas of
endorsement
NSTA.1
CONTENT: The program prepares candidates to structure and interpret the
concepts, ideas and relationships in science that are needed to advance student
learning in the area of licensure as defined by state and national standards
developed by the science education community. Content refers to concepts and
principles understood through science; concepts and relationships unifying
science domains; processes of investigation in a science discipline; and
applications of mathematics in science research.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1
Common Core – Content:
Dimension 3: Teaching
Description for Dimension 3: Teaching
Outcome: Candidates demonstrate an ability to effectively facilitate learning for all students.
At its core, teaching is based on a professional, productive relationship between an instructor and
their students. The act of teaching is part science and part artistic skill. A excellent teacher is
able to challenge students to be the best learners possible by using effective instructional
methods, by creating an engaging and rigorous curriculum, and by providing a supportive social
environment. An effective science teacher is aware of instructional best practice, relates science
content to the daily lives of students, creates a community that supports knowledge construction,
Page 98
3/15/2010
and designs curriculum that provides a framework for an engaging and effective learning
experience. Effective science teaching involves specific skills such as engaging student interest,
asking questions that facilitate student discovery, explaining concepts in understandable ways,
and developing lessons that recognize the diverse needs of K-12 learners.
Artifact 1: SCED 324 Portfolio
The SCED 324 portfolio provides the best brief summary of your teaching skill. Insert a link to
your SCED 324 portfolio here. Be sure to include a brief introduction that provides a overview
of the key elements of your SCED 324 portfolio.
Artifact 2: Other Teaching Experience
Include evidence from another teaching experience that supports your progress toward meeting
this dimension. For example, experiences in BIOL 492 or another outside volunteer teaching
experience may be used as evidence in this section.
Reflection for Dimension 3: Teaching
Once you have chosen an artifact from your SCED 324 course and other teaching experiences,
write a thoughtful and insightful reflection of how these artifacts provide evidence of progress
for this dimension. This reflection should establish a clear relationship between your evidence
and achievement of this dimension by citing met standards within your text. The reflection for
this dimension should authentically summarize strengths developed during your program as well
as remaining weaknesses. Summarize how you plan to address these weaknesses during the rest
of your program and as a professional in the field. Ultimately, your reflection should provide
portfolio evaluators with significant insight into your progress in meeting dimension standards
and your professional growth and development in this area.
Standards for Dimension 3: Teaching
CWU-CTL.1.2
STANDARD: Candidates demonstrate a thorough understanding of
pedagogical content knowledge
CWU-CTL.1.3
STANDARD: Candidates demonstrate a thorough understanding of
professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills
NSTA.4
CONTENT OF SCIENCE: The program prepares candidates to relate
science to the daily lives and interests of students and to a larger framework
of human endeavor and understanding. The context of science refers to
relationships among systems of human endeavor including science and
technology; relationships among scientific, technological, personal, social
and cultural values; and the relevance and importance of science to the
personal lives of students.
NSTA.5
SKILLS OF SCIENCE: The program prepares candidates to create a
community of diverse student learners who can construct meaning from
science experiences and possess a disposition for further inquiry and
Page 99
3/15/2010
learning. Skills of Teaching refers to science teaching actions, strategies
and methodologies; interactions with students that promote learning and
achievement; effective organization of classroom experiences; use of
advanced technology to extend and enhance learning; and the use of prior
conceptions and student interests to promote new learning.
NSTA.6
CURRICULUM: The program prepares candidates to develop and apply a
coherent, focused science curriculum that is consistent with state and
national standards for science education and appropriate for addressing the
needs, abilities and interests of students. Science curriculum refers to an
extended framework of goals, plans, materials, and resources for instruction
and the instructional context, both in and out of school, within which
pedagogy is embedded
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2
Common Core – Instructional Methodology:
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.1
Skills of Teaching: Biology teachers know the equipment, materials, and
preparation required in the biology laboratory, including:
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.1.23
Curriculum – Biology teachers know the biology curriculum.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.3
Social Context - Biology teachers know the relation between science and
the community and know the human and institutional resources in the
community. The social context of science teaching refers to:
Dimension 4: Learning Environments
Description for Dimension 4: Learning Environments
Outcome: Candidates create safe, effective learning environments that support inquiry,
collaboration, intellectual risk-taking, ethical decision-making, and student construction of
knowledge.
A well-designed instructional environment provides physical and emotional structure for
effective science teaching and learning. Learning environments involve the physical elements of
science teaching, but also deal with the psychological and social elements of contemporary
science that provide students with a venue for deciding what to believe and do within a scientific
context. Within this environment, students learn to engage prior conceptions, to individually and
collaboratively investigate unknowns, to describe and share their findings using suitable
language, and to apply their knowledge in a variety of new ways. A well-designed environment
helps students to construct their own knowledge in ways that are safe, scientifically valid, and
personally relevant.
This dimension of the Biology Teaching Portfolio requires the candidate to demonstrate their
ability to design and create a learning environment that supports and extends science teaching
and learning. Each candidate must provide artifacts that best demonstrate their ability to: a)
create learning environments that support collaboration, b) incorporate hands-on activities that
Page 100
3/15/2010
engage students with diverse learning styles, c) integrate age-appropriate technology that
enhances student learning, and d) provides safe learning conditions that minimizes risk to
students.
Artifact 1: Collaborative Learning
Include at least one piece of evidence that demonstrates your ability to create collaborative
learning environments. The artifact may come from your SCED 324 Portfolio, your BIOL 492
course, or any other experience that showcases your knowledge and skill with collaborative
learning. Be sure to include a brief overview of your evidence.
Standards for Artifact 1: Collaborative Learning
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.1.7
Able to use science teaching actions, strategies, and methodologies.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.1.8
Able to establish interactions with students, including questioning
techniques, that promote learning and achievement.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.1.9
Able to effectively organize classroom, laboratory, and field
experiences in different student groupings.
Artifact 2: Support of Diverse Learning Styles
Include at least one piece of evidence that demonstrates your ability to provide hands-on
activities that engage diverse learning styles. The artifact may come from your SCED 324
Portfolio, your BIOL 492 course, or any other experience that showcases your knowledge and
skill with diverse learning. Be sure to include a brief overview of your evidence.
Standards for Artifact 2: Support of Diverse Learning Styles
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.2.1
The biology teacher develops and applies a coherent, focused
biologycurriculum that is consistent with state and national standards for
biology education and appropriate for addressing the need, abilities, and
interests of students. Curriculum refers to:
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.3.2
Knowing the relationship of science teaching and learning to the needs and
values of various communities.
Artifact 3: Integration of Technology
Include at least one piece of evidence that shows how technology can be used to support and
extend effective science teaching and learning. The artifact may come from your SCED 324
Portfolio, your BIOL 492 course, or any other experience that showcases your knowledge and
skill with technology-supported learning. Be sure to include a brief overview of your evidence.
Page 101
3/15/2010
Standards for Artifact 3: Integration of Technology
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.3.2
That science and technology are human endeavors, interrelated to each
other, to society, and to the workplace in the context of the life sciences
(e.g. all peoples contribute to science and technology, science and
technology are interrelated, many careers and occupations use science,
mathematics, and technology).
WA-COMP2007.BIO.1.5.1
Knowing how science and technology interact with society.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.1.10
Able to use advanced technology to extend and enhance learning.
Artifact 4: Safety
Include at least one piece of evidence that supports safe practice of science in a K-12 classroom.
The artifact may come from your SCED 324 Portfolio, your BIOL 492 course, or any other
experience that showcases your knowledge and skill with creating a safe learning environment.
Be sure to include a brief overview of your evidence.
Standards for Artifact 4: Safety
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.1.6
Lab safety (including storage and disposal of hazardous waste) 2.1.1
Biology teachers, incorporating instructional materials, create a
community of diverse student learners who can construct meaning from
science and possess a disposition for further inquiry and learning. Skills of
Teaching refers to:
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.1.17
Able to establish and enforce lab safety (including storage and disposal of
hazardous waste) in the physical science laboratory.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.5
Environment for Learning - Biology teachers know safe and supportive
learning environments reflecting high expectations for the success of all
students. Learning environments refers to:
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.5.3
Know safety in all areas related to science instruction.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.5.1.7
Able to demonstrate safe treatment and ethical use of living organisms.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.5.1.8
Able to create a safe environment conducive to learning.
Reflection for Dimension 4: Learning Environments
Once you have chosen all four Learning Environment artifacts, write a thoughtful and insightful
reflection of how these artifacts provide evidence of progress for this dimension. This reflection
should establish a clear relationship between your evidence and achievement of this dimension
Page 102
3/15/2010
by citing met standards within your text. The reflection for this dimension should authentically
summarize strengths developed during your program as well as remaining weaknesses.
Summarize how you plan to address these weaknesses during the rest of your program and as a
professional in the field. Ultimately, your reflection should provide portfolio evaluators with
significant insight into your progress in meeting dimension standards and your professional
growth and development in this area. Fill in the reflection for each of the artifacts under the
headings below.
Collaborative Learning
Diverse Learning Styles
Integration of Technology
Safety
Standards for Dimension 4: Learning Environments
SKILLS OF SCIENCE: The program prepares candidates to create a
community of diverse student learners who can construct meaning from
science experiences and possess a disposition for further inquiry and learning.
Skills of Teaching refers to science teaching actions, strategies and
NSTA.5
methodologies; interactions with students that promote learning and
achievement; effective organization of classroom experiences; use of
advanced technology to extend and enhance learning; and the use of prior
conceptions and student interests to promote new learning.
NSTA.9
ENVIRONMENT FOR LEARNING: The program prepares candidates to
design and manage safe and supportive learning environments reflecting high
expectations for the success of all students. Learning environments refers to
the physical spaces within which learning of science occurs; psychological and
social environment of the student engaged in learning science; treatment and
ethical use of living organisms; and safety in all areas related to science
instruction.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.5
Environment for Learning - Biology teachers know safe and supportive
learning environments reflecting high expectations for the success of all
students. Learning environments refers to:
Dimension 5: Assessment and Evaluation
Description for Dimension 5: Assessment and Evaluation
Outcome: Candidates demonstrate an ability to assess teaching and learning outcomes using
multiple methods, to evaluate teaching and learning proficiency using performance indicators,
and to improve teaching and learning practice based on performance data.
In order to determine student knowledge and skill for a given scientific topic, teachers must
Page 103
3/15/2010
regularly assess student learning. A well crafted assessment strategy includes preliminary
assessments of student knowledge, formative assessment of student performance during an
exercise, and summative assessments at the completion of a learning activity. A teacher must be
prepared to modify curriculum and instruction in response to assessment results if the desired
learning objectives are not being achieved. Assessment strategies should be closely aligned with
the intended student learning outcomes. An assessment strategy must also be balanced and
include a variety of different methods - from written tests to verbal questioning to physical
operations - that provide all students with an opportunity to be successful.
Teaching excellence also involves careful and considered reflection of teaching practice. A
teacher must be prepared to continually develop their knowledge and skills and modify their
behavior so as to maximize student learning effectiveness. Learning new ways of teaching and
being open to professional criticism is a hallmark of teaching excellence.
This dimension of the portfolio requires candidates to showcase their experience assessing and
evaluating student learning as well as teaching performance.
Artifact 1: Assessment of Student Learning
Include at least one piece of evidence that shows your experience in assessing/evaluating student
learning. Your evidence should show clear alignment between student learning outcomes,
instruction/activities, assessment, and standards. Be sure to include a brief overview of your
evidence.
Artifact 2: Self Assessment of Teaching
Include at least one piece of evidence that illustrates your experience in assessing/evaluating
your own teaching. Strengths, areas for improvement, and strategies for addressing improvement
areas should be highlighted. Be sure to include a brief overview of your evidence.
Reflection for Dimension 5: Assessment and Evaluation
Once you have chosen artifacts for assessment of student learning and your own teaching, write a
thoughtful and insightful reflection of how these artifacts provide evidence of progress for this
dimension. This reflection should establish a clear relationship between your evidence and
achievement of this dimension by citing met standards within your text. The reflection for this
dimension should authentically summarize strengths developed during your program as well as
remaining weaknesses. Summarize how you plan to address these weaknesses during the rest of
your program and as a professional in the field. Ultimately, your reflection should provide
portfolio evaluators with significant insight into your progress in meeting dimension standards
and your professional growth and development in this area. Fill in the reflection for each of the
artifacts under the headings below.
Assessment of Student Learning
Self Assessment of Teaching
Page 104
3/15/2010
Standards for Dimension 5: Assessment and Evaluation
NSTA.8
ASSESSMENT: The program prepares candidates to use a variety of
contemporary assessment strategies to evaluate the intellectual, social, and
personal development of the learner in all aspects of science. Assessment
refers to the alignment of goals, instruction and outcomes; measurement and
evaluation of student learning in a variety of dimensions and the use of
outcome data to guide and change instruction.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.4
Assessment - The biology teacher knows a variety of contemporary
assessment strategies to evaluate the intellectual, social, and personal
development of the learner in all aspects of earth science. Assessment refers
to:
Dimension 6: Relevance
Description for Dimension 6: Relevance
Outcome: Candidates demonstrate an ability to make science personally and socially relevant to
individual and community by incorporating current events within collaborative and social
networks.
Every day, students are exposed to issues and world events that may profoundly impact their
personal and professional lives. Science and technology are integrally woven into the fabric of
the world culture, and play a central role in communication, healthcare, entertainment, and many
other aspects of life today. Science is a primary tool used for solving global problems, both now
and for the foreseeable future. By using science to meet the needs of the community and
showing people how science contributes to our quality of life, we can improve the scientific
literacy of all citizens and influence their ability to make good decisions regarding science.
Every science teacher has the opportunity and responsibility to make science relevant for all
students and citizens within the larger community. This dimension of the Biology Teaching
Portfolio requires candidates to demonstrate their ability to: a) incorporate current events into
science teaching practice, and b) make science relevant to students and the community at large.
Artifact 1: Incorporation of Current Events
Include at least one piece of evidence that showcases your ability to incorporate current events
into science teaching and learning. Be sure to include a brief overview of your evidence.
Artifact 2: Community Involvement
Include at least one piece of evidence that demonstrates your ability to involve the community in
science teaching and learning. Be sure to include a brief overview of your evidence.
Page 105
3/15/2010
Reflection for Dimension 6: Relevance
Once you have chosen artifacts for Incorporation of Current Events and Community
Involvement, write a thoughtful and insightful reflection of how these artifacts provide evidence
of progress for this dimension. This reflection should establish a clear relationship between your
evidence and achievement of this dimension by citing met standards within your text. The
reflection for this dimension should authentically summarize strengths developed during your
program as well as remaining weaknesses. Summarize how you plan to address these weaknesses
during the rest of your program and as a professional in the field. Ultimately, your reflection
should provide portfolio evaluators with significant insight into your progress in meeting
dimension standards and your professional growth and development in this area.
Current Events
Community Involvement
Standards for Dimension 6: Relevance
NSTA.4
CONTENT OF SCIENCE: The program prepares candidates to relate science
to the daily lives and interests of students and to a larger framework of human
endeavor and understanding. The context of science refers to relationships
among systems of human endeavor including science and technology;
relationships among scientific, technological, personal, social and cultural
values; and the relevance and importance of science to the personal lives of
students.
NSTA.7
SOCIAL CONTEXT: The program prepares candidates to relate science to the
community and to use human and institutional resources in the community to
advance the education of their students in science. The social context of
science teaching refers to the social and community support network within
which science teaching and learning occur; relationship of science teaching
and learning to the needs and values of the community; and involvement of
people and institutions from the community in the teaching of science.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.2.3
Social Context - Biology teachers know the relation between science and the
community and know the human and institutional resources in the community.
The social context of science teaching refers to:
Dimension 7: Professional Growth
Description for Dimension 7: Professional Growth
Outcome: Candidates participate in a variety of activities that enhance professional
development and improve teaching effectiveness.
Development of a teacher does not end when a candidate receives their teaching credential.
Professional growth and lifelong learning are essential components of a successful career in
science teaching. As such, candidates will need to be involved in professional organizations and
Page 106
3/15/2010
take advantage of opportunities for professional development. This practice should begin during
pre-service coursework and continue throughout the candidate's entire career. This Dimension
gives candidates the opportunity to show steps taken to date that demonstrate professional
growth as a teacher and/or participation in the greater community of science teaching
professionals.
Artifact: Professional Organization or Club Membership
Include at least one piece of evidence that demonstrates that you have joined a professional
organization or college club related to science and/or teaching. This artifact may come from
National Science Teacher Association membership through the Science Education Department.
Be sure to include a brief overview of your evidence.
Artifact 2: Plans for Professional Growth
Include at least one piece of evidence that articulates area(s) of desired professional growth. This
artifact will probably come from the SCED 487 course. Be sure to include a brief overview of
your evidence.
Reflection for Dimension 7: Professional Growth
Once you have chosen artifacts for Professional Growth, write a thoughtful and
insightful reflection of how this artifact provides evidence of your future plans for continued
professional development. This reflection should establish a clear relationship between your
evidence and achievement of this dimension by citing met standards within your text. The
reflection for this dimension should authentically summarize strengths developed during your
program as well as remaining weaknesses. Summarize how you plan to address these weaknesses
during the rest of your program and as a professional in the field. Ultimately, your reflection
should provide portfolio evaluators with significant insight into your progress in meeting
dimension standards and your professional growth and development in this area.
Standards for Dimension 7: Professional Growth
NSTA.10
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE: The program prepares candidates to participate
in the professional community, improving practice through their personal
actions, education and development. Professional practice refers to knowledge
of, and participation in, the activities of the professional community; ethical
behavior consistent with the best interests of students and the community;
reflection on professional practices and continuous efforts to ensure the highest
quality of science instruction; and willingness to work with students and new
colleagues as they enter the profession.
WA-COMP2007.BIO.3
Common Core – Professional Practice: 3.1 Biology teachers have a knowledge
base that prepares them for professional practice.
Science Teaching Minor(s)
Page 107
3/15/2010
Science Teaching Minor Portfolio
Like your major program portfolio, this standards-aligned portfolio will be used to assess and
evaluate your development in a science teaching minor or certification program. Standards from
the National Science Teacher Association (NSTA), the Washington State Endorsement
Competencies (WA-COMP) for Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, or Physics Teaching, and
the National Science Education Standards for Teachers (NSES-T), have been used to develop the
framework for this portfolio. Your performance in the science teaching minor or certification
program will be evaluated using the appropriate portfolio (Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, or
Physics Teaching) and benchmarked relative to state and federal science teaching standards. All
students working on a State endorsement in a minor or certification program must complete a
separate portfolio for each science teaching minor. For example, a candidate that is enrolled in a
Biology Teaching major and Chemistry Teaching and Broad Area Science minor programs
would complete a major portfolio and minor portfolios for Chemistry and Broad Area Science.
Advising sessions will be held regularly to assist you in completing these additional portfolios.
Please note that you will link each minor portfolio to your science teaching major portfolio.
Here's what you'll need to do to complete the Science Teaching Minor Portfolio:
1. Assemble evidence of your knowledge and skill proficiency using artifacts (e.g. lab
reports, exams, field notebooks, teaching evaluations, etc) from your coursework. It is
important that you retain all course materials and assignments (paper and/or
electronic). Science Teaching minors must provide evidence from their CWU
coursework; certification- or endorsement-only students must provide evidence from
coursework taken at other institutions. Electronic artifacts can be attached to the
appropriate section of the Science Teaching Minor Portfolio; paper artifacts will need to
be digitally scanned and then similarly attached.
2. Select artifacts that showcase your knowledge and skill and and complete the sections
(called dimensions) of the Science Teaching Minor Portfolio. For each dimension, you
will need to provide evidence of your knowledge and/or skill in that area using artifacts
from your coursework and other relevant experiences. For ideas on what artifacts to use
and more specifics on the state criteria that you need to meet, please refer to the
Endorsement Criteria pdf documents appropriate to your minor (attached below).
3. Complete the reflections for each portfolio dimension. Each reflection should connect
your chosen evidence to your progress toward meeting the associated professional
standards (indicated in each dimension).
Like your major portfolio, Science Teaching Minor Portfolio(s) must be completed prior to
student teaching. You must demonstrate proficiency in each minor portfolio dimension in order
to meet minimum endorsement criteria.
For more information or assistance, please contact your Science Teaching advisor.
Page 108
3/15/2010
Science Teaching Minor(s)
Insert link(s) to your Science Teaching Minor Portfolio(s) here. If you have more than one
science teaching minor, you will need to likewise link to the second minor portfolio.
Exit Program Evaluation
Completing the Exit Program Evaluation
The goal of the Exit Program Evaluation assessment is to give science teaching majors or
certification-only candidates an opportunity to describe their experiences and to reflect on
successful aspects of the program as well as areas for improvement. The Exit Program
Evaluation assessment must be completed prior to student teaching.
Student Instructions
To complete the survey, enter your responses directly into the window below.
SCED Exit Program Survey
Embedded online survey.
Comparative Reflection
Compare the results from your Entry to Program assessment and your Exit Program Evaluation.
Based on the results of these assessments and your experiences in the Biology Teaching
program, write a thoughtful and insightful reflection that compares the two and provides insight
into how the Biology Teaching program has/has not met your expectations and influenced your
preparation to be an excellent Biology teacher.
Page 109
3/15/2010
Appendix E: Student Learning Outcome Assessment Plan
CWU Student Learning Outcome Assessment Plan Matrix
Department: Science Education
Program: General Science Teaching/Broad Area Science
Student Learning Outcomes Alignment with Program, Department, College, and University Goals
Student Learning Outcomes (performance, knowledge, attitudes)
Related Program
Related
Goals
Departmental Goals
SCED Program
SCED Departmental
1. Demonstrate an ability to individually and collaboratively engage
Goal (PG) 1
Goal (DG) 1, 3, 4
in inquiry and integrate the nature of science.
Related College
Goals
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
Related
University Goals
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
2.
Explain and apply fundamental science content concepts,
principles, and methods.
SCED PG 1
SCED DG 1, 3, 5
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
3.
Demonstrate an ability to effectively facilitate learning for all
students.
Create safe, effective learning environments that support inquiry,
collaboration, intellectual risk-taking, ethical decision-making,
and student construction of knowledge.
Demonstrate an ability to assess teaching and learning outcomes
using multiple methods, effectively evaluate teaching and learning
effectiveness, and improve practice based on reflection and data.
Demonstrate an ability to make science personally and socially
relevant to individual and community by incorporating current
events within collaborative and social networks.
Participate in a variety of activities that enhance professional
development and improve teaching effectiveness.
Demonstrate open-mindedness and curiosity that leads to
continuous improvement as a scientist and a teacher.
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 2, 3, 4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 1, 2, 3, 4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6,
7
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 2, 3, 4, 7,
8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 1, 2, 4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 5,
6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 4,
6
SCED PG 3
SCED DG 2, 7, 8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 3
SCED DG 3,4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Page 110
3/15/2010
Program Goal Assessment Strategies
Student Learning
Method(s) of Assessment (What is
Outcomes (performance,
the assessment?)
knowledge, attitudes)
1.
Demonstrate an
ability to individually
and collaboratively
engage in inquiry and
integrate the nature
of science.




Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, WEST-E
content assessment, entry to and
exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses –
population)
 All General
Science
Teaching majors,
Broad Area
Science minors,
and Science
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
Standard of Mastery/ Criterion of
Achievement (How good does
performance have to be?)



2.
Explain and apply
fundamental science
content concepts,
principles, and
methods.




Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, WEST-E
content assessment, entry to and
exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment

All General
Science
Teaching majors,
Broad Area
Science minors,
and Science
endorsement
students



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching



Page 111
3/15/2010
Minimum requirement is proficiency
for this outcome. Student must
provide suitable evidence and reflect
on performance relative to associated
NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is proficiency
for this outcome. Student must
provide suitable evidence and reflect
on performance relative to associated
NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Student Learning
Outcomes (performance,
knowledge, attitudes)
3.
Demonstrate an
ability to effectively
facilitate learning for
all students.
Method(s) of Assessment (What is
the assessment?)




Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and
exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses –
population)
 All General
Science
Teaching majors,
Broad Area
Science minors,
and Science
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
Standard of Mastery/ Criterion of
Achievement (How good does
performance have to be?)



4.
5.
Create safe, effective
learning
environments that
support inquiry,
collaboration,
intellectual risktaking, ethical
decision-making, and
student construction
of knowledge.

Demonstrate an
ability to assess
teaching and learning
outcomes using
multiple methods,
effectively evaluate
teaching and learning
effectiveness, and
improve practice
based on reflection
and data.

Page 112



Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, WEST-E
content assessment, entry to and
exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment

All General
Science
Teaching majors,
Broad Area
Science minors,
and Science
endorsement
students



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching






Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and
exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment

All General
Science
Teaching majors,
Broad Area
Science minors,
and Science
endorsement
students



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching



3/15/2010
Minimum requirement is proficiency
for this outcome. Student must
provide suitable evidence and reflect
on performance relative to associated
NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is proficiency
for this outcome. Student must
provide suitable evidence and reflect
on performance relative to associated
NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is proficiency
for this outcome. Student must
provide suitable evidence and reflect
on performance relative to associated
NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Student Learning
Outcomes (performance,
knowledge, attitudes)
6.
7.
8.
Method(s) of Assessment (What is
the assessment?)
Demonstrate an
ability to make
science personally
and socially relevant
to individual and
community by
incorporating current
events within
collaborative and
social networks.

Participate in a
variety of activities
that enhance
professional
development and
improve teaching
effectiveness.

Demonstrate openmindedness and
curiosity that leads to
continuous
improvement as a
scientist and a
teacher.

Page 113



Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and
exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses –
population)
 All General
Science
Teaching majors,
Broad Area
Science minors,
and Science
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
Standard of Mastery/ Criterion of
Achievement (How good does
performance have to be?)







Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and
exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and
exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation


All General
Science
Teaching majors,
Broad Area
Science minors,
and Science
endorsement
students

All General
Science
Teaching majors,
Broad Area
Science minors,
and Science
endorsement
students


End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324


3/15/2010
Minimum requirement is proficiency
for this outcome. Student must
provide suitable evidence and reflect
on performance relative to associated
NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is proficiency
for this outcome. Student must
provide suitable evidence and reflect
on performance relative to associated
NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
Minimum requirement is proficiency
for this outcome. Student must
provide suitable evidence and reflect
on performance relative to associated
NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
CWU Student Learning Outcome Assessment Plan Matrix
Department: Biological Sciences/Science Education
Program: Biology Teaching
Student Learning Outcomes Alignment with Program, Department, College, and University Goals
Student Learning Outcomes (performance, knowledge, attitudes)
Related Program
Related
Goals
Departmental Goals
SCED Program
SCED Departmental
1. Demonstrate an ability to individually and collaboratively engage
Goal (PG) 1
Goal (DG) 1, 3, 4
in inquiry and integrate the nature of science.
Related College
Goals
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
Related
University Goals
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
2.
Explain and apply fundamental life science content concepts,
principles, and methods.
SCED PG 1
SCED DG 1, 3, 5
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
3.
Demonstrate an ability to effectively facilitate learning for all
students.
Create safe, effective learning environments that support inquiry,
collaboration, intellectual risk-taking, ethical decision-making,
and student construction of knowledge.
Demonstrate an ability to assess teaching and learning outcomes
using multiple methods, effectively evaluate teaching and learning
effectiveness, and improve practice based on reflection and data.
Demonstrate an ability to make science personally and socially
relevant to individual and community by incorporating current
events within collaborative and social networks.
Participate in a variety of activities that enhance professional
development and improve teaching effectiveness.
Demonstrate open-mindedness and curiosity that leads to
continuous improvement as a scientist and a teacher.
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 2, 3, 4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 1, 2, 3, 4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6,
7
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 2, 3, 4, 7,
8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 1, 2, 4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 5,
6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 4,
6
SCED PG 3
SCED DG 2, 7, 8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 3
SCED DG 3,4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Page 114
3/15/2010
Program Goal Assessment Strategies
Student Learning
Method(s) of Assessment (What is
Outcomes (performance,
the assessment?)
knowledge, attitudes)
1.
Demonstrate an ability
to individually and
collaboratively engage
in inquiry and integrate
the nature of science.




Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, WEST-E
content assessment, entry to and
exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses –
population)
 All Biology
Teaching major,
minor,
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
Standard of Mastery/ Criterion of
Achievement (How good does
performance have to be?)



2.
Explain and apply
fundamental life
science content
concepts, principles,
and methods.
Page 115





Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, WEST-E
content assessment, entry to and
exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Major Field Test - Biology

All Biology
Teaching major,
minor,
endorsement
students



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching



3/15/2010
Minimum requirement is
proficiency for this outcome.
Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance
relative to associated NSES, NSTA,
and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is
proficiency for this outcome.
Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance
relative to associated NSES, NSTA,
and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Student Learning
Outcomes (performance,
knowledge, attitudes)
3.
Demonstrate an ability
to effectively facilitate
learning for all
students.
Method(s) of Assessment (What is
the assessment?)




Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses –
population)
 All Biology
Teaching major,
minor,
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
Standard of Mastery/ Criterion of
Achievement (How good does
performance have to be?)



4.
5.
Create safe, effective
learning environments
that support inquiry,
collaboration,
intellectual risk-taking,
ethical decisionmaking, and student
construction of
knowledge.

Demonstrate an ability
to assess teaching and
learning outcomes
using multiple methods,
effectively evaluate
teaching and learning
effectiveness, and
improve practice based
on reflection and data.

Page 116



Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, WEST-E
content assessment, entry to and
exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment

All Biology
Teaching major,
minor,
endorsement
students



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching






Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment

All Biology
Teaching major,
minor,
endorsement
students



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching



3/15/2010
Minimum requirement is
proficiency for this outcome.
Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance
relative to associated NSES, NSTA,
and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is
proficiency for this outcome.
Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance
relative to associated NSES, NSTA,
and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is
proficiency for this outcome.
Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance
relative to associated NSES, NSTA,
and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Student Learning
Outcomes (performance,
knowledge, attitudes)
6.
7.
Method(s) of Assessment (What is
the assessment?)
Demonstrate an ability
to make science
personally and socially
relevant to individual
and community by
incorporating current
events within
collaborative and
social networks.

Participate in a variety
of activities that
enhance professional
development and
improve teaching
effectiveness.




Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses –
population)
 All Biology
Teaching major,
minor,
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)



End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
Standard of Mastery/ Criterion of
Achievement (How good does
performance have to be?)





Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation

All Biology
Teaching major,
minor,
endorsement
students


End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324


8.
Demonstrate openmindedness and
curiosity that leads to
continuous
improvement as a
scientist and a teacher.



Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation

All Biology
Teaching major,
minor,
endorsement
students


End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324


Page 117
3/15/2010
Minimum requirement is
proficiency for this outcome.
Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance
relative to associated NSES, NSTA,
and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is
proficiency for this outcome.
Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance
relative to associated NSES, NSTA,
and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
Minimum requirement is
proficiency for this outcome.
Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance
relative to associated NSES, NSTA,
and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
CWU Student Learning Outcome Assessment Plan Matrix
Department: Chemistry/Science Education
Program: Chemistry Teaching
Student Learning Outcomes Alignment with Program, Department, College, and University Goals
Student Learning Outcomes (performance, knowledge, attitudes)
Related Program
Related
Goals
Departmental Goals
SCED Program
SCED Departmental
1. Demonstrate an ability to individually and collaboratively engage
Goal (PG) 1
Goal (DG) 1, 3, 4
in inquiry and integrate the nature of science.
Related College
Goals
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
Related
University Goals
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
2.
Explain and apply fundamental chemistry content concepts,
principles, and methods.
SCED PG 1
SCED DG 1, 3, 5
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
3.
Demonstrate an ability to effectively facilitate learning for all
students.
Create safe, effective learning environments that support inquiry,
collaboration, intellectual risk-taking, ethical decision-making,
and student construction of knowledge.
Demonstrate an ability to assess teaching and learning outcomes
using multiple methods, effectively evaluate teaching and learning
effectiveness, and improve practice based on reflection and data.
Demonstrate an ability to make science personally and socially
relevant to individual and community by incorporating current
events within collaborative and social networks.
Participate in a variety of activities that enhance professional
development and improve teaching effectiveness.
Demonstrate open-mindedness and curiosity that leads to
continuous improvement as a scientist and a teacher.
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 2, 3, 4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 1, 2, 3, 4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6,
7
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 2, 3, 4, 7,
8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 1, 2, 4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 5,
6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 4,
6
SCED PG 3
SCED DG 2, 7, 8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 3
SCED DG 3,4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Page 118
3/15/2010
Program Goal Assessment Strategies
Student Learning
Method(s) of Assessment
Outcomes
(What is the assessment?)
(performance,
knowledge, attitudes)
1. Demonstrate an
 Science Program major/minor
ability to individually
teaching portfolio, WEST-E content
and collaboratively
assessment, entry to and exit from
engage in inquiry and
program survey
integrate the nature of
 SCED 324 course portfolio
science.
 Practicum field observation
 WA pedagogy assessment
 American Chemical Society Content
Exams
2. Explain and apply
fundamental chemistry
content concepts,
principles, and
methods.
Page 119





Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, WEST-E content
assessment, entry to and exit from
program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
American Chemical Society Content
Exams
Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses – population)

All Chemistry
Teaching majors,
minors, and
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)




All Chemistry
Teaching majors,
minors, and
endorsement
students



Standard of Mastery/ Criterion of
Achievement (How good does
performance have to be?)
End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching

End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching

3/15/2010




Minimum requirement is proficiency
for this outcome. Student must
provide suitable evidence and reflect
on performance relative to associated
NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is proficiency
for this outcome. Student must
provide suitable evidence and reflect
on performance relative to associated
NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Student Learning
Outcomes
(performance,
knowledge, attitudes)
3. Demonstrate an
ability to effectively
facilitate learning for
all students.
Method(s) of Assessment
(What is the assessment?)





4. Create safe,
effective learning
environments that
support inquiry,
collaboration,
intellectual risk-taking,
ethical decisionmaking, and student
construction of
knowledge.

5. Demonstrate an
ability to assess
teaching and learning
outcomes using
multiple methods,
effectively evaluate
teaching and learning
effectiveness, and
improve practice
based on reflection
and data.

Page 120








Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses – population)
Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
American Chemical Society Content
Exams

Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, WEST-E content
assessment, entry to and exit from
program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
American Chemical Society Content
Exams

Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
American Chemical Society Content
Exams

All Chemistry
Teaching majors,
minors, and
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)



All Chemistry
Teaching majors,
minors, and
endorsement
students



All Chemistry
Teaching majors,
minors, and
endorsement
students



Standard of Mastery/ Criterion of
Achievement (How good does
performance have to be?)
End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching

End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching

End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching

3/15/2010






Minimum requirement is proficiency
for this outcome. Student must
provide suitable evidence and reflect
on performance relative to associated
NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is proficiency
for this outcome. Student must
provide suitable evidence and reflect
on performance relative to associated
NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is proficiency
for this outcome. Student must
provide suitable evidence and reflect
on performance relative to associated
NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Student Learning
Outcomes
(performance,
knowledge, attitudes)
6. Demonstrate an
ability to make science
personally and socially
relevant to individual
and community by
incorporating current
events within
collaborative and
social networks.
Method(s) of Assessment
(What is the assessment?)





7. Participate in a
variety of activities
that enhance
professional
development and
improve teaching
effectiveness.

8. Demonstrate openmindedness and
curiosity that leads to
continuous
improvement as a
scientist and a teacher.






Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses – population)
Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
American Chemical Society Content
Exams

Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
American Chemical Society Content
Exams

Science Program major/minor
teaching portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation

All Chemistry
Teaching majors,
minors, and
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)



All Chemistry
Teaching majors,
minors, and
endorsement
students



All Chemistry
Teaching majors,
minors, and
endorsement
students


Page 121
Standard of Mastery/ Criterion of
Achievement (How good does
performance have to be?)
End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching

End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
SCED 324

3/15/2010





Minimum requirement is proficiency
for this outcome. Student must
provide suitable evidence and reflect
on performance relative to associated
NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is proficiency
for this outcome. Student must
provide suitable evidence and reflect
on performance relative to associated
NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
Minimum requirement is proficiency
for this outcome. Student must
provide suitable evidence and reflect
on performance relative to associated
NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
CWU Student Learning Outcome Assessment Plan Matrix
Department: Geological Sciences/Science Education
Program: Earth Science Teaching
Student Learning Outcomes Alignment with Program, Department, College, and University Goals
Student Learning Outcomes (performance, knowledge, attitudes)
Related Program
Related
Goals
Departmental Goals
SCED Program
SCED Departmental
1. Demonstrate an ability to individually and collaboratively engage
Goal (PG) 1
Goal (DG) 1, 3, 4
in inquiry and integrate the nature of science.
Related College
Goals
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
Related
University Goals
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
2.
Explain and apply fundamental Earth science content concepts,
principles, and methods.
SCED PG 1
SCED DG 1, 3, 5
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
3.
Demonstrate an ability to effectively facilitate learning for all
students.
Create safe, effective learning environments that support inquiry,
collaboration, intellectual risk-taking, ethical decision-making,
and student construction of knowledge.
Demonstrate an ability to assess teaching and learning outcomes
using multiple methods, effectively evaluate teaching and learning
effectiveness, and improve practice based on reflection and data.
Demonstrate an ability to make science personally and socially
relevant to individual and community by incorporating current
events within collaborative and social networks.
Participate in a variety of activities that enhance professional
development and improve teaching effectiveness.
Demonstrate open-mindedness and curiosity that leads to
continuous improvement as a scientist and a teacher.
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 2, 3, 4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 1, 2, 3, 4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6,
7
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 2, 3, 4, 7,
8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 1, 2, 4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 5,
6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 4,
6
SCED PG 3
SCED DG 2, 7, 8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 3
SCED DG 3,4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Page 122
3/15/2010
Program Goal Assessment Strategies
Student Learning
Method(s) of Assessment
Outcomes (performance,
(What is the assessment?)
knowledge, attitudes)
1. Demonstrate an ability to
individually and
collaboratively engage in
inquiry and integrate the
nature of science.




2. Explain and apply
fundamental Earth science
content concepts, principles,
and methods.




3. Demonstrate an ability to
effectively facilitate learning
for all students.




Page 123
Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, WEST-E content
assessment, entry to and
exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses –
population)
 All Earth
Science
Teaching majors,
minors, and
endorsement
students
Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, WEST-E content
assessment, entry to and
exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment

Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment

All Earth
Science
Teaching majors,
minors, and
endorsement
students
All Earth
Science
Teaching majors,
minors, and
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)









Standard of Mastery/ Criterion of
Achievement (How good does performance
have to be?)
End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching

End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching

End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching

3/15/2010






Minimum requirement is proficiency for
this outcome. Teacher candidate must
provide suitable evidence and reflect on
performance relative to associated NSES,
NSTA, and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is proficiency for
this outcome. Teacher candidate must
provide suitable evidence and reflect on
performance relative to associated NSES,
NSTA, and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is proficiency for
this outcome. Teacher candidate must
provide suitable evidence and reflect on
performance relative to associated NSES,
NSTA, and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Student Learning
Outcomes (performance,
knowledge, attitudes)
4. Create safe, effective
learning environments that
support inquiry,
collaboration, intellectual
risk-taking, ethical decisionmaking, and student
construction of knowledge.
5. Demonstrate an ability to
assess teaching and learning
outcomes using multiple
methods, effectively evaluate
teaching and learning
effectiveness, and improve
practice based on reflection
and data.
6. Demonstrate an ability to
make science personally and
socially relevant to
individual and community
by incorporating current
events within collaborative
and social networks.
Page 124
Method(s) of Assessment
(What is the assessment?)












Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, WEST-E content
assessment, entry to and
exit from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses –
population)
 All Earth
Science
Teaching majors,
minors, and
endorsement
students


All Earth
Science
Teaching majors,
minors, and
endorsement
students
All Earth
Science
Teaching majors,
minors, and
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)









Standard of Mastery/ Criterion of
Achievement (How good does performance
have to be?)
End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching

End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching

End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching

3/15/2010






Minimum requirement is proficiency for
this outcome. Teacher candidate must
provide suitable evidence and reflect on
performance relative to associated NSES,
NSTA, and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is proficiency for
this outcome. Teacher candidate must
provide suitable evidence and reflect on
performance relative to associated NSES,
NSTA, and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Minimum requirement is proficiency for
this outcome. Teacher candidate must
provide suitable evidence and reflect on
performance relative to associated NSES,
NSTA, and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Student Learning
Outcomes (performance,
knowledge, attitudes)
7. Participate in a variety of
activities that enhance
professional development
and improve teaching
effectiveness.
8. Demonstrate openmindedness and curiosity
that leads to continuous
improvement as a scientist
and a teacher.
Page 125
Method(s) of Assessment
(What is the assessment?)






Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses –
population)
 All Earth
Science
Teaching majors,
minors, and
endorsement
students

All Earth
Science
Teaching majors,
minors, and
endorsement
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)





End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
End of
major/minor
program, prior
to student
teaching
SCED 324
3/15/2010
Standard of Mastery/ Criterion of
Achievement (How good does performance
have to be?)




Minimum requirement is proficiency for
this outcome. Teacher candidate must
provide suitable evidence and reflect on
performance relative to associated NSES,
NSTA, and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
Minimum requirement is proficiency for
this outcome. Teacher candidate must
provide suitable evidence and reflect on
performance relative to associated NSES,
NSTA, and WA Comp standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
CWU Student Learning Outcome Assessment Plan Preparation Form
Department: Science Education
Program:
Student Learning Outcomes Alignment with Program, Department, College, and University Goals
Student Learning Outcomes (performance, knowledge, attitudes)
Related Program
Related
Goals
Departmental Goals
SCED Program
SCED Departmental
1. Demonstrate an ability to individually and collaboratively engage
Goal (PG) 1
Goal (DG) 1, 3, 4
in inquiry and integrate the nature of science.
Related College
Goals
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
Related
University Goals
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
2.
Explain and apply fundamental physics content concepts,
principles, and methods.
SCED PG 1
SCED DG 1, 3, 5
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
3.
Demonstrate an ability to effectively facilitate learning for all
students.
Create safe, effective learning environments that support inquiry,
collaboration, intellectual risk-taking, ethical decision-making,
and student construction of knowledge.
Demonstrate an ability to assess teaching and learning outcomes
using multiple methods, effectively evaluate teaching and learning
effectiveness, and improve practice based on reflection and data.
Demonstrate an ability to make science personally and socially
relevant to individual and community by incorporating current
events within collaborative and social networks.
Participate in a variety of activities that enhance professional
development and improve teaching effectiveness.
Demonstrate open-mindedness and curiosity that leads to
continuous improvement as a scientist and a teacher.
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 2, 3, 4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 1, 2, 3, 4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6,
7
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 2, 3, 4, 7,
8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 2
SCED DG 1, 2, 4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 5,
6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 4,
6
SCED PG 3
SCED DG 2, 7, 8
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
SCED PG 3
SCED DG 3,4
COTS Goal 1, 2, 6
CWU Goal 1, 2, 6
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Page 126
3/15/2010
Program Goal Assessment Strategies
Student Learning
Method(s) of Assessment
Outcomes (performance,
(What is the assessment?)
knowledge, attitudes)
1. Demonstrate an ability
 Science Program
to individually and
major/minor teaching
collaboratively engage in
portfolio, WEST-E content
inquiry and integrate the
assessment, entry to and exit
nature of science.
from program survey
 SCED 324 course portfolio
 Practicum field observation
 WA pedagogy assessment
2. Explain and apply
fundamental science
content concepts,
principles, and methods.
3. Demonstrate an ability
to effectively facilitate
learning for all students.









Page 127
Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, WEST-E content
assessment, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Major Field Test - Physics
Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses – population)
 All Physics BA
who are seeking
teaching
endorsement,
endorsement only,
and minor
students


When Assessed
(term, dates)



All Physics BA
who are seeking
teaching
endorsement,
endorsement only,
and minor
students

All Physics BA
who are seeking
teaching
endorsement,
endorsement only,
and minor
students





End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
3/15/2010
Standard of Mastery/ Criterion of
Achievement (How good does performance
have to be?)
 Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative
to associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
 SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
 All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
 Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative
to associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
 SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
 All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment



Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative
to associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Student Learning
Outcomes (performance,
knowledge, attitudes)
4. Create safe, effective
learning environments that
support inquiry,
collaboration, intellectual
risk-taking, ethical
decision-making, and
student construction of
knowledge.
Method(s) of Assessment
(What is the assessment?)




5. Demonstrate an ability
to assess teaching and
learning outcomes using
multiple methods,
effectively evaluate
teaching and learning
effectiveness, and improve
practice based on
reflection and data.

6. Demonstrate an ability
to make science personally
and socially relevant to
individual and community
by incorporating current
events within collaborative
and social networks.

Page 128






Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, WEST-E content
assessment, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment
Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses – population)
 All Physics BA
who are seeking
teaching
endorsement,
endorsement only,
and minor
students
Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment

Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
WA pedagogy assessment

When Assessed
(term, dates)



All Physics BA
who are seeking
teaching
endorsement,
endorsement only,
and minor
students

All Physics BA
who are seeking
teaching
endorsement,
endorsement only,
and minor
students





End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
SCED 324
Student
teaching
3/15/2010
Standard of Mastery/ Criterion of
Achievement (How good does performance
have to be?)
 Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative
to associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
 SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
 All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
 Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative
to associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
 SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
 All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
 Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative
to associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
 SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
 All standards met for WA Pedagogy
Assessment
Student Learning
Outcomes (performance,
knowledge, attitudes)
7. Participate in a variety
of activities that enhance
professional development
and improve teaching
effectiveness.
8.Demonstrate openmindedness and curiosity
that leads to continuous
improvement as a scientist
and a teacher.
Page 129
Method(s) of Assessment
(What is the assessment?)






Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
Science Program
major/minor teaching
portfolio, entry to and exit
from program survey
SCED 324 course portfolio
Practicum field observation
Who Assessed
(Students from what
courses – population)
 All Physics BA
who are seeking
teaching
endorsement,
endorsement only,
and minor
students

All Physics BA
who are seeking
teaching
endorsement,
endorsement only,
and minor
students
When Assessed
(term, dates)




End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
SCED 324
End of
major/minor
program,
prior to
student
teaching
SCED 324
3/15/2010
Standard of Mastery/ Criterion of
Achievement (How good does performance
have to be?)
 Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative
to associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
 SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
 Minimum requirement is proficiency for this
outcome. Student must provide suitable
evidence and reflect on performance relative
to associated NSES, NSTA, and WA Comp
standards.
 SCED 324 portfolio performance
benchmark proficiency
Appendix F: Department Assessment Reports
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: 2007-08
Department: Biological Sciences
Programs: B.S. Biology Teaching
College: COTS
1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
In answering this question, please identify the specific student learning outcomes you assessed
this year, reasons for assessing these outcomes, with the outcomes written in clear, measurable
terms, and note how the outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and
goals.
Our program felt it was important to assess all seven Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) to
provide a suitably detailed evaluation of student knowledge, skills, and disposition. Please refer
to Appendix A for a report of Biology Teaching SLO, criterion of mastery, and assessment
results.
Student Learning Outcomes:
1. Demonstrate an ability to individually and collaboratively engage in inquiry and integrate
the nature of science. (SCED goal 1, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 4, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
2. Explain and apply fundamental science content concepts, principles, and methods.
3. Demonstrate an ability to effectively facilitate learning for all students. (SCED Goal 1, 3,
5; COTS Goal 1, 4, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
4. Create safe, effective learning environments that support inquiry, collaboration,
intellectual risk-taking, ethical decision-making, and student construction of knowledge.
(SCED Goal 2, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
5. Demonstrate an ability to assess teaching and learning outcomes using multiple methods,
effectively evaluate teaching and learning effectiveness, and improve practice based on
reflection and data. (SCED Goal 1, 2, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 6, 7; CWU Goal 1, 6)
6. Demonstrate an ability to make science personally and socially relevant to individual and
community by incorporating current events within collaborative and social networks.
(SCED Goal 2, 3, 4, 7, 8; COTS Goal 1, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
7. Participate in a variety of activities that enhance professional development and improve
teaching effectiveness. (SCED Goal 1, 2, 4; COTS Goal 1, 5, 6; CWU Goal 4, 6)
Page 130
3/15/2010
These SLO were chosen because they reflect the criteria necessary to become an effective
biology teacher. The SLO were originally conceived through a consensus process by examining
commonalities in three sets of professional standards; National Science Education Standards for
Teaching, National Science Teacher Association Standards, and the Washington Competencies
for Biology. By using this approach, performance within the program also provides some
measure of how well students are able to meet professional standards.
2. How were they assessed?
In answering these questions, please concisely describe the specific methods used in assessing
student learning. Please also specify the population assessed, when the assessment took place,
and the standard of mastery (criterion) against which you will compare your assessment results.
If appropriate, please list survey or questionnaire response rate from total population.
A) What methods were used?
The Biology Teaching Program used a formative and summative assessment system comprised
of several elements:
1) Performance-based, standards-aligned electronic portfolio
2) WEST-E and Major Field Test content examinations
3) Entry and exit surveys
Biology Teaching Portfolio
The Biology Teaching portfolio was used to assess student knowledge, skills, and dispositions
relative to professional standards. The Biology Teaching Portfolio was built from a common
template collaboratively designed and constructed by members of the Department of Science
Education, with additional insight provided by content colleagues and K-12 teachers. The
portfolio framework was based on the latest scientific research on how people learn (National
Research Council, 2005), with assessment focused on: 1) determining student preconceptions, 2)
engaging students in authentic scientific inquiry, 3) developing and applying robust content
knowledge, and 4) promoting meta-cognitive awareness of teaching and learning process and
critical thinking.
Each portfolio element, or dimension, required a reflection and was closely aligned to Biology
Teaching SLO and professional standards. In an effort to promote critical thinking, students were
required to supply evidence they deemed suitable rather than those prescribed by faculty.
Students also had to justify their choice of evidence and progress toward meeting professional
standards in each reflection. The dimensions of the Biology Teaching portfolio (including
content strands) are indicated below:
1) Inquiry and Nature of Science
2) Content
a. Basic Biology
b. General and Organic Chemistry
c. Cell and Molecular Biology
d. Microbiology
Page 131
3/15/2010
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
e. Physiology
f. Ecology
g. Evolution
Teaching
Learning Environments
Assessment and Evaluation
Relevance
Professional Growth. The Content dimension is further subdivided into the major
disciplinary themes in biological science, and included:
WEST-E and MFT Exams
Student content knowledge was assessed in Science Education (WEST-E) and Biology (MFT)
disciplines. Minimum scores were required for both exams. Each student had to post total and
component scores (e.g. Ecology; Molecular Biology) in the Content dimension of the Biology
Teaching Portfolio. These scores were also tracked in a separate spreadsheet to identify areas of
strength and necessary development.
Entry and Exit Surveys
An entry to program survey was used to assess student demographics, disposition toward science
education, and program learning expectations. An exit survey was used to evaluate program
effectiveness, changes in disposition, and met/unmet learning expectations. A reflection
comparing entry and exit survey results was also required in the Biology Teaching portfolio.
Prior to being allowed to student teach, portfolios were evaluated by biology teaching faculty
using a standards-aligned rubric. Students had to demonstrate minimum proficiency for each
portfolio dimension. An advising hold that could only be removed by a biology teaching or
another Science Education faculty member was used to ensure compliance.
B) Who was assessed?
All eligible biology teaching majors, biology teaching certification and endorsement students.
C) When was it assessed?
Upper division coursework during the academic year, with final portfolio due prior to student
teaching. Portfolio was periodically evaluated during advising.
3. What was learned?
In answering this question, please report results in specific qualitative or quantitative terms,
with the results linked to the outcomes you assessed, and compared to the standard of mastery
(criterion) you noted above. Please also include a concise interpretation or analysis of the
results.
Please refer to Appendix A for detailed assessment results. Several points of strength and areas
for improvement emerged from assessment results, as follows:
Page 132
3/15/2010








Generally, the assessment methods employed provided meaningful insight into Biology
Teaching student knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
SLO were closely aligned to department, college, and university goals, and covered a
range of basic and advanced knowledge and skills. Disposition SLO were lacking.
Overall, Biology Teaching portfolio results indicated greater than 90% of candidates met
competency requirements.
Portfolio results were corroborated by and highly correlated with the 96% WEST-E pass
rate for Biology Teaching students.
Major Field Test results further showed that Biology Teaching students exceed national
percentile averages in all areas, including Cell Biology, Molecular Biology and Genetics,
Organismal Biology, and Population Biology, Evolution, and Ecology. Cell Biology had
the lowest percentile average, and indicated an area for potential improvement.
A more in-depth analysis of portfolio performance indicated a need for slight
improvement in independent research, some content areas (e.g. basic biology,
microbiology), promotion of diversity, and development of assessment skill.
Portfolio reflection scores were lower than evidence scores.
Survey results and advising discussion indicated that students achieved the majority of
their learning goals. Insufficient experience with assessment and evaluation and
classroom management were common criticisms. The relative absence of these and field
teaching experiences, particularly in College of Education courses, was a common
concern.
4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
In answering this question, please note specific changes to your program as they affect student
learning, and as they are related to results from the assessment process. If no changes are
planned, please describe why no changes are needed. In addition, how will the department
report the results and changes to internal and external constituents (e.g., advisory groups,
newsletters, forums, etc.).
Based on collected data, the following revisions to the Biology Teaching program are proposed:
Improvements for Student Learning



Add SLO that more explicitly address the development of professional values and
dispositions.
Provide more opportunities for students to experience authentic inquiry in introductory
science courses. If inquiry is important in K-12 schools (and it is), then more content
courses should model investigative science and focus on inquiry, not less.
Encourage submission of higher quality evidence in some content areas like
microbiology (lab reports on identifying unknowns are a good possible option). The
ability to choose and rationalize evidence is a key aspect of being a quality scientist; this
should extend into majors coursework.
Page 133
3/15/2010



Embed diversity to a greater extent in content and science education courses. Diversity is
a biological and social principle, and cultivating it should help to broaden perspective and
increase teaching effectiveness and employability.
Help students better learn how to assess and evaluate student learning. Students must
have the ability to design, align, and employ effective methods of assessment as an
integral part of K-12 accountability. Evidence indicates this is a deficit for many science
education students, and they feel it should be emphasized more in College of Education
courses. Regardless, greater emphasis on assessment can occur in science education
methods courses.
Help students better connect evidence to developmental progress. Greater emphasis on
metacognitive awareness will help students become better learners, which in turn should
improve job performance as professional teachers. Improvement in this area will be
important considering the increased emphasis on accountability in K-12 schools.
Improvements in Assessment Process



Some aspects of the Biology Teaching portfolio need greater specificity and should be
shared with students early in the program so they better understand what is expected.
Since the Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, and Physics Teaching portfolios are based
on a common template, it would be useful to compare across these programs to identify
overall trends in science teacher preparation.
The LiveText software used to collect student data is disconnected from Blackboard,
making it unnecessarily confusing for students and faculty. LiveText is limited in
features, and exploration of new options is recommended.
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s assessment
information?
In answering this question, please describe any changes that have been made to improve student
learning based on previous assessment results. Please also discuss any changes you have made
to your assessment plan or assessment methods.
This is the first year that annual assessment reports were required from each program at CWU.
Systematic implementation of assessment has been occurring in Biology Teaching (and Science
Education generally) for several years, partly in response to NCATE accreditation requirements,
which has prompted the following:
 Changes to the Biology introductory series that will be implemented beginning in the
2008-2009 academic year. A four-quarter introductory course sequence was streamlined
to a more integrated three-quarter sequence. This was partly done in response to program
review recommendations.
 New Washington competencies for biology teachers were introduced by the state last
year, which will require some realignment of the portfolio. Realignment is planned for
the 2008-2009 academic year.
Page 134
3/15/2010

A new SCED senior seminar course was implemented that replaces the BIOL 499.1
senior seminar course. The new course, which is required for all Biology, Chemistry,
Earth Science, and Physics Teaching majors, is more applicable to science educators.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Central
Washington University:
The Departments of Biological Sciences and Science Education recommend the following
changes to student learning assessment at CWU:
 Provide more opportunities for training and professional development for how to conduct
assessment. Graduate training typically does not include assessment; therefore it is
important to not assume faculty know why or how to conduct assessment. Many faculty
may experience a steep learning curve.
 The due dates for the annual Assessment Plans should correspond more closely with
annual departmental planning so that necessary changes have the greatest chance of being
implemented.
 Provide necessary infrastructure for program assessment. This may include financial and
intellectual resources including focused release time, collaboration, and dissemination of
best practices across colleges and departments.
 Effective sharing of materials should minimize the reinvention of the wheel, as it were.
Examples of rubrics (which will figure prominently in performance evaluations) should
be shared as most faculty do not know what rubrics are, why they are useful, or how to
make them.
 Each department should have an assessment coordinator with reasonable workload
release. This person should coordinate efforts, not remove assessment responsibility from
other faculty.
Page 135
3/15/2010
Appendix A – Biology Teaching Results Matrix
Student Learning Outcome
1. Demonstrate an ability to
individually and
collaboratively engage in
inquiry and integrate the
nature of science.
Criterion of Mastery
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
Assessment Results
Students assessed to date: 13
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED
324 portfolio.


Passing of WEST-E Biology
exam.
Portfolio dimension 1
proficiency:


Inquiry Artifact: 100%
Nature of Science
Artifact: 100%
Independent Research
Artifact: 86%
Dimension 1 Reflection:
100%
MFT Biology exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 136
3/15/2010
2. Explain and apply
fundamental science
content concepts,
principles, and methods.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
Students assessed to date: 13
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED
324 portfolio.

Passing of WEST-E Biology
exam.
MFT Biology exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Portfolio dimension 2
proficiency:







Basic Biology Artifact:
100%
General and Organic
Chemistry Artifact:
100%
Cell and Molecular
Biology Artifact: 100%
Microbiology Artifact:
100%
Physiology Artifact:
100%
Ecology Artifact: 100%
Evolution Artifact: 100%
Dimension 2 Reflection:
86%
MFT scores: Exceeds
national percentile in all
areas
-Cell: 51
-Molecular/Genetics: 55
-Organismal: 60
-Population/Evolution: 55
WEST-E passing scores:
96%
Page 137
3/15/2010
3. Demonstrate an ability to 100% average score of
effectively facilitate
Proficient or better for
learning for all students. portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED
324 portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Biology
exam.
Students assessed to date: 13
Portfolio dimension 3
proficiency:



SCED 324 Portfolio
Artifact: 100%
Other Teaching
Experience Artifact:
100%
Dimension 3 Reflection:
100%
MFT Biology exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
4. Create safe, effective
100% average score of
learning environments
Proficient or better for
that support inquiry,
portfolio dimension 1 and
collaboration, intellectual
associated reflection.
risk-taking, ethical
decision-making, and
100% average score of
student construction of
Proficient or better for
knowledge.
relevant aspects of SCED
324 portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Biology
exam.
MFT Biology exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
Students assessed to date: 13
Portfolio dimension 4
proficiency:





Collaborative Learning
Artifact: 100%
Diverse Learning
Artifact: 100%
Technology Artifact:
100%
Safety Artifact: 100%
Dimension 4 Reflection:
100%
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 138
3/15/2010
5. Demonstrate an ability to
assess teaching and
learning outcomes using
multiple methods,
effectively evaluate
teaching and learning
effectiveness, and
improve practice based
on reflection and data.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
Students assessed to date: 13
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED
324 portfolio.

Portfolio dimension 5
proficiency:


Passing of WEST-E Biology
exam.
Assessment of Student
Learning Artifact: 100%
Self Assessment of
Teaching Artifact: 100%
Dimension 5 Reflection:
100%
MFT Biology exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
6. Demonstrate an ability to 100% average score of
make science personally
Proficient or better for
and socially relevant to
portfolio dimension 1 and
individual and
associated reflection.
community by
incorporating current
100% average score of
events within
Proficient or better for
collaborative and social
relevant aspects of SCED
networks.
324 portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Biology
exam.
Students assessed to date: 13
Portfolio dimension 6
proficiency:



Incorporation of Current
Events Artifact: 89%
Community Involvement
Artifact: 100%
Dimension 6 Reflection:
100%
MFT Biology exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 139
3/15/2010
7. Participate in a variety of
activities that enhance
professional development
and improve teaching
effectiveness.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
Students assessed to date: 13
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED
324 portfolio.

Portfolio dimension 7
proficiency:

Professional
Membership Artifact:
100%
Dimension 7 Reflection:
88%
Passing of WEST-E Biology
exam.
MFT Biology exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 140
3/15/2010
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: 2008-09
Department: Biological Sciences
Programs: B.S. Biology Teaching
College: COTS
1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
In answering this question, please identify the specific student learning outcomes you assessed
this year, reasons for assessing these outcomes, with the outcomes written in clear, measurable
terms, and note how the outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and
goals.
Our program assesses all seven Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) to provide a suitably detailed
evaluation of student knowledge, skills, and disposition. Please refer to Appendix A for a
detailed report of Biology Teaching SLO, criterion of mastery, and assessment results.
Student Learning Outcomes:
1. Demonstrate an ability to individually and collaboratively engage in inquiry and integrate
the nature of science. (SCED goal 1, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 4, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
2. Explain and apply fundamental science content concepts, principles, and methods.
3. Demonstrate an ability to effectively facilitate learning for all students. (SCED Goal 1, 3,
5; COTS Goal 1, 4, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
4. Create safe, effective learning environments that support inquiry, collaboration,
intellectual risk-taking, ethical decision-making, and student construction of knowledge.
(SCED Goal 2, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
5. Demonstrate an ability to assess teaching and learning outcomes using multiple methods,
effectively evaluate teaching and learning effectiveness, and improve practice based on
reflection and data. (SCED Goal 1, 2, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 6, 7; CWU Goal 1, 6)
6. Demonstrate an ability to make science personally and socially relevant to individual and
community by incorporating current events within collaborative and social networks.
(SCED Goal 2, 3, 4, 7, 8; COTS Goal 1, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
7. Participate in a variety of activities that enhance professional development and improve
teaching effectiveness. (SCED Goal 1, 2, 4; COTS Goal 1, 5, 6; CWU Goal 4, 6)
These SLO were chosen because they reflect the criteria necessary to become an effective
biology teacher. The SLO were originally conceived through a consensus process by examining
Page 141
3/15/2010
commonalities in three sets of professional standards; National Science Education Standards for
Teaching, National Science Teacher Association Standards, and the Washington Competencies
for Biology. By using this approach, performance within the program also provides some
measure of how well students are able to meet professional standards.
2. How were they assessed?
In answering these questions, please concisely describe the specific methods used in assessing
student learning. Please also specify the population assessed, when the assessment took place,
and the standard of mastery (criterion) against which you will compare your assessment results.
If appropriate, please list survey or questionnaire response rate from total population.
A) What methods were used?
The Biology Teaching Program used a formative and summative assessment system comprised
of several elements:
1) Performance-based, standards-aligned electronic portfolio
2) WEST-E and Major Field Test content examinations
3) Entry and exit surveys
4) Teacher candidate performance spreadsheet
Biology Teaching Portfolio
The Biology Teaching portfolio was used to assess student knowledge, skills, and dispositions
relative to professional standards. The Biology Teaching Portfolio was built from a common
template collaboratively designed and constructed by members of the Department of Science
Education, with additional insight provided by content colleagues and K-12 teachers. The
portfolio framework was based on the latest scientific research on how people learn (National
Research Council, 2005), with assessment focused on: 1) determining student preconceptions, 2)
engaging students in authentic scientific inquiry, 3) developing and applying robust content
knowledge, and 4) promoting meta-cognitive awareness of teaching and learning process and
critical thinking.
Each portfolio element, or dimension, required a reflection and was closely aligned to Biology
Teaching SLO and professional standards. In an effort to promote critical thinking, students were
required to supply evidence they deemed suitable rather than those prescribed by faculty.
Students also had to justify their choice of evidence and progress toward meeting professional
standards in each reflection. The dimensions of the Biology Teaching portfolio (including
content strands) are indicated below:
1) Inquiry and Nature of Science
2) Content
a. Basic Biology
b. General and Organic Chemistry
c. Cell and Molecular Biology
d. Microbiology
e. Physiology
f. Ecology
Page 142
3/15/2010
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
g. Evolution
Teaching
Learning Environments
Assessment and Evaluation
Relevance
Professional Growth. The Content dimension is further subdivided into the major
disciplinary themes in biological science, and included:
WEST-E and MFT Exams
Student content knowledge was assessed in Science Education (WEST-E) and Biology (MFT)
disciplines. Minimum scores were required for both exams. Each student had to post total and
component scores (e.g. Ecology; Molecular Biology) in the Content dimension of the Biology
Teaching Portfolio. These scores were also tracked in a separate spreadsheet to identify areas of
performance strength and necessary development.
Entry and Exit Surveys
An entry to program survey was used to assess student demographics, disposition toward science
education, and program learning expectations. An exit survey was used to evaluate program
effectiveness, changes in disposition, and met/unmet learning expectations. A reflection
comparing entry and exit survey results was also required in the Biology Teaching portfolio.
Prior to being allowed to student teach, portfolios were evaluated by biology teaching faculty
using a standards-aligned rubric. Students had to demonstrate minimum proficiency for each
portfolio dimension. An advising hold that could be removed only by a biology teaching or
another Science Education faculty member was used to ensure compliance.
Teacher Candidate Performance Spreadsheet
A comprehensive spreadsheet was developed to track individual candidate performance and
identify performance trends across all candidates. A weighted calculation provides a composite
candidate score and includes performance on all portfolio dimensions, entry/exit surveys, and
content exams.
B) Who was assessed?
All eligible biology teaching majors, biology teaching certification and endorsement students.
C) When was it assessed?
Upper division coursework during the academic year, with final portfolio due prior to student
teaching. Portfolio was periodically evaluated during advising, and completed in the SCED 487
Teaching Secondary Science Seminar course.
Page 143
3/15/2010
3. What was learned?
In answering this question, please report results in specific qualitative or quantitative terms,
with the results linked to the outcomes you assessed, and compared to the standard of mastery
(criterion) you noted above. Please also include a concise interpretation or analysis of the
results.
Please refer to Appendix A for detailed assessment results. Several points of strength and areas
for improvement emerged from assessment results, as follows:








Generally, the assessment methods employed provided meaningful insight into Biology
Teaching student knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
SLO were closely aligned to department, college, and university goals, and covered a
range of basic and advanced knowledge and skills. Disposition SLO were lacking.
Overall, Biology Teaching portfolio and performance spreadsheet results indicated
greater than 95% of candidates met competency requirements.
Portfolio results were corroborated by and highly correlated with the 96% WEST-E pass
rate for Biology Teaching students.
Major Field Test results further showed that Biology Teaching students experienced
meaningful growth from last year to this year, including national percentile gains in Cell
Biology (51st to 60th rank), Molecular Biology and Genetics (55th to 60th rank),
Organismal Biology (60th to 65th rank), and Population Biology, Evolution, and Ecology
(55th to 63rd rank). Cell Biology and Molecular Biology and Genetics had the lowest
percentile average last year, and improved considerably.
A more in-depth analysis of portfolio performance indicated slight improvements in
independent research (85% to 94%), current issues (89% to 93%), and quality of content
and professional reflections (86% to 94%). Slight decreases were observed in evidence
quality for microbiology (100% to 94%), diversity (100% to 94%), and safety (100% to
93%).
Portfolio reflection scores more closely match evidence scores.
Survey results and advising discussion indicated that students achieved the majority of
their learning goals. Insufficient experience with assessment, evaluation, and classroom
management were common criticisms. The relative absence of these and field teaching
experiences, particularly in College of Education courses, was a consistent concern.
4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
In answering this question, please note specific changes to your program as they affect student
learning, and as they are related to results from the assessment process. If no changes are
planned, please describe why no changes are needed. In addition, how will the department
report the results and changes to internal and external constituents (e.g., advisory groups,
newsletters, forums, etc.).
Page 144
3/15/2010
Based on collected data, the following revisions to the Biology Teaching program are proposed:
Improvements for Student Learning






Add SLO that more explicitly address the development of professional values and
dispositions. This will be addressed as part of the program evaluation process.
Provide more opportunities for students to experience authentic inquiry in introductory
science courses. If inquiry is important in K-12 schools (and it is), then more content
courses should model investigative science and focus on inquiry, not less.
Encourage submission of additional, high-quality evidence in some content areas. In
some cases, students must draw from transferred courses, which sometimes provide lessthan-ideal evidence.
Embed diversity and safety to a greater extent in content and science education courses.
Diversity is a biological and social principle, and cultivating it should help to broaden
perspective and increase teaching effectiveness and employability. Safety is a legal
requirement, and must be properly maintained in K-12 classrooms.
Help students better learn how to assess and evaluate student learning. Students must
have the ability to design, align, and employ effective methods of assessment as an
integral part of K-12 accountability. Evidence indicates this is a deficit for many science
education students, and they feel it should be emphasized more in College of Education
courses. Regardless, greater emphasis on assessment can occur in science education
methods courses.
Help students better connect evidence to developmental progress. Greater emphasis on
developing metacognitive awareness will help students become better learners, which in
turn should improve job performance as professional teachers. Improvement in this area
will be important considering the increased emphasis on accountability in K-12 schools.
Improvements in Assessment Process



Entry and exit survey data corruption as a result of corporate negligence prompted
adoption of new survey tools. These are embedded directly within portfolios and should
reduce some of the administrative troubles, protect data quality, and facilitate analysis.
Since the Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, and Physics Teaching portfolios are based
on a common template, it would be useful to compare across these programs to identify
overall trends in science teacher preparation.
The LiveText software used to collect student data is insecure, suffers from performance
problems, and is disconnected from Blackboard, making it unnecessarily confusing for
students and faculty. Active exploration of better software options has begun.
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s assessment
information?
In answering this question, please describe any changes that have been made to improve student
learning based on previous assessment results. Please also discuss any changes you have made
to your assessment plan or assessment methods.
Page 145
3/15/2010
Revisions were made to entry and exit surveys to enable more streamlined and secure data
collection. A performance spreadsheet was designed and produced to track overall candidate
performance and identify trends in candidate strength and weakness. Systematic implementation
of assessment has been occurring in Biology Teaching (and Science Education generally) for
several years, partly in response to NCATE accreditation requirements, which has prompted the
following:
 Changes to the Biology introductory series were implemented beginning in the 20082009 academic year. A four-quarter introductory course sequence was streamlined to a
more integrated three-quarter sequence. This was partly done in response to program
review recommendations. Preliminary results indicate student preparation is of higher
quality.
 New Washington competencies for biology teachers, introduced by the state in late 2007,
required realignment of the portfolio. Realignment was completed in 2008-2009.
 A new SCED senior seminar course was implemented that replaces the BIOL 499.1
senior seminar course. The new course, which is required for all Biology, Chemistry,
Earth Science, and Physics Teaching majors, is more applicable to science educators.
Completion of the portfolio is a main focus of this course.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Central
Washington University:
The Departments of Biological Sciences and Science Education recommend the following
changes to student learning assessment at CWU:
 Coordinate assessment and other academic and administrative reports to reduce time
overhead. It should be possible to streamline assessment, reporting, and analysis of unit
and faculty performance.
 Provide more opportunities for training and professional development for how to conduct
assessment. Graduate training typically does not include assessment; therefore it is
important to not assume faculty know why or how to conduct assessment. Many faculty
may experience a steep learning curve.
 The due dates for the annual Assessment Plans should correspond more closely with
annual departmental planning so that necessary changes have the greatest chance of being
implemented.
 Provide necessary infrastructure for program assessment. This may include financial and
intellectual resources including focused release time, collaboration, and dissemination of
best practices across colleges and departments. Since it is unlikely that all faculty will
adequately participate in assessment, focus on developing and supporting areas of
excellence.
 Effective sharing of materials should minimize the reinvention of the wheel, as it were.
Examples of rubrics (which will figure prominently in performance evaluations) should
be shared as most faculty do not know what rubrics are, why they are useful, or how to
make them.
 Each department should have an assessment coordinator with reasonable workload
release. This person should coordinate efforts, not remove assessment responsibility from
other faculty.
Page 146
3/15/2010
Appendix A – Biology Teaching Results Matrix
Student Learning Outcome
1. Demonstrate an ability to
individually and
collaboratively engage in
inquiry and integrate the
nature of science.
Criterion of Mastery
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
Assessment Results
Students assessed to date: 16
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.


Passing of WEST-E Biology
exam.
Portfolio dimension 1
proficiency:


Inquiry Artifact: 100%
Nature of Science Artifact:
100%
Independent Research
Artifact: 92%*
Dimension 1 Reflection:
100%
MFT Biology exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
2. Explain and apply
fundamental science
content concepts,
principles, and methods.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
Students assessed to date: 16
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.

Passing of WEST-E Biology
exam.
MFT Biology exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Portfolio dimension 2
proficiency:







Basic Biology Artifact:
100%
General and Organic
Chemistry Artifact: 100%
Cell and Molecular
Biology Artifact: 100%
Microbiology Artifact:
94%*
Physiology Artifact: 100%
Ecology Artifact: 100%
Evolution Artifact: 100%
Dimension 2 Reflection:
94%*
MFT scores: Exceeds national
percentile in all areas
-Cell: 60*
-Molecular/Genetics: 60*
-Organismal: 65*
Page 147
3/15/2010
-Population/Evolution: 63*
WEST-E passing scores: 96%
3. Demonstrate an ability to
effectively facilitate
learning for all students.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
Students assessed to date: 16
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.

Portfolio dimension 3
proficiency:


Passing of WEST-E Biology
exam.
SCED 324 Portfolio
Artifact: 100%
Other Teaching
Experience Artifact: 100%
Dimension 3 Reflection:
100%
MFT Biology exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
4. Create safe, effective
learning environments that
support inquiry,
collaboration, intellectual
risk-taking, ethical
decision-making, and
student construction of
knowledge.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Biology
exam.
MFT Biology exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
Students assessed to date: 16
Portfolio dimension 4
proficiency:





Collaborative Learning
Artifact: 100%
Diverse Learning Artifact:
94%*
Technology Artifact:
100%
Safety Artifact: 94%*
Dimension 4 Reflection:
100%
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 148
3/15/2010
5. Demonstrate an ability to
assess teaching and
learning outcomes using
multiple methods,
effectively evaluate
teaching and learning
effectiveness, and improve
practice based on
reflection and data.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
Students assessed to date: 16
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.

Portfolio dimension 5
proficiency:


Passing of WEST-E Biology
exam.
Assessment of Student
Learning Artifact: 100%
Self Assessment of
Teaching Artifact: 100%
Dimension 5 Reflection:
100%
MFT Biology exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
6. Demonstrate an ability to
make science personally
and socially relevant to
individual and community
by incorporating current
events within collaborative 100% average score of
and social networks.
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Biology
exam.
Students assessed to date: 16
Portfolio dimension 6
proficiency:



Incorporation of Current
Events Artifact: 94%*
Community Involvement
Artifact: 100%
Dimension 6 Reflection:
100%
MFT Biology exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 149
3/15/2010
7. Participate in a variety of
activities that enhance
professional development
and improve teaching
effectiveness.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
Students assessed to date: 16
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.

Passing of WEST-E Biology
exam.
Portfolio dimension 7
proficiency:


Professional Membership
Artifact: 100%
Professional Growth
Artifact: 100%
Dimension 7 Reflection:
93%*
MFT Biology exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
*Bolded values with an asterisk indicate areas of focused improvement.
Page 150
3/15/2010
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: 2007-08
Department: Chemistry
Programs: B.A. Chemistry Teaching
College: COTS
1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
In answering this question, please identify the specific student learning outcomes you assessed
this year, reasons for assessing these outcomes, with the outcomes written in clear, measurable
terms, and note how the outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and
goals.
The Chemistry Department and Department of Science Education feels that it is important to
assess chemistry teaching majors in such a way that ensures quality. To do so, seven Student
Learning Outcomes (SLO) have been identified that provide a suitably detailed evaluation of
student knowledge, skills, and disposition. Please refer to Appendix A for a report of Chemistry
Teaching SLO, criterion of mastery, and assessment results.
Student Learning Outcomes:
1. Demonstrate an ability to individually and collaboratively engage in inquiry and integrate
the nature of science. (SCED goal 1, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 4, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
2. Explain and apply fundamental science content concepts, principles, and methods.
3. Demonstrate an ability to effectively facilitate learning for all students. (SCED Goal 1, 3,
5; COTS Goal 1, 4, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
4. Create safe, effective learning environments that support inquiry, collaboration,
intellectual risk-taking, ethical decision-making, and student construction of knowledge.
(SCED Goal 2, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
5. Demonstrate an ability to assess teaching and learning outcomes using multiple methods,
effectively evaluate teaching and learning effectiveness, and improve practice based on
reflection and data. (SCED Goal 1, 2, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 6, 7; CWU Goal 1, 6)
6. Demonstrate an ability to make science personally and socially relevant to individual and
community by incorporating current events within collaborative and social networks.
(SCED Goal 2, 3, 4, 7, 8; COTS Goal 1, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
7. Participate in a variety of activities that enhance professional development and improve
teaching effectiveness. (SCED Goal 1, 2, 4; COTS Goal 1, 5, 6; CWU Goal 4, 6)
Page 151
3/15/2010
These SLO were chosen because they reflect the criteria necessary to become an effective
chemistry teacher. The SLO were originally conceived through a consensus process by
examining commonalities in three sets of professional standards; National Science Education
Standards for Teaching, National Science Teacher Association Standards, and the Washington
Competencies for Chemistry. By using this approach, performance within the program also
provides some measure of how well students are able to meet professional standards.
2. How were they assessed?
In answering these questions, please concisely describe the specific methods used in assessing
student learning. Please also specify the population assessed, when the assessment took place,
and the standard of mastery (criterion) against which you will compare your assessment results.
If appropriate, please list survey or questionnaire response rate from total population.
A) What methods were used?
The Chemistry Teaching Program used a formative and summative assessment system
comprised of several elements:
1) Performance-based, standards-aligned electronic portfolio
2) WEST-E and American Chemical Society content examinations
3) Entry and exit surveys
Chemistry Teaching Portfolio
The Chemistry Teaching portfolio was used to assess student knowledge, skills, and dispositions
relative to professional standards. The Chemistry Teaching Portfolio was built from a common
template collaboratively designed and constructed by members of the Department of Science
Education, with additional insight provided by content colleagues and K-12 teachers. The
portfolio framework was based on the latest scientific research on how people learn (National
Research Council, 2005), with assessment focused on: 1) determining student preconceptions, 2)
engaging students in authentic scientific inquiry, 3) developing and applying robust content
knowledge, and 4) promoting meta-cognitive awareness of teaching and learning process and
critical thinking.
Each portfolio element, or dimension, required a reflection and was closely aligned to Chemistry
Teaching SLO and professional standards. In an effort to promote critical thinking, students were
required to supply evidence they deemed suitable rather than those prescribed by faculty.
Students also had to justify their choice of evidence and progress toward meeting professional
standards in each reflection. The dimensions of the Chemistry Teaching portfolio (including
content strands) are indicated below:
1) Inquiry and Nature of Science
2) Content
a. Analytical/Instrumental Chemistry
b. Organic Chemistry
c. Biochemistry
d. Inorganic Chemistry
e. Physical Chemistry
Page 152
3/15/2010
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
f. Application of Mathematics and Physics to Chemistry
Teaching
Learning Environments
Assessment and Evaluation
Relevance
Professional Growth. The Content dimension is further subdivided into the major
disciplinary themes in biological science, and included:
WEST-E and ACS Exams
Student content knowledge was assessed in Science Education (WEST-E) and American
Chemical Society disciplines. Minimum scores were required for all exams. Each student had to
post total and component scores in the Content dimension of the Chemistry Teaching Portfolio.
These scores were also tracked in a separate spreadsheet to identify areas of strength and
necessary development.
Entry and Exit Surveys
An entry to program survey was used to assess student demographics, disposition toward science
education, and program learning expectations. An exit survey was used to evaluate program
effectiveness, changes in disposition, and met/unmet learning expectations. A reflection
comparing entry and exit survey results was also required in the Chemistry Teaching portfolio.
Prior to being allowed to student teach, portfolios were evaluated by chemistry teaching faculty
using a standards-aligned rubric. Students had to demonstrate minimum proficiency for each
portfolio dimension. An advising hold that could only be removed by a chemistry teaching or
another Science Education faculty member was used to ensure compliance.
B) Who was assessed?
All eligible chemistry teaching majors, chemistry teaching certification, and endorsement
students.
C) When was it assessed?
Upper division coursework during the academic year, with final portfolio due prior to student
teaching. Portfolio was periodically evaluated during advising.
3. What was learned?
In answering this question, please report results in specific qualitative or quantitative terms,
with the results linked to the outcomes you assessed, and compared to the standard of mastery
(criterion) you noted above. Please also include a concise interpretation or analysis of the
results.
Please refer to Appendix A for detailed assessment results. Several points of strength and areas
for improvement emerged from assessment results, as follows:
Page 153
3/15/2010






All individuals, N=4, have completed the major program are in upwards of
exemplary/proficient of performing at state benchmarks and have either graduated, gone
on to student teach, or are currently employed. This suggests that 100% of graduating and
student teaching candidates are currently meeting competency requirements as indicated
by Chemistry Teaching portfolio results. These results are not entirely corroborated by
the WEST-E pass rate for Chemistry Teaching candidates, since one major has had some
difficulty in passing the Chemistry WEST-E several times over the past two years.
Therefore the WEST-E pass rate average is artificially low with the reported 43%.
Recurring difficulty in the area of Nuclear Chemistry has been identified as an issue with
both Chemistry Teaching Majors and Minors.
American Chemical Society content exam results show that the average of Chemistry
Teaching students scores are lower than the national percentile in areas of General
Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, and Analytical, with scores of 45.7%, 6.0%, and 30.5%,
resepectively. It should be noted that Physical Chemistry is observed as a consistently
high national percentile mean, 56.3%. There is not enough information from these four
majors in the areas of Biochemistry, Inorganic Chemistry, Instrumental Chemistry, and
Physical Chemistry. These data are consistent for all chemistry majors. With such a low
population, N=4, these data cannot be considered to be statistically significant.
Generally, the assessment methods employed provided meaningful insight into Chemistry
Teaching student knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
SLO were closely aligned to department, college, and university goals, and covered a
range of basic and advanced knowledge and skills. Disposition SLO were lacking.
Portfolio reflection scores were lower than artifact scores indicating that students need
more practice in writing reflections and describing how artifacts show that learning
outcomes have been met.
Survey results and advising discussion indicated that students achieved the majority of
their learning goals. Insufficient experience with assessment and evaluation and
classroom management were common criticisms. The relative absence of these and field
teaching experiences, particularly in College of Education courses, was a common
concern.
4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
In answering this question, please note specific changes to your program as they affect student
learning, and as they are related to results from the assessment process. If no changes are
planned, please describe why no changes are needed. In addition, how will the department
report the results and changes to internal and external constituents (e.g., advisory groups,
newsletters, forums, etc.).
Based on collected data, the following revisions to the Chemistry Teaching program are
proposed:
Improvements for Student Learning

Add SLO that more explicitly address the development of professional values and
dispositions.
Page 154
3/15/2010







Provide more opportunities for students to experience authentic scientific inquiry in
introductory science courses. If inquiry is important in K-12 schools, then more content
courses should model investigative science and focus on inquiry.
Steps have been taken to incorporate nuclear chemistry into the curriculum, after major
and minor West-E exam scores slumped in this area (average of 5.75 points out of 10.00
for majors). This information lead to the Chemistry Department’s Curriculum Committee
adjusting our CHEM 180 series scope and sequence of content. Now, nuclear content
knowledge is taught, where nuclear fission/fusion and radioisotopes are taught in the first
quarter, CHEM 181, and first order radioactive decay in the second quarter, CHEM 182,
of general chemistry.
Encourage submission of higher quality evidence in some content areas like nuclear
chemistry from either general or physical chemistry. This is a particular area of
deficiency when students report West E exam scores.
Embed use of current events and community involvement to a greater extent in content
and science education courses.
Help students better connect evidence to developmental progress. Greater emphasis on
metacognitive awareness will help students become better learners, which in turn should
improve job performance as professional teachers. Improvement in this area will be
important considering the increased emphasis on accountability in K-12 schools.
Help students better learn how to assess and evaluate student learning. Students must
have the ability to design, align, and employ effective methods of assessment as an
integral part of K-12 accountability. Evidence indicates this is a deficit for many science
education students, and they feel it should be emphasized more in College of Education
courses. Regardless, greater emphasis on assessment can occur in science education
methods courses.
Help students better connect evidence to developmental progress. Greater emphasis on
metacognitive awareness will help students become better learners, which in turn should
improve job performance as professional teachers. Improvement in this area will be
important considering the increased emphasis on accountability in K-12 schools.

Improvements in Assessment Process


The artificially low pass rate for Chemistry Endorsement on the WEST-E is 43%. Such a
low pass rate sent alarms to the Chemistry Department and Science Education Program.
We promptly asked for and quickly received data in the Winter Quarter of 2007 that
elucidated the situation for us. The low pass rate was due mainly to a single person who
was taking and retaking the WEST-E Chemistry exam multiple times, 5 times in total.
This act alone, with such a small number of students taking the Chemistry WEST-E from
CWU, decreased the pass rate significantly. Since this time, Chemistry Teaching
Advisors have communicated the importance of preparing for this exam with the majors
and minors. The advisors have also requested WEST-E information after every offering
state-wide so that they can be proactive in advising failing students to either better
prepare for the exam or advise them into an alternate career path.
Some aspects of the Chemistry Teaching portfolio need greater specificity and should be
shared with students early in the program so they better understand what is expected.
Page 155
3/15/2010


Since the Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, and Physics Teaching portfolios are based
on a common template, it would be useful to compare across these programs to identify
overall trends in science teacher preparation.
The LiveText software used to collect student data is disconnected from Blackboard,
making it unnecessarily confusing for students and faculty. LiveText is limited in
features, and exploration of new options is recommended.
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s assessment
information?
In answering this question, please describe any changes that have been made to improve student
learning based on previous assessment results. Please also discuss any changes you have made
to your assessment plan or assessment methods.
This is the first year that annual assessment reports were required from each program at CWU.
Systematic implementation of assessment has been occurring in Chemistry Teaching (and
Science Education generally) for several years, partly in response to NCATE accreditation
requirements, which has prompted the following:
 Changes to the Chemistry introductory series that will be implemented beginning in the
2008-2009 academic year. A three-quarter introductory lecture and lab sequence was
streamlined to a logical chemistry perspective by chemistry faculty. Also, lab manuals
have been re-written to integrate skills and tools of inquiry-based approach.
 New Washington competencies for Chemistry teachers were introduced by the state last
year, which will require some realignment of the portfolio. Realignment is planned for
the 2008-2009 academic year.
 A new SCED senior seminar course was implemented in 2007-2008. The new course,
which is required for all new Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, and Physics Teaching
majors, should provide scaffolding needed to better complete the portfolios – particularly
in the realm of appropriate writing for reflections and presentations of evidence.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Central
Washington University:
The Departments of Chemistry and Science Education recommend the following changes to
student learning assessment at CWU:
 Provide more opportunities for chemistry and science education faculty to collaborate
upon content and pedagogical courses so that the scope and sequence of coursework and
practicum offer all teaching majors what they need to be successful teachers while
meeting and exceeding national and state teaching standards.
 Provide more opportunities for training and professional development for how to conduct
assessment. Graduate training typically does not include assessment; therefore it is
important to not assume faculty know why or how to conduct assessment. Many faculty
members may experience a steep learning curve.
Page 156
3/15/2010




The due dates for the annual Assessment Plans should correspond more closely with
annual departmental planning so that necessary changes have the greatest chance of being
implemented.
Provide necessary infrastructure for program assessment. This may include financial and
intellectual resources including focused release time, collaboration, and dissemination of
best practices across colleges and departments.
Effective sharing of materials should minimize the reinvention of the wheel, as it were.
Examples of rubrics (which will figure prominently in performance evaluations) should
be shared as most faculty members are not highly familiar with the use of rubrics.
Each department should have an assessment coordinator with reasonable workload
release. This person should coordinate efforts, not remove assessment responsibility from
other faculty.
Appendix A – Chemistry Teaching Results Matrix
Student Learning Outcome
1. Demonstrate an ability
to individually and
collaboratively engage
in inquiry and integrate
the nature of science.
Criterion of Mastery
Assessment Results
Students assessed to date: 4
100% average score of Proficient
or better for portfolio dimension 1
Portfolio dimension 1
and associated reflection.
proficiency:
100% average score of Proficient
 Inquiry Artifact: %100
or better for relevant aspects of
 Nature of Science
SCED 324 portfolio.
Artifact: 100%
 Independent Research
Passing of WEST-E Chemistry
Artifact: 100%
exam.
 Dimension 1 Reflection:
American Chemical Society
100%
content exam scores consistent
with national averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
2. Explain and apply
fundamental science
content concepts,
principles, and
methods.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for portfolio Dimension
2 and associated reflection.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for relevant aspects of
SCED 324 portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Chemistry
exam.
American Chemical Society
content exam scores consistent
Page 157
Students assessed to date: 4
Portfolio dimension 2
proficiency:
 Analytical/Instrumental
Chemistry Artifact:
100%
 Organic Chemistry
Artifact: 100%
 Biochemistry Artifact:
100%
 Inorganic Chemistry
Artifact: 100%
3/15/2010
with acceptable national mean
averages.

All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.


Physcial Chemistry:
100%
Application of
Mathematics and
Physics to Chemistry
Artifact: 100%
Dimension 2 Reflection:
100%
WEST-E passing scores:
42.9%, Passing is 150 and
Total Mean is 151 with STD
at +/-15.6
American Chemical Society
content exam scores are
within acceptable National
percentile averages:
-General Chemistry: 45.6%
-Organic Chemistry: 16.0%
-Analytical: 30.5%
-Biochemistry: n/a
-Inorganic Chemistry: n/a
-Instrumental Chemistry:
n/a
-Physical Chemistry: 56.3%
3. Demonstrate an ability
to effectively facilitate
learning for all
students.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for portfolio Dimension
3 and associated reflection.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for relevant aspects of
SCED 324 portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Chemistry
exam.
American Chemical Society
content exam scores consistent
with national averages.
Students assessed to date: 4
Portfolio dimension 3
proficiency:



SCED 324 Portfolio
Artifact: 100%
Other Teaching
Experience Artifact:
100%
Dimension 3 Reflection:
100%
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 158
3/15/2010
4. Create safe, effective
learning environments
that support inquiry,
collaboration,
intellectual risk-taking,
ethical decision-making,
and student
construction of
knowledge.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for portfolio Dimension
4 and associated reflection.
Students assessed to date: 4
Portfolio dimension 4
proficiency:
100% average score of Proficient
or better for relevant aspects of
SCED 324 portfolio.

Passing of WEST-E Chemistry
exam.

American Chemical Society
content exam scores consistent
with national averages.



All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
5. Demonstrate an ability
to assess teaching and
learning outcomes using
multiple methods,
effectively evaluate
teaching and learning
effectiveness, and
improve practice based
on reflection and data.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for portfolio Dimension
5 and associated reflection.
Students assessed to date: 4
Portfolio dimension 5
proficiency:
100% average score of Proficient
or better for relevant aspects of
SCED 324 portfolio.

Passing of WEST-E Chemistry
exam.

American Chemical Society
content exam scores consistent
with national averages.
Collaborative Learning
Artifact: 100%
Diverse Learning
Artifact: 100%
Technology Artifact:
100%
Safety Artifact: 100%
Dimension 4 Reflection:
100%

Assessment of Student
Learning Artifact: 75%
Self Assessment of
Teaching Artifact: 100%
Dimension 5 Reflection:
100%
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 159
3/15/2010
6. Demonstrate an ability
to make science
personally and socially
relevant to individual
and community by
incorporating current
events within
collaborative and social
networks.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for portfolio Dimension
6 and associated reflection.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for relevant aspects of
SCED 324 portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Chemistry
exam.
American Chemical Society
content exam scores consistent
with national averages.
7. Participate in a variety
of activities that
enhance professional
development and
improve teaching
effectiveness.
Students assessed to date: 4
Portfolio dimension 6
proficiency:
 Incorporation of Current
Events Artifact: 100%
 Community
Involvement Artifact:
100%
 Dimension 6 Reflection:
100%
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for portfolio Dimension
7 and associated reflection.
Students assessed to date: 4
100% average score of Proficient
or better for relevant aspects of
SCED 324 portfolio.

Passing of WEST-E Chemistry
exam.
Portfolio dimension 7
proficiency:

Professional
Membership Artifact:
100%
Dimension 7 Reflection:
100%
American Chemical Society
content exam scores consistent
with national averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 160
3/15/2010
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: 2008-09
Department: Chemistry
Programs: B.A. Chemistry Teaching
College: COTS
1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
In answering this question, please identify the specific student learning outcomes you assessed
this year, reasons for assessing these outcomes, with the outcomes written in clear, measurable
terms, and note how the outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and
goals.
The Chemistry Department and Department of Science Education feel that it is important to
assess chemistry teaching majors in such a way that ensures quality. To do so, seven Student
Learning Outcomes (SLO) have been identified that provide a suitably detailed evaluation of
student knowledge, skills, and disposition. Please refer to Appendix A for a report of Chemistry
Teaching SLO, criterion of mastery, and assessment results.
Student Learning Outcomes:
1. Demonstrate an ability to individually and collaboratively engage in inquiry and integrate
the nature of science. (SCED goal 1, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 4, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
2. Explain and apply fundamental science content concepts, principles, and methods.
3. Demonstrate an ability to effectively facilitate learning for all students. (SCED Goal 1, 3,
5; COTS Goal 1, 4, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
4. Create safe, effective learning environments that support inquiry, collaboration,
intellectual risk-taking, ethical decision-making, and student construction of knowledge.
(SCED Goal 2, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
5. Demonstrate an ability to assess teaching and learning outcomes using multiple methods,
effectively evaluate teaching and learning effectiveness, and improve practice based on
reflection and data. (SCED Goal 1, 2, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 6, 7; CWU Goal 1, 6)
6. Demonstrate an ability to make science personally and socially relevant to individual and
community by incorporating current events within collaborative and social networks.
(SCED Goal 2, 3, 4, 7, 8; COTS Goal 1, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
7. Participate in a variety of activities that enhance professional development and improve
teaching effectiveness. (SCED Goal 1, 2, 4; COTS Goal 1, 5, 6; CWU Goal 4, 6)
Page 161
3/15/2010
These SLO were chosen because they reflect the criteria necessary to become an effective
chemistry teacher. The SLO were originally conceived through a consensus process by
examining commonalities in three sets of professional standards; National Science Education
Standards for Teaching, National Science Teacher Association Standards, and the Washington
Competencies for Chemistry. By using this approach, performance within the program also
provides some measure of how well students are able to meet professional standards.
2. How were they assessed?
In answering these questions, please concisely describe the specific methods used in assessing
student learning. Please also specify the population assessed, when the assessment took place,
and the standard of mastery (criterion) against which you will compare your assessment results.
If appropriate, please list survey or questionnaire response rate from total population.
A) What methods were used?
The Chemistry Teaching Program used a formative and summative assessment system
comprised of several elements:
4) Performance-based, standards-aligned electronic portfolio
5) WEST-E and American Chemical Society content examinations
6) Entry and exit surveys
Chemistry Teaching Portfolio
The Chemistry Teaching portfolio was used to assess student knowledge, skills, and dispositions
relative to professional standards. The Chemistry Teaching Portfolio was built from a common
template collaboratively designed and constructed by members of the Department of Science
Education, with additional insight provided by content colleagues and K-12 teachers. The
portfolio framework was based on the latest scientific research on how people learn (National
Research Council, 2005), with assessment focused on: 1) determining student preconceptions, 2)
engaging students in authentic scientific inquiry, 3) developing and applying robust content
knowledge, and 4) promoting meta-cognitive awareness of teaching and learning process and
critical thinking.
Each portfolio element, or dimension, required a reflection and was closely aligned to Chemistry
Teaching SLO and professional standards. In an effort to promote critical thinking, students were
required to supply evidence they deemed suitable rather than those prescribed by faculty.
Students also had to justify their choice of evidence and progress toward meeting professional
standards in each reflection. The dimensions of the Chemistry Teaching portfolio (including
content strands) are indicated below:
1) Inquiry and Nature of Science
2) Content
a. Analytical/Instrumental Chemistry
b. Organic Chemistry
c. Biochemistry
d. Inorganic Chemistry
e. Physical Chemistry
f. Application of Mathematics and Physics to Chemistry
Page 162
3/15/2010
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Teaching
Learning Environments
Assessment and Evaluation
Relevance
Professional Growth. The Content dimension is further subdivided into the major
disciplinary themes in biological science, and included:
WEST-E and MFT Exams
Student content knowledge was assessed in Science Education (WEST-E) and American
Chemical Society disciplines. Minimum scores were required for all exams. Each student had to
post total and component scores in the Content dimension of the Chemistry Teaching Portfolio.
These scores were also tracked in a separate spreadsheet to identify areas of strength and
necessary development.
Entry and Exit Surveys
An entry to program survey was used to assess student demographics, disposition toward science
education, and program learning expectations. An exit survey was used to evaluate program
effectiveness, changes in disposition, and met/unmet learning expectations. A reflection
comparing entry and exit survey results was also required in the Chemistry Teaching portfolio.
Prior to being allowed to student teach, portfolios were evaluated by chemistry teaching faculty
using a standards-aligned rubric. Students had to demonstrate minimum proficiency for each
portfolio dimension. An advising hold that could only be removed by a chemistry teaching or
another Science Education faculty member was used to ensure compliance.
B) Who was assessed?
All eligible chemistry teaching majors, chemistry teaching certification, and endorsement
students from the 2006-2007 academic year to date were assessed.
C) When was it assessed?
Upper division coursework during the academic year, with final portfolio due prior to student
teaching. Portfolio was periodically evaluated during advising.
3. What was learned?
In answering this question, please report results in specific qualitative or quantitative terms,
with the results linked to the outcomes you assessed, and compared to the standard of mastery
(criterion) you noted above. Please also include a concise interpretation or analysis of the
results.
Please refer to Appendix A for detailed assessment results. Several points of strength and areas
for improvement emerged from assessment results, as follows:
Page 163
3/15/2010






Five individuals from 2006-2007 academic year to date have completed the major
program. As a whole, candidates provided exemplary/proficient evidence of performing
at state benchmarks and have either graduated, gone on to student teach, or are currently
employed. This suggests that 100% of graduating and student teaching candidates are
currently meeting competency requirements as indicated by Chemistry Teaching
portfolio results. These results are not entirely corroborated by the WEST-E pass rate for
Chemistry Teaching candidates, since one major has had some difficulty in passing the
Chemistry WEST-E several times over the past two years. Therefore the WEST-E pass
rate average is artificially low with the reported 45.5%. Also, recurring difficulty in the
areas of Solutions and Solubility/Acid-Base Chemistry and Nuclear Chemistry have been
identified as an issue with both Chemistry Teaching Majors and Minors.
American Chemical Society content exam results show the average of Chemistry
Teaching students scores to be lower than the national percentile in most content areas. It
should be noted that Physical Chemistry is observed as consistently above the national
mean, 56.3%. Since several of the students assessed are transfer students, please note
that these data are incomplete and there is not enough information to draw any significant
conclusions.
Generally, the assessment methods employed provided meaningful insight into Chemistry
Teaching student knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
SLO were closely aligned to department, college, and university goals, and covered a
range of basic and advanced knowledge and skills. Disposition SLO were lacking.
Portfolio reflection scores were lower than artifact scores indicating that students need
more practice in writing reflections and describing how artifacts show that learning
outcomes have been met.
Survey results and advising discussion indicated that students achieved the majority of
their learning goals. Insufficient experience with assessment and evaluation and
classroom management were common criticisms. The relative absence of these and field
teaching experiences, particularly in College of Education courses, was a common
concern.
4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
In answering this question, please note specific changes to your program as they affect student
learning, and as they are related to results from the assessment process. If no changes are
planned, please describe why no changes are needed. In addition, how will the department
report the results and changes to internal and external constituents (e.g., advisory groups,
newsletters, forums, etc.).
Based on collected data, the following revisions to the Chemistry Teaching program are
proposed:
Page 164
3/15/2010
Improvements for Student Learning






Add SLO that more explicitly address the development of professional values and
dispositions.
Continue to provide more opportunities for students to experience authentic scientific
inquiry in introductory science courses. If inquiry is important in K-12 schools, then
more content courses should model investigative science and focus on inquiry.
Encourage submission of higher quality evidence in some content areas such as Solutions
and Solubility/Acid-Base Chemistry and Nuclear Chemistry.
Embed use of current events and community involvement to a greater extent in content
and science education courses. We will consider the addition of SCED 354 to the
Chemistry Teaching Major.
Help students better connect evidence to developmental progress. Greater emphasis on
metacognitive awareness will help students become better learners, which in turn should
improve job performance as professional teachers. Improvement in this area will be
important considering the increased emphasis on accountability in K-12 schools.
Help students better learn how to assess and evaluate student learning. Students must
have the ability to design, align, and employ effective methods of assessment as an
integral part of K-12 accountability. Evidence indicates this is a deficit for many science
education students, and they feel it should be emphasized more in College of Education
courses. Regardless, greater emphasis on assessment can occur in science education
methods courses.
Improvements in Assessment Process




The artificially low pass rate for Chemistry Endorsement on the WEST-E is 45.5%. Such
a low pass rate sent alarms to the Chemistry Department and Science Education
Department. We promptly asked for and quickly received data in the Winter Quarter of
2007 that elucidated the situation for us. The low pass rate was due mainly to a single
person who was taking and retaking the WEST-E Chemistry exam multiple times, 5
times in total. This act alone, with such a small number of students taking the Chemistry
WEST-E from CWU, decreased the pass rate significantly. Since this time, Chemistry
Teaching Advisors have communicated the importance of preparing for this exam with
the majors and minors. Since this time, advisors have received WEST-E information
after every offering state-wide so that we can be proactive in advising failing students to
either better prepare for the exam or advise them into an alternate career path.
Some aspects of the Chemistry Teaching portfolio need greater specificity and should be
shared with students early in the program so they better understand what is expected.
Since the Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, and Physics Teaching portfolios are based
on a common template, it would be useful to compare across these programs to identify
overall trends in science teacher preparation.
The LiveText software used to collect student data is disconnected from Blackboard,
making it unnecessarily confusing for students and faculty. LiveText is limited in
features, consistency, and availability of data. Exploration of new options for online
assessment software is highly recommended.
Page 165
3/15/2010
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s assessment
information?
In answering this question, please describe any changes that have been made to improve student
learning based on previous assessment results. Please also discuss any changes you have made
to your assessment plan or assessment methods.
This is the second year that annual assessment reports were required from each program at
CWU. Systematic implementation of assessment has been occurring in Chemistry Teaching
(and Science Education generally) for several years, partly in response to NCATE accreditation
requirements, which has prompted the following:
 Changes to the Chemistry introductory CHEM 180 series lecture and lab were
implemented in the 2008-2009 academic year. The CHEM 180 series scope and
sequence now reflects a more appropriate progression of concepts. Also, lab manuals
have been re-written to integrate skills and tools of an inquiry-based approach.
 Steps have been taken to incorporate Solutions and Solubility/Acid-Base Chemistry and
Nuclear Chemistry into the general chemistry lecture and laboratory curriculum, after
major and minor West-E exam scores slumped in this area in the Spring of 2008
(averaging 38.3% and 58% for majors, respectively). This information lead to the
Chemistry Department’s Curriculum Committee adjusting our CHEM 180 series scope
and sequence of content and incorporating more hands-on laboratory experimentation.
Now, nuclear chemistry is taught that incorporates nuclear fission/fusion and
radioisotopes in the first quarter, CHEM 181, and first order radioactive decay in the
second quarter, CHEM 182, of general chemistry. Also, analytical chemists in the
department were consulted about creating a two-part analytical chemistry laboratory that
challenges students in solving for molar concentrations and acid-base equilibria. We
hope that these changes to the curriculum will reflect positively in the West-E test scores
and we will continue to monitor student success.
 The End of Program Portfolio was aligned to the new Washington competencies for
Chemistry teachers.
 The new SCED senior seminar course (SCED 487) that was implemented in the 20072008 was a perceived success and continued the past academic year. Students completing
this course consistently provided better evidence and reflections in each of the secondary
science majors; however, the sample size is too small to draw any serious conclusions at
this point. This course is recommended for Chemistry Teaching majors.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Central
Washington University:
The Departments of Chemistry and Science Education recommend the following changes to
student learning assessment at CWU:
 Provide more opportunities for chemistry and science education faculty to collaborate
upon content and pedagogical courses so that the scope and sequence of coursework and
practicum offer all teaching majors what they need to be successful teachers while
meeting and exceeding national and state teaching standards.
Page 166
3/15/2010





Provide more opportunities for training and professional development for how to conduct
assessment. Graduate training typically does not include assessment; therefore it is
important to not assume faculty know why or how to conduct assessment. Many faculty
members may experience a steep learning curve.
The due dates for the annual Assessment Plans should correspond more closely with
annual departmental planning so that necessary changes have the greatest chance of being
implemented.
Provide necessary infrastructure for program assessment. This may include financial and
intellectual resources including focused release time, collaboration, and dissemination of
best practices across colleges and departments.
Effective sharing of materials should minimize the reinvention of the wheel, as it were.
Examples of rubrics (which will figure prominently in performance evaluations) should
be shared as most faculty members are not highly familiar with the use of rubrics.
Each department should have an assessment coordinator with reasonable workload
release. This person should coordinate efforts, not remove assessment responsibility from
other faculty.
Appendix A – Chemistry Teaching Results Matrix
Student Learning Outcome
1. Demonstrate an ability
to individually and
collaboratively engage
in inquiry and integrate
the nature of science.
Criterion of Mastery
Assessment Results
Students assessed to date: 5
100% average score of Proficient
or better for portfolio dimension 1
Portfolio dimension 1
and associated reflection.
proficiency:
100% average score of Proficient
 Inquiry Artifact: %100
or better for relevant aspects of
 Nature of Science
SCED 324 portfolio.
Artifact: 100%

Independent Research
Passing of WEST-E Chemistry
Artifact: 100%
exam.
 Dimension 1 Reflection:
American Chemical Society
100%
content exam scores consistent
with national averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 167
3/15/2010
2. Explain and apply
fundamental science
content concepts,
principles, and
methods.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for portfolio Dimension
2 and associated reflection.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for relevant aspects of
SCED 324 portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Chemistry
exam.
American Chemical Society
content exam scores consistent
with acceptable national mean
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Students assessed to date: 4
Portfolio dimension 2
proficiency:
 Analytical/Instrumental
Chemistry Artifact:
100%
 Organic Chemistry
Artifact: 100%
 Biochemistry Artifact:
100%
 Inorganic Chemistry
Artifact: 100%
 Physcial Chemistry:
100%
 Application of
Mathematics and
Physics to Chemistry
Artifact: 100%
 Dimension 2 Reflection:
100%
WEST-E passing scores:
45.5%, Passing is 150 and
Total Mean for passing
grades is 156.2 with a single
Standard Dev. at +/-1.64
American Chemical Society
content exam scores are
within acceptable National
percentile averages:
-General Chemistry: 45.7%
-Organic Chemistry: 16.0%
-Analytical: 21.33%
-Biochemistry: n/a
-Inorganic Chemistry: n/a
-Instrum. Chemistry: n/a
-Physical Chemistry: 56.3%
Page 168
3/15/2010
3. Demonstrate an ability
to effectively facilitate
learning for all
students.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for portfolio Dimension
3 and associated reflection.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for relevant aspects of
SCED 324 portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Chemistry
exam.
American Chemical Society
content exam scores consistent
with national averages.
4. Create safe, effective
learning environments
that support inquiry,
collaboration,
intellectual risk-taking,
ethical decision-making,
and student
construction of
knowledge.
Portfolio dimension 3
proficiency:



SCED 324 Portfolio
Artifact: 100%
Other Teaching
Experience Artifact:
100%
Dimension 3 Reflection:
100%
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for portfolio Dimension
4 and associated reflection.
Students assessed to date: 4
100% average score of Proficient
or better for relevant aspects of
SCED 324 portfolio.

Passing of WEST-E Chemistry
exam.

American Chemical Society
content exam scores consistent
with national averages.


All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 169
Students assessed to date: 4
Portfolio dimension 4
proficiency:

Collaborative Learning
Artifact: 100%
Diverse Learning
Artifact: 100%
Technology Artifact:
100%
Safety Artifact: 100%
Dimension 4 Reflection:
100%
3/15/2010
5. Demonstrate an ability
to assess teaching and
learning outcomes using
multiple methods,
effectively evaluate
teaching and learning
effectiveness, and
improve practice based
on reflection and data.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for portfolio Dimension
5 and associated reflection.
Students assessed to date: 4
Portfolio dimension 5
proficiency:
100% average score of Proficient
or better for relevant aspects of
SCED 324 portfolio.

Passing of WEST-E Chemistry
exam.

American Chemical Society
content exam scores consistent
with national averages.

Assessment of Student
Learning Artifact: 80%
Self Assessment of
Teaching Artifact: 100%
Dimension 5 Reflection:
100%
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
6. Demonstrate an ability
to make science
personally and socially
relevant to individual
and community by
incorporating current
events within
collaborative and social
networks.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for portfolio Dimension
6 and associated reflection.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for relevant aspects of
SCED 324 portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Chemistry
exam.
American Chemical Society
content exam scores consistent
with national averages.
Students assessed to date: 4
Portfolio dimension 6
proficiency:
 Incorporation of Current
Events Artifact: 100%
 Community
Involvement Artifact:
100%
 Dimension 6 Reflection:
100%
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 170
3/15/2010
7. Participate in a variety
of activities that
enhance professional
development and
improve teaching
effectiveness.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for portfolio Dimension
7 and associated reflection.
100% average score of Proficient
or better for relevant aspects of
SCED 324 portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Chemistry
exam.
Students assessed to date: 4
Portfolio dimension 7
proficiency:


Professional
Membership Artifact:
100%
Dimension 7 Reflection:
100%
American Chemical Society
content exam scores consistent
with national averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 171
3/15/2010
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: 2007-08
Department: Geological Sciences
Programs: B.A. Earth Science Teaching
College: COTS
1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
In answering this question, please identify the specific student learning outcomes you assessed
this year, reasons for assessing these outcomes, with the outcomes written in clear, measurable
terms, and note how the outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and
goals.
Our program felt it was important to assess all seven Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) to
provide a suitably detailed evaluation of student knowledge, skills, and disposition. Please refer
to Appendix A for a report of Earth Science Teaching SLO, criterion of mastery, and assessment
results.
Student Learning Outcomes:
1. Demonstrate an ability to individually and collaboratively engage in inquiry and integrate
the nature of science. (SCED goal 1, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 4, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
2. Explain and apply fundamental science content concepts, principles, and methods.
3. Demonstrate an ability to effectively facilitate learning for all students. (SCED Goal 1, 3,
5; COTS Goal 1, 4, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
4. Create safe, effective learning environments that support inquiry, collaboration,
intellectual risk-taking, ethical decision-making, and student construction of knowledge.
(SCED Goal 2, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
5. Demonstrate an ability to assess teaching and learning outcomes using multiple methods,
effectively evaluate teaching and learning effectiveness, and improve practice based on
reflection and data. (SCED Goal 1, 2, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 6, 7; CWU Goal 1, 6)
6. Demonstrate an ability to make science personally and socially relevant to individual and
community by incorporating current events within collaborative and social networks.
(SCED Goal 2, 3, 4, 7, 8; COTS Goal 1, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
7. Participate in a variety of activities that enhance professional development and improve
teaching effectiveness. (SCED Goal 1, 2, 4; COTS Goal 1, 5, 6; CWU Goal 4, 6)
Page 172
3/15/2010
These SLO were chosen because they reflect the criteria necessary to become an effective earth
science teacher. The SLO were originally conceived through a consensus process by examining
commonalities in three sets of professional standards; National Science Education Standards for
Teaching, National Science Teacher Association Standards, and the Washington Competencies
for Earth and Space Science. By using this approach, performance within the program also
provides some measure of how well students are able to meet professional standards.
2. How were they assessed?
In answering these questions, please concisely describe the specific methods used in assessing
student learning. Please also specify the population assessed, when the assessment took place,
and the standard of mastery (criterion) against which you will compare your assessment results.
If appropriate, please list survey or questionnaire response rate from total population.
A) What methods were used?
The Earth Science Teaching Program used a formative and summative assessment system
comprised of several elements:
1) Performance-based, standards-aligned electronic portfolio
2) WEST-E and Major Field Test content examinations
3) Entry and exit surveys
Earth Science Teaching Portfolio
The Earth Science Teaching portfolio was used to assess student knowledge, skills, and
dispositions relative to professional standards. The Earth Science Teaching Portfolio was built
from a common template collaboratively designed and constructed by members of the
Department of Science Education, with additional insight provided by content colleagues and K12 teachers. The portfolio framework was based on the latest scientific research on how people
learn (National Research Council, 2005), with assessment focused on: 1) determining student
preconceptions, 2) engaging students in authentic scientific inquiry, 3) developing and applying
robust content knowledge, and 4) promoting meta-cognitive awareness of teaching and learning
process and critical thinking.
Each portfolio element, or dimension, required a reflection and was closely aligned to Earth
Science Teaching SLO and professional standards. In an effort to promote critical thinking,
students were required to supply evidence they deemed suitable rather than those prescribed by
faculty. Students also had to justify their choice of evidence and progress toward meeting
professional standards in each reflection. The dimensions of the Earth Science Teaching
portfolio (including content strands) are indicated below:
1) Inquiry and Nature of Science
2) Content
a. Physical geology
b. Historical geology
c. Climate and meteorology
d. Astronomy and space science
e. Environmental geology
Page 173
3/15/2010
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
f. Field methods and scientific instrumentation
Teaching
Learning Environments
Assessment and Evaluation
Relevance
Professional Growth. The Content dimension is further subdivided into the major
disciplinary themes in biological science, and included:
WEST-E and MFT Exams
Student content knowledge was assessed in Science Education (WEST-E). Minimum scores
were required for the exam. Each student had to post total and component scores in the Content
dimension of the Earth Science Teaching Portfolio. These scores were also tracked in a separate
spreadsheet to identify areas of strength and necessary development.
Entry and Exit Surveys
An entry to program survey was used to assess student demographics, disposition toward science
education, and program learning expectations. An exit survey was used to evaluate program
effectiveness, changes in disposition, and met/unmet learning expectations. A reflection
comparing entry and exit survey results was also required in the Earth Science Teaching
portfolio.
Prior to being allowed to student teach, portfolios were evaluated by earth science teaching
faculty using a standards-aligned rubric. Students had to demonstrate minimum proficiency for
each portfolio dimension. An advising hold that could only be removed by a earth science
teaching or another Science Education faculty member was used to ensure compliance.
B) Who was assessed?
All eligible earth science teaching majors, earth science teaching certification and endorsement
students.
C) When was it assessed?
Upper division coursework during the academic year, with final portfolio due prior to student
teaching. Portfolio was periodically evaluated during advising.
3. What was learned?
In answering this question, please report results in specific qualitative or quantitative terms,
with the results linked to the outcomes you assessed, and compared to the standard of mastery
(criterion) you noted above. Please also include a concise interpretation or analysis of the
results.
Please refer to Appendix A for detailed assessment results. Several points of strength and areas
for improvement emerged from assessment results, as follows:
Page 174
3/15/2010







Generally, the assessment methods employed provided meaningful insight into Earth
Science Teaching student knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
SLO were closely aligned to department, college, and university goals, and covered a
range of basic and advanced knowledge and skills. Disposition SLO were lacking.
Overall, Earth Science Teaching portfolio results indicated that all candidates evaluated
under this method have ultimately met competency requirements of proficiency or higher
for each portfolio dimension. However some candidates were required to redo certain
portfolio sections to bring them to a proficiency level. The results included in this report
reflect the final portfolio evaluations.
Portfolio results were corroborated by and highly correlated with the 100% WEST-E pass
rate for Earth Science Teaching students.
A more in-depth analysis of portfolio performance indicated a need for improvement in
inquiry/nature of science, astronomy, safety, incorporation of current events, and
format/spelling/grammar.
Portfolio reflection scores were lower than artifact scores indicating that students need
more practice in writing reflections and describing how artifacts show that learning
outcomes have been met.
Survey results and advising discussion indicated that students achieved the majority of
their learning goals. Insufficient experience with assessment and evaluation and
classroom management were common criticisms. The relative absence of these and field
teaching experiences, particularly in College of Education courses, was a common
concern.
4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
In answering this question, please note specific changes to your program as they affect student
learning, and as they are related to results from the assessment process. If no changes are
planned, please describe why no changes are needed. In addition, how will the department
report the results and changes to internal and external constituents (e.g., advisory groups,
newsletters, forums, etc.).
Based on collected data, the following revisions to the Earth Science Teaching program are
proposed:
Improvements for Student Learning



Add SLO that more explicitly address the development of professional values and
dispositions.
Provide more opportunities for students to experience authentic inquiry in introductory
science courses. If inquiry is important in K-12 schools (and it is), then more content
courses should model investigative science and focus on inquiry, not less.
Encourage submission of higher quality evidence in some content areas, especially
astronomy. The ability to choose and rationalize evidence is a key aspect of being a
quality scientist; this should extend into majors coursework.
Page 175
3/15/2010


Embed use of current events and community involvement to a greater extent in content
and science education courses.
Help students better connect evidence to developmental progress. Greater emphasis on
metacognitive awareness will help students become better learners, which in turn should
improve job performance as professional teachers. Improvement in this area will be
important considering the increased emphasis on accountability in K-12 schools.
Improvements in Assessment Process



Some aspects of the Earth Science Teaching portfolio need greater specificity and should
be shared with students early in the program so they better understand what is expected.
Since the Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, and Physics Teaching portfolios are based
on a common template, it would be useful to compare across these programs to identify
overall trends in science teacher preparation.
The LiveText software used to collect student data is disconnected from Blackboard,
making it unnecessarily confusing for students and faculty. LiveText is limited in
features, and exploration of new options is recommended.
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s assessment
information?
In answering this question, please describe any changes that have been made to improve student
learning based on previous assessment results. Please also discuss any changes you have made
to your assessment plan or assessment methods.
This is the first year that annual assessment reports were required from each program at CWU.
Systematic implementation of assessment has been occurring in Earth Science Teaching (and
Science Education generally) for several years, partly in response to NCATE accreditation
requirements, which has prompted the following:
 New Washington competencies for earth and space science teachers were introduced by
the state last year, which will require some realignment of the portfolio. Realignment is
planned for the 2008-2009 academic year.
 A new SCED senior seminar course was implemented in 2007-2008. The new course,
which is required for all new Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, and Physics Teaching
majors, should provide scaffolding needed to better complete the portfolios – particularly
in the realm of appropriate writing for reflections and presentation of evidence.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Central
Washington University:
The Departments of Geological Sciences and Science Education recommend the following
changes to student learning assessment at CWU:
 Provide more opportunities for training and professional development for how to conduct
assessment. Graduate training typically does not include assessment; therefore it is
Page 176
3/15/2010




important to not assume faculty know why or how to conduct assessment. Many faculty
members may experience a steep learning curve.
The due dates for the annual Assessment Plans should correspond more closely with
annual departmental planning so that necessary changes have the greatest chance of being
implemented.
Provide necessary infrastructure for program assessment. This may include financial and
intellectual resources including focused release time, collaboration, and dissemination of
best practices across colleges and departments.
Effective sharing of materials should minimize the reinvention of the wheel, as it were.
Examples of rubrics (which will figure prominently in performance evaluations) should
be shared as most faculty members are not highly familiar with the use of rubrics.
Each department should have an assessment coordinator with reasonable workload
release. This person should coordinate efforts, not remove assessment responsibility from
other faculty.
Appendix A – Earth Science Teaching Results Matrix
Student Learning Outcome
1. Demonstrate an ability to
individually and
collaboratively engage in
inquiry and integrate the
nature of science.
Criterion of Mastery
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio Dimension 1
Assessment Results
Students assessed to date: 6
Portfolio Dimension 1
proficiency:
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.


Passing of WEST-E Earth and
Space Science exam.


All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
2. Explain and apply
fundamental science
content concepts,
principles, and methods.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio Dimension 2
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Earth and
Space Science exam.
Page 177
Inquiry Artifact: 100%
Nature of Science Artifact:
100%
Independent Research
Artifact: 100%
Dimension 1 Reflection:
100%
Students assessed to date: 6
Portfolio Dimension 2
proficiency:




Physical Geology Artifact:
100%
Historical Geology
Artifact: 100%
Climate and Meteorology
Artifact: 100%
Astronomy Artifact: 84 %
3/15/2010

All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.


Environment Geology
Artifact: 100%
Field Methods and
Scientific Instrumentation
Artifact: 100%
Dimension 2 Reflection:
100%
WEST-E passing scores:
100%
3. Demonstrate an ability to 100% average score of
effectively facilitate
Proficient or better for
learning for all students. portfolio Dimension 3
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Earth and
Space Science exam.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio Dimension 4
4. Create safe, effective
learning environments
that support inquiry,
collaboration, intellectual
risk-taking, ethical
100% average score of
decision-making, and
Proficient or better for
student construction of
relevant aspects of SCED 324
knowledge.
portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Earth and
Space Science exam.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 178
Students assessed to date: 6
Portfolio Dimension 3
proficiency:



SCED 324 Portfolio
Artifact: 100%
Other Teaching
Experience Artifact: 84%
Dimension 3 Reflection:
84%
Students assessed to date: 6
Portfolio Dimension 4
proficiency:





Collaborative Learning
Artifact: 100%
Diverse Learning Artifact:
100%
Technology Artifact:
100%
Safety Artifact: 100%
Dimension 4 Reflection:
84%
3/15/2010
5. Demonstrate an ability to
assess teaching and
learning outcomes using
multiple methods,
effectively evaluate
teaching and learning
effectiveness, and
improve practice based
on reflection and data.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio Dimension 5
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Earth and
Space Science exam.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
6. Demonstrate an ability to 100% average score of
make science personally
Proficient or better for
and socially relevant to
portfolio Dimension 6
individual and
community by
100% average score of
incorporating current
Proficient or better for
events within
relevant aspects of SCED 324
collaborative and social
portfolio.
networks.
Passing of WEST-E Earth and
Space Science exam.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
7. Participate in a variety of 100% average score of
activities that enhance
Proficient or better for
professional development portfolio Dimension 7
and improve teaching
effectiveness.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.
Students assessed to date: 6
Portfolio Dimension 5
proficiency:



Assessment of Student
Learning Artifact: 100%
Self Assessment of
Teaching Artifact: 100%
Dimension 5 Reflection:
100%
Students assessed to date: 6
Portfolio Dimension 6
proficiency:



Incorporation of Current
Events Artifact: 84%
Community Involvement
Artifact: 100%
Dimension 6 Reflection:
84%
Students assessed to date: 13
Portfolio Dimension 7
proficiency:


Professional Membership
Artifact: 100%
Dimension 7 Reflection:
100%
Passing of WEST-E Earth and
Space Science exam.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 179
3/15/2010
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: 2008-09
Department: Geological Sciences
Programs: B.A. Earth Science Teaching
College: COTS
1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
In answering this question, please identify the specific student learning outcomes you assessed
this year, reasons for assessing these outcomes, with the outcomes written in clear, measurable
terms, and note how the outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and
goals.
Our program felt it was important to assess all seven Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) to
provide a suitably detailed evaluation of student knowledge, skills, and disposition. Please refer
to Appendix A for a report of Earth Science Teaching SLO, criterion of mastery, and assessment
results.
Student Learning Outcomes:
1. Demonstrate an ability to individually and collaboratively engage in inquiry and integrate
the nature of science. (SCED goal 1, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 4, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
2. Explain and apply fundamental science content concepts, principles, and methods.
3. Demonstrate an ability to effectively facilitate learning for all students. (SCED Goal 1, 3,
5; COTS Goal 1, 4, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
4. Create safe, effective learning environments that support inquiry, collaboration,
intellectual risk-taking, ethical decision-making, and student construction of knowledge.
(SCED Goal 2, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
5. Demonstrate an ability to assess teaching and learning outcomes using multiple methods,
effectively evaluate teaching and learning effectiveness, and improve practice based on
reflection and data. (SCED Goal 1, 2, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 6, 7; CWU Goal 1, 6)
6. Demonstrate an ability to make science personally and socially relevant to individual and
community by incorporating current events within collaborative and social networks.
(SCED Goal 2, 3, 4, 7, 8; COTS Goal 1, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
7. Participate in a variety of activities that enhance professional development and improve
teaching effectiveness. (SCED Goal 1, 2, 4; COTS Goal 1, 5, 6; CWU Goal 4, 6)
Page 180
3/15/2010
These SLO were chosen because they reflect the criteria necessary to become an effective earth
science teacher. The SLO were originally conceived through a consensus process by examining
commonalities in three sets of professional standards; National Science Education Standards for
Teaching, National Science Teacher Association Standards, and the Washington Competencies
for Earth and Space Science. By using this approach, performance within the program also
provides some measure of how well students are able to meet professional standards.
2. How were they assessed?
In answering these questions, please concisely describe the specific methods used in assessing
student learning. Please also specify the population assessed, when the assessment took place,
and the standard of mastery (criterion) against which you will compare your assessment results.
If appropriate, please list survey or questionnaire response rate from total population.
A) What methods were used?
The Earth Science Teaching Program used a formative and summative assessment system
comprised of several elements:
1) Performance-based, standards-aligned electronic portfolio
2) WEST-E and Major Field Test content examinations
3) Entry and exit surveys
Earth Science Teaching Portfolio
The Earth Science Teaching portfolio was used to assess student knowledge, skills, and
dispositions relative to professional standards. The Earth Science Teaching Portfolio was built
from a common template collaboratively designed and constructed by members of the
Department of Science Education, with additional insight provided by content colleagues and K12 teachers. The portfolio framework was based on the latest scientific research on how people
learn (National Research Council, 2005), with assessment focused on: 1) determining student
preconceptions, 2) engaging students in authentic scientific inquiry, 3) developing and applying
robust content knowledge, and 4) promoting meta-cognitive awareness of teaching and learning
process and critical thinking.
Each portfolio element, or dimension, required a reflection and was closely aligned to Earth
Science Teaching SLO and professional standards. In an effort to promote critical thinking,
students were required to supply evidence they deemed suitable rather than those prescribed by
faculty. Students also had to justify their choice of evidence and progress toward meeting
professional standards in each reflection. The dimensions of the Earth Science Teaching
portfolio (including content strands) are indicated below:
Page 181
3/15/2010
1) Inquiry and Nature of Science
2) Content
a. Physical geology
b. Historical geology
c. Climate and meteorology
d. Astronomy and space science
e. Environmental geology
f. Field methods and scientific instrumentation
3) Teaching
4) Learning Environments
5) Assessment and Evaluation
6) Relevance
7) Professional Growth. The Content dimension is further subdivided into the major
disciplinary themes in biological science, and included:
WEST-E Exam
Student content knowledge was assessed in Science Education (WEST-E). Minimum scores
were required for the exam. Each student had to post total and component scores in the Content
dimension of the Earth Science Teaching Portfolio. These scores were also tracked in a separate
spreadsheet to identify areas of strength and necessary development.
Entry and Exit Surveys
An entry to program survey was used to assess student demographics, disposition toward science
education, and program learning expectations. An exit survey was used to evaluate program
effectiveness, changes in disposition, and met/unmet learning expectations. A reflection
comparing entry and exit survey results was also required in the Earth Science Teaching
portfolio.
Prior to being allowed to student teach, portfolios were evaluated by earth science teaching
faculty using a standards-aligned rubric. Students had to demonstrate minimum proficiency for
each portfolio dimension. An advising hold that could only be removed by a earth science
teaching or another Science Education faculty member was used to ensure compliance.
B) Who was assessed?
Compilation of all students assessed since 2006-7 academic year - all eligible earth science
teaching majors, earth science teaching certification and endorsement students.
C) When was it assessed?
Upper division coursework during the academic year, with final portfolio due prior to student
teaching. Portfolio was periodically evaluated during advising.
Page 182
3/15/2010
3. What was learned?
In answering this question, please report results in specific qualitative or quantitative terms,
with the results linked to the outcomes you assessed, and compared to the standard of mastery
(criterion) you noted above. Please also include a concise interpretation or analysis of the
results.
Please refer to Appendix A for detailed assessment results. Several points of strength and areas
for improvement emerged from assessment results, as follows:







Generally, the assessment methods employed provided meaningful insight into Earth
Science Teaching student knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
SLO were closely aligned to department, college, and university goals, and covered a
range of basic and advanced knowledge and skills. Disposition SLO were lacking.
Overall, Earth Science Teaching portfolio results indicated that all candidates evaluated
under this method have ultimately met competency requirements of proficiency or higher
for each portfolio dimension. However some candidates were required to redo certain
portfolio sections to bring them to a proficiency level. The results included in this report
reflect the final portfolio evaluations.
Portfolio results were corroborated by and highly correlated with the 100% WEST-E pass
rate for Earth Science Teaching students.
A more in-depth analysis of portfolio performance indicated a need for improvement in
astronomy, safety, incorporation of current events, and format/spelling/grammar.
Portfolio reflection scores were lower than artifact scores indicating that students need
more practice in writing reflections and describing how artifacts show that learning
outcomes have been met.
Survey results and advising discussion indicated that students achieved the majority of
their learning goals. Insufficient experience with assessment and evaluation and
classroom management were common criticisms. The relative absence of these and field
teaching experiences, particularly in College of Education courses, was a common
concern.
4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
In answering this question, please note specific changes to your program as they affect student
learning, and as they are related to results from the assessment process. If no changes are
planned, please describe why no changes are needed. In addition, how will the department
report the results and changes to internal and external constituents (e.g., advisory groups,
newsletters, forums, etc.).
Based on collected data, the following revisions to the Earth Science Teaching program are
proposed:
Page 183
3/15/2010
Improvements for Student Learning





Add SLO that more explicitly address the development of professional values and
dispositions.
Provide more opportunities for students to experience authentic inquiry in introductory
science courses. If inquiry is important in K-12 schools (and it is), then more content
courses should model investigative science and focus on inquiry, not less.
Encourage submission of higher quality evidence in some content areas, especially
astronomy. The ability to choose and rationalize evidence is a key aspect of being a
quality scientist; this should extend into majors coursework.
Embed use of current events and community involvement to a greater extent in content
and science education courses. We would like to add SCED 354 (Science, Society, and
the Teaching Community) to the Earth Science Teaching Major, but it unclear whether
than will be possible in light of program credit limits.
Help students better connect evidence to developmental progress. Greater emphasis on
metacognitive awareness will help students become better learners, which in turn should
improve job performance as professional teachers. Improvement in this area will be
important considering the increased emphasis on accountability in K-12 schools.
Improvements in Assessment Process



Some aspects of the Earth Science Teaching portfolio need greater specificity and should
be shared with students early in the program so they better understand what is expected.
Since the Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, and Physics Teaching portfolios are based
on a common template, it would be useful to compare across these programs to identify
overall trends in science teacher preparation.
The LiveText software used to collect student data is disconnected from Blackboard,
making it unnecessarily confusing for students and faculty. LiveText is limited in
features, and exploration of new options is recommended.
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s assessment
information?
In answering this question, please describe any changes that have been made to improve student
learning based on previous assessment results. Please also discuss any changes you have made
to your assessment plan or assessment methods.
This is the first year that annual assessment reports were required from each program at CWU.
Systematic implementation of assessment has been occurring in Earth Science Teaching (and
Science Education generally) for several years, partly in response to NCATE accreditation
requirements, which has prompted the following:
 New Washington competencies for earth and space science teachers were introduced by
the state in 2007 and the portfolio was realigned to match the new competencies for the
2008-2009 academic year. No students have yet been evaluated using the revised
portfolio because all student portfolios were underway already before the portfolio was
updated.
Page 184
3/15/2010

A new secondary science teaching capstone seminar course was implemented at an
optional level in 2007-2008 and became required in 2008-9. The seminar is surving as a
venue for providing scaffolding needed to better complete the portfolios – particularly in
the realm of appropriate writing for reflections and presentation of evidence. However,
only two students have completed Earth Science Portfolios while taking the capstone
seminar so it is too early to assess whether the seminar has definitely led to an
improvement in student learning and performance.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Central
Washington University:
The Departments of Geological Sciences and Science Education recommend the following
changes to student learning assessment at CWU:
 Provide more opportunities for training and professional development for how to conduct
assessment. Graduate training typically does not include assessment; therefore it is
important to not assume faculty know why or how to conduct assessment. Many faculty
members may experience a steep learning curve.
 The due dates for the annual Assessment Plans should correspond more closely with
annual departmental planning so that necessary changes have the greatest chance of being
implemented.
 Provide necessary infrastructure for program assessment. This may include financial and
intellectual resources including focused release time, collaboration, and dissemination of
best practices across colleges and departments.
 Effective sharing of materials should minimize the reinvention of the wheel, as it were.
Examples of rubrics (which will figure prominently in performance evaluations) should
be shared as most faculty members are not highly familiar with the use of rubrics.
 Each department should have an assessment coordinator with reasonable workload
release. This person should coordinate efforts, not remove assessment responsibility from
other faculty.
Page 185
3/15/2010
Appendix A – Earth Science Teaching Portfolio Results Matrix
Student Learning Outcome
Criterion of Mastery
1. Demonstrate an ability to 100% average score of
individually and
Proficient or better for
collaboratively engage in portfolio Dimension 1
inquiry and integrate the
nature of science.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Earth and
Space Science exam.
Assessment Results
Students assessed to date: 8
Portfolio Dimension 1
proficiency:




All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
2. Explain and apply
fundamental science
content concepts,
principles, and methods.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio Dimension 2
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Earth and
Space Science exam.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Inquiry Artifact: 100%
Nature of Science Artifact:
100%
Independent Research
Artifact: 100%
Dimension 1 Reflection:
100%
Students assessed to date: 8
Portfolio Dimension 2
proficiency:







Physical Geology Artifact:
100%
Historical Geology
Artifact: 100%
Climate and Meteorology
Artifact: 100%
Astronomy Artifact: 76 %
Environment Geology
Artifact: 100%
Field Methods and
Scientific Instrumentation
Artifact: 100%
Dimension 2 Reflection:
100%
WEST-E passing scores:
100%
Page 186
3/15/2010
3. Demonstrate an ability to 100% average score of
effectively facilitate
Proficient or better for
learning for all students. portfolio Dimension 3
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Earth and
Space Science exam.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio Dimension 4
4. Create safe, effective
learning environments
that support inquiry,
collaboration, intellectual
risk-taking, ethical
100% average score of
decision-making, and
Proficient or better for
student construction of
relevant aspects of SCED 324
knowledge.
portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Earth and
Space Science exam.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
5. Demonstrate an ability to
assess teaching and
learning outcomes using
multiple methods,
effectively evaluate
teaching and learning
effectiveness, and
improve practice based
on reflection and data.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio Dimension 5
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Earth and
Space Science exam.
Students assessed to date: 8
Portfolio Dimension 3
proficiency:



SCED 324 Portfolio
Artifact: 100%
Other Teaching
Experience Artifact: 88%
Dimension 3 Reflection:
88%
Students assessed to date: 8
Portfolio Dimension 4
proficiency:

Collaborative Learning
Artifact: 100%
 Diverse Learning Artifact:
100%
 Technology Artifact:
100%
 Safety Artifact: 100%
 Dimension 4 Reflection:
88%
Students assessed to date: 8
Portfolio Dimension 5
proficiency:



Assessment of Student
Learning Artifact: 100%
Self Assessment of
Teaching Artifact: 100%
Dimension 5 Reflection:
100%
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 187
3/15/2010
6. Demonstrate an ability to
make science personally
and socially relevant to
individual and
community by
incorporating current
events within
collaborative and social
networks.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio Dimension 6
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Earth and
Space Science exam.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
7. Participate in a variety of 100% average score of
activities that enhance
Proficient or better for
professional development portfolio Dimension 7
and improve teaching
effectiveness.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.
Students assessed to date: 8
Portfolio Dimension 6
proficiency:



Incorporation of Current
Events Artifact: 88%
Community Involvement
Artifact: 100%
Dimension 6 Reflection:
88%
Students assessed to date: 8
Portfolio Dimension 7
proficiency:


Professional Membership
Artifact: 100%
Dimension 7 Reflection:
100%
Passing of WEST-E Earth and
Space Science exam.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 188
3/15/2010
2008 Physics Major with Endorsement Electives
A separate assessment report was not generated in 2007-2008 for physics because the students
earning teaching endorsement are a subset of physics majors. There is no Physics Teaching
major. After this initial year of reporting, the Science Education faculty decided to do a specific
report for the physics majors that are teacher candidates. See the 2009 Physics Major with
Endorsement Electives report on the next page.
Page 189
3/15/2010
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: 2008-09
College: COTS
Department: Physics
Programs: Physics teaching (a subset of the Physics B.A.)
1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
In answering this question, please identify the specific student learning outcomes you assessed
this year, reasons for assessing these outcomes, with the outcomes written in clear, measurable
terms, and note how the outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and
goals.
Our program felt it was important to assess all seven Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) to
provide a suitably detailed evaluation of student knowledge, skills, and disposition. Please refer
to Appendix A for a report of Physics Teaching SLO, criterion of mastery, and assessment
results.
Student Learning Outcomes:
1. Demonstrate an ability to individually and collaboratively engage in inquiry and integrate
the nature of science. (SCED goal 1, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 4, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
2. Explain and apply fundamental science content concepts, principles, and methods.
3. Demonstrate an ability to effectively facilitate learning for all students. (SCED Goal 1, 3,
5; COTS Goal 1, 4, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
4. Create safe, effective learning environments that support inquiry, collaboration,
intellectual risk-taking, ethical decision-making, and student construction of knowledge.
(SCED Goal 2, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
5. Demonstrate an ability to assess teaching and learning outcomes using multiple methods,
effectively evaluate teaching and learning effectiveness, and improve practice based on
reflection and data. (SCED Goal 1, 2, 3, 4; COTS Goal 1, 6, 7; CWU Goal 1, 6)
6. Demonstrate an ability to make science personally and socially relevant to individual and
community by incorporating current events within collaborative and social networks.
(SCED Goal 2, 3, 4, 7, 8; COTS Goal 1, 6; CWU Goal 1, 6)
7. Participate in a variety of activities that enhance professional development and improve
teaching effectiveness. (SCED Goal 1, 2, 4; COTS Goal 1, 5, 6; CWU Goal 4, 6)
Page 190
3/15/2010
These SLO were chosen because they reflect the criteria necessary to become an effective
Physics teacher. The SLO were originally conceived through a consensus process by examining
commonalities in three sets of professional standards; National Science Education Standards for
Teaching, National Science Teacher Association Standards, and the Washington Competencies
for Physics. By using this approach, performance within the program also provides some
measure of how well students are able to meet professional standards.
2. How were they assessed?
In answering these questions, please concisely describe the specific methods used in assessing
student learning. Please also specify the population assessed, when the assessment took place,
and the standard of mastery (criterion) against which you will compare your assessment results.
If appropriate, please list survey or questionnaire response rate from total population.
A) What methods were used?
The Physics Teaching Program used a formative and summative assessment system comprised of
several elements:
1) Performance-based, standards-aligned electronic portfolio
2) WEST-E and Major Field Test content examinations
3) Entry and exit surveys
Physics Teaching Portfolio
The Physics Teaching portfolio was used to assess student knowledge, skills, and dispositions
relative to professional standards. The Physics Teaching Portfolio was built from a common
template collaboratively designed and constructed by members of the Department of Science
Education, with additional insight provided by content colleagues and K-12 teachers. The
portfolio framework was based on the latest scientific research on how people learn (National
Research Council, 2005), with assessment focused on: 1) determining student preconceptions, 2)
engaging students in authentic scientific inquiry, 3) developing and applying robust content
knowledge, and 4) promoting meta-cognitive awareness of teaching and learning process and
critical thinking.
Each portfolio element, or dimension, required a reflection and was closely aligned to Physics
Teaching SLO and professional standards. In an effort to promote critical thinking, students were
required to supply evidence they deemed suitable rather than those prescribed by faculty.
Students also had to justify their choice of evidence and progress toward meeting professional
standards in each reflection. The dimensions of the Physics Teaching portfolio (including content
strands) are indicated below:
1) Inquiry and Nature of Science
2) Content
g. Mathematics
h. Mechanics
i. Energy
j. Electricity and magnetic Fields
k. Wave Properties
Page 191
3/15/2010
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
l. Atomic and Nuclear Theory
Teaching
Learning Environments
Assessment and Evaluation
Relevance
Professional Growth. The Content dimension is further subdivided into the major
disciplinary themes in biological science, and included:
WEST-E and MFT Exams
Student content knowledge was assessed in Science Education (WEST-E) and Physics (MFT)
disciplines. Each student’s scores are posted in the Content dimension of the Physics Teaching
Portfolio. These scores were also tracked in a separate spreadsheet to identify areas of strength
and necessary development.
Entry and Exit Surveys
An entry to program survey was used to assess student demographics, disposition toward science
education, and program learning expectations. An exit survey was used to evaluate program
effectiveness, changes in disposition, and met/unmet learning expectations. A reflection
comparing entry and exit survey results was also required in the Physics Teaching portfolio. Due
to the switch over from the old version of Livetext two C1, the survey data for the two physics
teaching candidates was lost. The SCED assessment coordinator has created a new entry and exit
survey on Qualtrics that is independent of Livetext to help ensure future data is not lost.
Prior to being allowed to student teach, portfolios were evaluated by Physics teaching faculty
using a standards-aligned rubric. Students had to demonstrate minimum proficiency for each
portfolio dimension. An advising hold that could only be removed by a Physics teaching or
another Science Education faculty member was used to ensure compliance.
B) Who was assessed?
All eligible Physics teaching candidates, Physics teaching certification and endorsement
students.
C) When was it assessed?
The final portfolio was due prior to student teaching. Portfolio was periodically evaluated during
program.
3. What was learned?
In answering this question, please report results in specific qualitative or quantitative terms,
with the results linked to the outcomes you assessed, and compared to the standard of mastery
(criterion) you noted above. Please also include a concise interpretation or analysis of the
results.
Page 192
3/15/2010
Please refer to Appendix A for detailed assessment results. Several points of strength and areas
for improvement emerged from assessment results, as follows:








Generally, the assessment methods employed provided meaningful insight into Physics
Teaching student knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
SLO were closely aligned to department, college, and university goals, and covered a
range of basic and advanced knowledge and skills. Disposition SLO were lacking.
Overall, Physics Teaching portfolio results indicated 100% of candidates met
competency requirements.
While 100% of the students met competency requirements (at least proficient in all
areas), most criteria were either good or proficient and not excellent.
Portfolio results were corroborated by and highly correlated with the 100% WEST-E pass
rate for Physics Teaching students for whom scores are available.
Major Field Test results further showed that Physics Teaching students approached the
national percentile average.
A more in-depth analysis of portfolio performance indicated a need for slight
improvement in learning environments, assessment & evaluation, and relevance.
Portfolio reflection scores were lower than evidence scores.
4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
In answering this question, please note specific changes to your program as they affect student
learning, and as they are related to results from the assessment process. If no changes are
planned, please describe why no changes are needed. In addition, how will the department
report the results and changes to internal and external constituents (e.g., advisory groups,
newsletters, forums, etc.).
Based on collected data, the following revisions to the Physics Teaching program are proposed:
Improvements for Student Learning




Provide more opportunities for students to experience authentic inquiry in introductory
science courses. If inquiry is important in K-12 schools (and it is), then more content
courses should model investigative science and focus on inquiry, not less.
Encourage submission of higher quality evidence in some content areas. The ability to
choose and rationalize evidence is a key aspect of being a quality scientist; this should
extend into majors coursework.
Help students better learn how to assess and evaluate student learning. Students must
have the ability to design, align, and employ effective methods of assessment as an
integral part of K-12 accountability. Evidence indicates this is a deficit for many science
education students, and they feel it should be emphasized more in College of Education
courses. Regardless, greater emphasis on assessment can occur in science education
methods courses.
Help students better connect evidence to developmental progress. Greater emphasis on
metacognitive awareness will help students become better learners, which in turn should
Page 193
3/15/2010
improve job performance as professional teachers. Improvement in this area will be
important considering the increased emphasis on accountability in K-12 schools.
Improvements in Assessment Process



Some aspects of the Physics Teaching portfolio need greater specificity and should be
shared with students early in the program so they better understand what is expected.
Since the Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, and Physics Teaching portfolios are based
on a common template, it would be useful to compare across these programs to identify
overall trends in science teacher preparation.
The LiveText software used to collect student data is disconnected from Blackboard,
making it unnecessarily confusing for students and faculty. LiveText is limited in
features, and exploration of new options is recommended.
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s assessment
information?
In answering this question, please describe any changes that have been made to improve student
learning based on previous assessment results. Please also discuss any changes you have made
to your assessment plan or assessment methods.
This is the first year that physics teaching candidates have completed the Livetext portfolio. The
previous physics teaching candidates predate the Livetext portfolio. Systematic implementation
of assessment has been occurring in Physics Teaching (and Science Education generally) for
several years, partly in response to NCATE accreditation requirements, which has prompted the
following:
 A new SCED senior seminar course was implemented and added to the physics teaching
option of the physics B.A. degree. The new course, which is required for all Biology,
Chemistry, Earth Science, and Physics Teaching majors, is more applicable to science
educators.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Central
Washington University:
The Departments of Physics and Science Education recommend the following changes to student
learning assessment at CWU:
 Provide more opportunities for training and professional development for how to conduct
assessment. Graduate training typically does not include assessment; therefore it is
important to not assume faculty know why or how to conduct assessment. Many faculty
may experience a steep learning curve.
 The due dates for the annual Assessment Plans should correspond more closely with
annual departmental planning so that necessary changes have the greatest chance of being
implemented.
Page 194
3/15/2010



Provide necessary infrastructure for program assessment. This may include financial and
intellectual resources including focused release time, collaboration, and dissemination of
best practices across colleges and departments.
Effective sharing of materials should minimize the reinvention of the wheel, as it were.
Examples of rubrics (which will figure prominently in performance evaluations) should
be shared as most faculty do not know what rubrics are, why they are useful, or how to
make them.
Each department should have an assessment coordinator with reasonable workload
release. This person should coordinate efforts, not remove assessment responsibility from
other faculty.
Appendix A – Physics Teaching Results Matrix
Student Learning Outcome
1. Demonstrate an ability to
individually and
collaboratively engage in
inquiry and integrate the
nature of science.
Criterion of Mastery
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
Assessment Results
Students assessed to date: 2
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.


Passing of WEST-E Physics
exam.
Portfolio dimension 1
proficiency:


Inquiry Artifact: 100%
Nature of Science Artifact:
100%
Independent Research
Artifact: 100%
Dimension 1 Reflection:
100%
MFT Physics exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
2. Explain and apply
fundamental science
content concepts,
principles, and methods.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
Students assessed to date: 2
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.

Passing of WEST-E Physics
exam.
Page 195
Portfolio dimension 2
proficiency:




Mathematics Artifact:
100%
Mechanics Artifact: 100%
Energy Artifact: 100%
Electricity and Magnetic
Fields Artifact: 100%
Wave Properties Artifact:
100%
3/15/2010
MFT Physics exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.


Atomic and Nuclear
Theory Artifact: 100%
Dimension 2 Reflection:
100%
MFT scores: Average 48th
percentile
WEST-E passing scores:
100%
3. Demonstrate an ability to
effectively facilitate
learning for all students.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
Students assessed to date: 2
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.

Passing of WEST-E Physics
exam.
Portfolio dimension 3
proficiency:


SCED 324 Portfolio
Artifact: 100%
Other Teaching
Experience Artifact: 100%
Dimension 3 Reflection:
100%
MFT Physics exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 196
3/15/2010
4. Create safe, effective
learning environments that
support inquiry,
collaboration, intellectual
risk-taking, ethical
decision-making, and
student construction of
knowledge.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
Students assessed to date: 2
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.

Passing of WEST-E Physics
exam.
MFT Physics exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
5. Demonstrate an ability to
assess teaching and
learning outcomes using
multiple methods,
effectively evaluate
teaching and learning
effectiveness, and improve
practice based on
reflection and data.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.
Passing of WEST-E Physics
exam.
Portfolio dimension 4
proficiency:




Collaborative Learning
Artifact: 100%
Diverse Learning Artifact:
100%
Technology Artifact:
100%
Safety Artifact: 100%
Dimension 4 Reflection:
100%
Students assessed to date: 2
Portfolio dimension 5
proficiency:



Assessment of Student
Learning Artifact: 100%
Self Assessment of
Teaching Artifact: 100%
Dimension 5 Reflection:
100%
MFT Physics exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 197
3/15/2010
6. Demonstrate an ability to
make science personally
and socially relevant to
individual and community
by incorporating current
events within collaborative
and social networks.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
Students assessed to date: 2
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.

Portfolio dimension 6
proficiency:


Passing of WEST-E Physics
exam.
Incorporation of Current
Events Artifact: 100%
Community Involvement
Artifact: 100%
Dimension 6 Reflection:
100%
MFT Physics exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
7. Participate in a variety of
activities that enhance
professional development
and improve teaching
effectiveness.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
portfolio dimension 1 and
associated reflection.
100% average score of
Proficient or better for
relevant aspects of SCED 324
portfolio.
Students assessed to date: 2
Portfolio dimension 7
proficiency:


Professional Membership
Artifact: 100%
Dimension 7 Reflection:
100%
Passing of WEST-E Physics
exam.
MFT Physics exam scores
consistent with national
averages.
All standards met for WA
Pedagogy Assessment.
Page 198
3/15/2010
Appendix G: Faculty Vitae
Vanessa L. Hunt
Central Washington University – Des Moines
Department of Science Education
P.O. Box 13490, Des Moines, WA 98198-1007
Phone: Office 206-439-3800 ext. 3822; Cell 337-244-4210
Fax: 206-463-5710 │ E-mail: huntv@cwu.edu
EDUCATION
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Ph.D. in Curriculum & Instruction, August 2006
Dissertation: Art Informing Science Education: The Potential Contributions of Ornithological
Illustration to Ecology Education. Advisor: Dr. James H. Wandersee
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Master of Natural Science, May 2002
Area of Concentration: Marine Community Ecology
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
BA Natural Sciences, December 1989
PROFESSIONAL PO SITIONS
Assistant Professor, Biological Sciences and Science Education.
Science Education Program Director, CWU – Des Moines
Central Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington
June 2008 – Present
Courses taught: Seven general and advanced science methods courses for pre-service
elementary and middle school teachers. Director of science education program at satellite
campuses in metropolitan Seattle area.
Senior Lecturer and Field Supervisor, Secondary Science Teacher Certification
University of Washington, Tacoma.
January 2010 – Present
Field placement and supervision of student interns in graduate Secondary Science Certification
program. Presentation of reflective seminar.
Page 199
3/15/2010
Assistant Professor, Biological & Environmental Sciences
McNeese State University, Lake Charles, Louisiana
August 2006 – May 2008
Courses taught: Mammalogy; Vertebrate Zoology.; Introductory Biology lecture and laboratory
courses. Advising of upper-level students in biology education program. Supervision of senior
student independent research projects. Curator of Seale Vertebrate Museum.
Biology Instructor
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
August 2002 – August 2006
Courses taught: Plant Taxonomy; Wetland Plant Taxonomy and Ecology; Human Physiology
(non-majors); Honors Zoology; General Introductory Biology (majors); General Introductory
Biology for Science Education Majors; General Introductory Biology (non-majors).
Curator of Science Education, Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University.
July 1999 - July 2000; July 2001 - July 2002.
Developed and taught science workshops for teachers and pre-service teachers, taught natural
history classes for the visiting public. Developed and implemented grade school science
curricula for non-public schools. Edited monthly and quarterly natural history publications for
the educational community. Designed and constructed exhibits around the theme of animals in
art.
Elementary School Science Coordinator. Horizon Schools, Scottsdale, Arizona.
August 2000 - June 2001
Developed curriculum units and lesson plans in earth science, astronomy and botany (grades 1 5) for a 5-campus charter school system. Taught second and third grade math and science at
two campuses.
Science and Math Tutor, Baton Rouge Community College.
August 1998 - June 1999.
Tutored community college students in mathematics, physics and chemistry on referral from
academic services office.
High School Science Teacher, Louisiana Public Schools.
January 1996 - June 1998.
Taught algebra, geometry, physical science, physics and chemistry to grades 9 through 12.
Education Coordinator, Sherkin Island Marine Station, Republic of Ireland.
January 1995 - December 1995. Designed and implemented marine and environmental
outreach programs for schools and the public. Maintained exhibit center and developed
traveling exhibits.
Page 200
3/15/2010
Research Associate, Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, Louisiana State
University.
August 1991 - December 1995
Co-wrote and implemented grant proposals for offshore fisheries research relating to hydroacoustics, life-histories and reproductive ecology of Red Snapper and Menhaden. Participated
in extensive fieldwork on other departmental projects including surveys of coastal fishes,
surveys of benthos and zooplankton associated with oil platforms, and use of microhabitats in
coastal marshes.
Research Associate and Laboratory Instructor, Department of Biology, University of South
Florida.
January 1989 - June 1991.
Conducted two year monitoring project (fishes, benthos, and sediments) of Old Tampa Bay,
Florida. Involved in grant writing, fieldwork, laboratory identifications and analyses,
construction of project database and production of quarterly and annual reports. Participated
in diving surveys of coral reef fishes and laboratory work on the mechanics of feeding in the
lemon shark. Certified student divers for participation in departmental ichthyology projects.
Taught laboratory sections of ecology, invertebrate zoology and ichthyology as needed.
SCHOLARLY INT EREST S – CURRENT PROJECT S
Environmental Education: In collaboration with Highline Community College Marine Science &
Technology Center: Development of materials to improve teacher knowledge of the marine
and freshwater environments, and designing content-dense field and classroom experiences
for middle level and secondary students
Role of Imagery in Engagement with and Learning of Science: In collaboration with Debbie
Muthersbaugh and Anne Kern of College of Education, University of Idaho. An investigation of
student thinking and meaning-making in selection and creation of images for photo essay
assignments in environmental science.
Influences of Field Trips and Extracurricular Experiences on Student Perceptions of Science: In
collaboration with mentors, fellows and teachers of the Yakima WATERS project at Central
Washington University. Investigation of the aspects of a structured field trip that appear to be
effective in improving 10th grade students’ perceptions of science.
Employment of Video-Microscopy Tools in the Elementary Science Classroom: In
collaboration with Adrienne Lopez of the Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State
University, and Star Lake Elementary School, Federal Way, WA. An assessment of the impact of
curricular materials developed for use with hand-held video microscopes.
Page 201
3/15/2010
PUBLICATIONS
Hunt, V. and Sheldon, F. H. (2009). The Wildlife Art of H. Douglas Pratt. Invited essay. Treasures
of LSU. Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press.
Hunt, V. (2004). Trial by Science: A Forensic Extravaganza. Science Scope. May 2004.
Accepted:
Hunt, V, 2009. Aesthetic Seeing in the Biology Classroom: Understanding, Selecting and Utilizing
Ornithological Images to Promote Engagement and Learning in Ecology. Electronic publication.
Teachers of Teachers of Science.
Submitted:
Hunt, V., Sorey, T., Balandova, E. and Palmquist,B. (2009). Juan’s Dilemma! An Electrochemical
Twist on the Lemon Battery. The Science Teacher.
In Preparation:
Hunt, V., Higley, R. and Sorey, T. Biosphere III: Student-Designed Self-Sustaining Marine
Ecosystems. The American Biology Teacher.
Hunt, V. Stories of Science: Education Majors Bring a Personal Perspective to College Biology
Classes. Journal of Research in Science Education.
Conference Proceedings
Hunt, V. and Kurtz, M. Science, Society, and the Teaching Community: An Approach to
Improving and Expanding the Scientific Literacy of Pre-service Science Teachers. In Association
for Science Teacher Education 2010 International Conference Proceedings. Sacramento, CA:
ASTE
PRESENTATIONS
International:
Hunt, V. and Kurtz, M. Science, Society, and the Teaching Community: An Approach to
Improving and Expanding the Scientific Literacy of Pre-service Science Teachers. Association of
Science Teacher Educators 2010 International Conference, Sacramento, CA. January, 2010.
Hunt, V. The Virtual Microscope. National Association of Biology Teachers 2008 Professional
Development Conference, Memphis, TN. October, 2008
Page 202
3/15/2010
Hunt, V. Stories of Science: Education Majors Bring a Personal Perspective to Science Lessons.
National Association of Biology Teachers Professional Development Conference, Atlanta,
Georgia. November, 2007.
Hunt, V. Using Online Images of Birds in the High School and College Biology Classroom:
Materials and Ideas for Instruction, Activities, and Assessment in Ecology. Workshop presented
at 2000 National Association of Biology Teachers Professional Development Conference,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, October, 2006.
Hunt, V. Values and Visions: How Ornithological Illustrators Exemplify the Highly Developed
Naturalist Intelligence. 2005 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting,
Montreal, Canada. April 2005
Hunt, V. Video-Probe Microscopy in the Introductory Biology Laboratory 15th International Conference
on College Teaching and Learning, Jacksonville, Florida. March, 2004
Hunt, V. Enhancing Microscopy Learning with Computers in the Introductory Biology
Laboratory. 14th International Conference on College Teaching and Learning, Jacksonville,
Florida. April, 2003
National:
Hunt, V. Naturalist Values in the Contemporary Culture of Science. Collegium on Science and
Religion Conference, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. November, 2006
Regional :
Hunt, V. The Long Story of Men, Birds, Science, and Art . Teachers of Teachers of Science
Annual Conference, Spokane, WA. May 2008.
Kurtz, M.J. and Hunt, V. Science, Society, and the Teaching Community: Engaging Pre-Service
Science Teachers. Teachers of Teachers of Science Annual Conference, Spokane, WA. May 2008.
Hunt, V. Three Hundred Years of American Ornithological Art. Louisiana State Museum, Baton
Rouge. January, 2008.
Hunt, V. Seven Hundred Years of Ornithology Revealed in Bird Paintings. Keynote presentation,
Louisiana Ornithological Society Annual Meeting, Creole, Louisiana. October, 2007
Hunt, V. Great Observations: Some Contributions of Ornithological Illustrators to Field
Ornithology. Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University. February 9, 2007
Page 203
3/15/2010
ACADEMIC SERVICE
PhD Committee Member for Debbie Muthersbaugh, Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction,
University of Idaho. September 2009 – present.
Steering Committee, Highline Community College Marine Science & Technology Center. August
2009 – present.
Professional Education Program Revision Learning Theories Sub-Committee. Feb. 2009-May
2009
Kent Site Director Interview Committee, Central Washington University. December 2008 –
March 2009
Director, Science Education Program Director, Central Washington University, Kent Campus.
September 2008 – present.
Curator, Seale Vertebrate Museum, McNeese State University, 2006 - 2008
Member, Non-majors Curriculum Committee, Dept. of Biological & Environmental Sciences,
McNeese State University. 2006 - 2008
Facilitator, Instructional Development Program, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Louisiana State
University. 2003 – 2006
Proposal Reviewer, Science Education Division, American Educational Research Association.
2003 - 2004
Exposition Organizer, Baton Rouge Area Museum Association. 2001
Seminar Chair, Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University. 1999 – 2000
Seminar Chair, Department of Oceanography, Louisiana State University. 1995 – 1996
HONORS AND AWARDS
Freshman Biology Teaching Award, Louisiana State University. 2005
Best Graduate Student Presentation.
15th International Conference on College Teaching and Learning, Jacksonville, Florida. 2004
Page 204
3/15/2010
Audubon Society Travel and Research Award. 2000
Shoals Marine Laboratory Summer Scholarship, Cornell University. 1999
Hafner Service Award, Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University. 1999
PROFESSIONAL MEMB ERS HIPS
National Marine Educators Association. Member since 2009.
North American Association of Environmental Educators. Member since 2008.
Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology. Member since 2008.
Association of Southwestern Naturalists. Member since 2006.
American Educational Research Association. Member since 2003.
National Association of Science Teachers. Member since 2002.
National Association of Biology Teachers. Member since 1999.
RE F ER EN C ES : ON R E Q U E ST
Page 205
3/15/2010
CURRICULUM VITAE
Martha J. Kurtz
PERSONAL
Address:
Science Education Department
400 E. University Way
Ellensburg, WA 98926-7540
Phone:
Email:
FAX:
(509)963-1422
kurtzm@cwu.edu
(509)963-1050
Former Name: Martha J. Ronan
EDUCATION
8/90 - 5/95
Arizona State University. PhD: Curriculum and Instruction: Chemical Education. Research advisor:
Dr. James P. Birk. Dissertation Title: Using Analogies to Teach College Chemistry: A Multiple
Analogy Approach.
8/85 - 8/87
University of Wisconsin-Madison. MS in physical chemistry. Research advisor: Dr. James C.
Weisshaar.
8/81 - 5/85
Northern Arizona University. BS in chemistry, American Chemical Society certified. Minor in
computer science. Graduated magna cum laude with honors. Research Advisors: Dr. John D.
Zahrt and Dr. John M. DeKorte.
TEACHING AND LABORATORY EXPERIENCE
2/08 - pres.
Professor, Chemistry and Science Education; Central Washington University
9/04 - 9/05
Sabbatical Leave, Central Washington University
9/01 - 1/08
Associate Professor, Chemistry and Science Education; Central Washington University
9/95 - 9/01
Assistant Professor, Chemistry and Science Education; Central Washington University
10/88 - 6/95
Laboratory Coordinator, Senior; Arizona State University
8/90 - 6/95
Acting General Chemistry Coordinator, Summer Sessions; Arizona State University
8/89 - 5/90
Part-time Faculty; Scottsdale Community College
6/87 - 8/87
Instructional Aid; University of Wisconsin-Madison
8/85 - 6/87
Teaching Assistant; University of Wisconsin-Madison
6/86 - 8/86
Instructional Aid; University of Wisconsin-Madison
1/82 - 8/85
Teaching Assistant; Northern Arizona University
ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE
9/08 – pres.
Director, Center for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education, Central Washington
University
The Director oversees all functions of the Center. Center membership includes K-12 teachers,
community college faculty, university faculty and administrators at all levels. The Center
provides for a professional learning community that strives for excellence. It supports
community events, professional development, grant writing and an equipment loan program.
The Director supervises a ¼ time secretary and student workers.
1/09 – pres.
Department Chair (1/09 – pres.) Science Education, Central Washington University
The Department consists of 6 faculty, a ¾ time secretary, and a grant funded School Liaison.
The Department delivers several secondary science education majors and minors and supports
the Elementary Education major which graduates ~400 students annually. Duties include
scheduling, budgeting (~$28K), reporting, hiring staff and student workers.
9/08 – 12/08 Program Director, Science Education, Central Washington University
The Program Director served in a Chair capacity.
12/07 – 6/08 Interim Dean, College of the Sciences, Central Washington University
The dean is the chief executive officer of the College of the Sciences. The College consists of
twelve departments and nine interdisciplinary programs in physical, natural, social, behavioral
and computational sciences. The dean is responsible for academic program planning, budget
development, curriculum development and delivery, hiring and personnel actions, faculty/staff
development, planning and development for facilities and equipment, departmental operations,
and responsiveness to students. The dean administers a $10.6M budget.
Page 206
3/15/2010
9/06 – 9/07
9/05 – 12/07
9/05 – 12/07
6/01 - 9/04
9/98 - 9/04
Program Director, CWU at Green River Community College, Central Washington University
Director is responsible for coordinating the Elementary Education Major and Science Education
Minor program of study for student cohorts of ~30. Oversees application process including
interview and cohort selection; sets class schedule; recruits adjunct faculty; advises students; and
communicates with contributing departments.
Chair, Department of Chemistry, Central Washington University
Chair is responsible for providing a positive learning environment in the chemical sciences for
~80 majors and minors. The department consists of twelve faculty and seven staff. The chair is
responsible for budgets totaling over $1M. Duties include scheduling, supervision of staff,
reappointment/tenure/post-tenure/promotion review of faculty, writing reports, budgeting, hiring
staff and student workers (30 TAs/stockroom assistants/office assistants).
Program Director, Science Education, Central Washington University
Chair, Department of Chemistry, Central Washington University
Program Director, Science Education, Central Washington University
RECENT TRAININGS, INSTITUTES, and WORKSHOPS
12/09, 2/10
Science Partnership Academy: Planning for Professional Development
7/09
LENS Math Science Partnership Institute, Yakima Public Schools
9/08
QuIRK/PKAL Workshop, Quantifying Quantitative Reasoning in Undergraduate Education:
Alternative Strategies for the Assessment of Quantitative Reasoning
8/08
LENS Math Science Partnership Institute, Yakima Public Schools
6/08
Harvard Institute of Higher Education, Management Development Program
8/07
LENS Math Science Partnership Institute, Yakima Public Schools
OTHER WORK EXPERIENCE
8/87 - 10/88
Research Assistant; Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc.
AWARDS
Washington Higher Education Science Teacher of the Year, 2009
CWU Distinguished Professor: Service, 2008
Center for Teaching and Learning Apple Award for Outstanding Teacher Educator, 2002, 2003
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND HONORARY SOCIETIES
American Chemical Society
Association for Science Teacher Education
Washington Science Teachers Association
Phi Eta Sigma
National Science Teachers Association
Phi Kappa Phi
Washington College Chemistry Association
Environmental Education Association of Washington
Kittitas Environmental Education Network
BOARD MEMBERSHIPS
Washington Science Teachers Association Board of Directors, member, 4/09 - present
CWU Culture and Environment Museum Advisory Council, 3/09 – present
CWU Professional Educators Advisory Board, 9/08 - present
Environmental Education Association of Washington Board of Directors, member, 8/06 – 12/08
Phi Kappa Phi Executive Board, treasurer, 6/99 – present
JOURNAL, BOOK, and CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS (*Denotes student co-author)
Quitadamo, I. J., Cornell, C.*, Holstad, J.*, Brown, L.*, Hunter, B.* & Kurtz, M. J. Critical Thinking Grudge
Match: Biology vs. Chemistry. Journal of College Science Teaching, in review.
Quitadamo, I. J., Faiola, C.*, Johnson, J., & Kurtz, M. J. (2008) Community-based Inquiry Improves Critical
Thinking in General Education Biology. Cell Biology Education-Life Science Education, 7, 327-337.
Quitadamo, I., Kurtz, M., Sorey, T., Pratt-Sitaula, B., & Palmquist, B. (2006). “Using e-Portfolio to Assess PreService Teacher Performance,” Journal of Washington Science Teachers Association, 46(4), 20-27.
Kurtz, M. J., Oursland, M. & Quitadamo, I. J. (2006). Cougars across the curriculum: Using just-in-time technology
to support integrated student research, preservice teacher development, and enhanced K-12 learning. Leadership
Information, 5(4), 31-39.
Page 207
3/15/2010
Kurtz, M. J. (2006). Environment-based Integrated Learning: Building a Sustainable Future. Proceedings of 4th
International Conference on Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 359-369.
Kurtz, M. J., Oursland, M., & Quitadamo, I. J. (2005). Just-in-Time Technology that Supports Cougar Research
Across the Curriculum. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education 16 th International Conference
Proceedings, 2701-2708.
Kurtz, M. J., Oursland, M, Miller, J. & Quitadamo, I. (2005). Project CAT, PT3 Monograph, 17-27.
Kurtz, M. J. & Holden, B. E.* (2001). Analysis of a Distance Education Program in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem.
Ed., 78:8, 1122-1125.
Baxter, L. M. & Kurtz, M. J. (2001). When a Hypothesis is Not an Educated Guess. Science and Children, 38:7, 1820.
Kurtz, M. J. & Birk, J. P. (1999). The Effect of Experience on the Retention and Elimination of Misconceptions on
Molecular Structure and Bonding. J. Chem. Ed., 76:1, 124-128.
Birk, J. P. & Kurtz, M. J. (1996). Using Cooperative Learning Techniques To Train New Teaching Assistants. J.
Chem. Ed., 73, 615.
Birk, J. P. & Kurtz, M. J. (1994). Laboratory Equipment and Techniques. The Burgess Collection of General
Chemistry Exercises, Burgess Publishing, Minneapolis, 18 pages
Birk, J. P. & Kurtz, M. J. (1994). Semimicro Techniques. The Burgess Collection of General Chemistry Exercises,
Burgess Publishing, Minneapolis, 3 pages
Birk, J. P. & Kurtz, M. J. (1994). Safety and Laboratory Procedures. The Burgess Collection of General Chemistry
Exercises, Burgess Publishing, Minneapolis, 7 pages
Birk, J. P. & Kurtz, M. J. (1994). Investigations in Chemistry, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 514 pages
Birk, J. P. & Kurtz, M. J. (1994). Instructor's Resource Manual to Accompany Investigations in Chemistry,
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 268 pages
Birk, J. P., Ronan, M., Bennett, I., & Kinney, C. (1991). Reactivity of Nickel. J. Chem. Ed., 68, 48
Tonkyn, R., Ronan, M., & Weisshaar, J. C. (1988). Multi-Collision Chemistry of Gas Phase Transition Metal Ions
With Small Alkanes: Rate Constants and Product Branching at 0.75 torr He. J. Phys. Chem., 92, p. 92
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Kurtz, M., Strohm, K.*, and CWU SCED 301 students*. (2006). Helen McCabe State Park Interpretive Trail.
Kittitas Environmental Education Network, Ellensburg, WA
Kurtz, M. J. & Birk, J. P. (1994). Guide for Teaching Assistants in Chemistry, 6th edition, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ
Ronan, M. & Essenmacher, G. (1986). Copper Reactions. University of Wisconsin-Madison, General Chemistry
Division
ORAL PRESENTATIONS (*Denotes student co-author, **denotes student presenter)
Hunt, V. and Kurtz, M.J. “Science, Society, and the Teaching Community: An Approach to Improving and
Expanding the Scientific Literacy of Pre-service Science Teachers," Annual International Conference of the
Association for Science Teacher Education, Sacramento, CA, Jan. 17, 2010.
Kurtz, M. J. “New Perspectives in Training Chemistry Teachers,” Washington College Chemistry Teachers
Association, Leavenworth, WA, Oct. 9, 2009.
Kurtz, M.J. and Hunt, V “Science, Society, and the Teaching Community: Engaging Pre-Service Science Teachers.”
Teachers of Teachers of Science Annual Conference, Spokane, WA. May 29, 2009
Cornell, C.**, Quitadamo, I., and Kurtz, M. “Effects of Community-based Inquiry on Critical Thinking in NonMajors Chemistry,” Symposium on University Research and Creative Expression, Central Washington
University, Ellensburg, WA, May 15, 2008.
Cornell, C.** and Kurtz, M. “Effects of Community-based Inquiry on Critical Thinking in General Education
Chemistry, National Science Teachers Association, Boston, MA, Mar. 28, 2008.
Kurtz, M. J. “A Community-based Inquiry Model to Enhance Watershed Research in the Schools.” 17th Annual
Conference of the Environmental Education Association of Washington, SeaTac, WA, Nov. 10, 2007.
Cornell, C.* and Kurtz, M. “Critical Thinking in Introductory Chemistry.” Washington College Teachers
Association, Leavenworth, WA, Oct. 19, 2007.
Fiola, C.**, Quitadamo, I., Johnston, J., & Kurtz, M. “Community-Based Inquiry to Improve Critical Thinking and
Content Knowledge.” Symposium on University Research and Creative Expression, Central Washington
University, Ellensburg, WA, May 17, 2007.
Page 208
3/15/2010
Kurtz, M. J., Sorey, T, Quitadamo, I. J., Palmquist, B., & Pratt-Sitaula, B. “Developing electronic Portfolios to
Assess Student Performance Relative to National and State Science Education Standards: A Collaborative
Process.” 2007 Association for Science Teacher Education International Conference, Clearwater Beach, FL,
Jan. 4, 2007.
Kurtz, M. J. “Using the Environment to Integrate the Sciences: An inquiry course for elementary teachers.”
Teachers of Teachers of Science, Pullman, WA, Jun. 10, 2006.
Kurtz, M. J. “Misconceptions in Science: Where Do They Come From and What Can We Do?” invited seminar,
Southern Oregon University, Ashland, OR, May 5, 2006.
Baxter, L & Kurtz, M. J. “Helping Students Make Contact with the Nature of Science.” Washington Science
Teachers Association, Wenatchee, WA, October 15, 2005.
Kurtz, M. J. “Environment-based Integrated Learning: Building a Sustainable Future.” 4 th International Conference
on Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, Victoria, BC, August 25, 2005.
Kurtz, M. J. “Expanding Your Horizons at CWU: A Report to the American Association for University Women.”
Regional Meeting of the American Association for University Women, Ellensburg, WA, August 20, 2005.
Kurtz, M. J. & Quitadamo, I. J. “Project CAT: Authentic Research in the Classroom.” Teachers of Teachers of
Science, Pullman, WA, May 20, 2005.
Kurtz, M. J., Oursland, M., & Quitadamo, I. J. “Just-in-Time Technology that Supports Cougar Research Across the
Curriculum.” Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education 16th International Conference, Phoenix,
AZ, March 1, 2005.
Kurtz, M. J. “Cougars, Integration, Technology and Internships: Project-based Preparation of Science and Math
Teachers.” National Science Teachers Association Conference, Seattle, WA, Nov. 19, 2004.
Quitadamo, I. J. & Kurtz, M. J. “A Quantitative Assessment Model for Measurement of Undergraduate Critical
Thinking.” Pacific Northwest Higher Education Conference, Vancouver, WA, May 7, 2004.
Kurtz, M. J. “Misconceptions in Science: Where Do They Come From and What Can We Do?” invited seminar,
Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA, Apr. 29, 2004.
Kurtz, M. J. & Tudor, M. “Integrated Environmental Education Benchmarks;” Environmental Education
Association of Washington, Ellensburg, WA, Mar. 19, 2004.
Oursland, M. & Kurtz, M. J. “Integrating High School Science and Mathematics Using GIS Modeling.”
Microcomputers in Education Conference, Tempe, AZ, Mar. 16, 2004. Presented by co-author.
Kurtz, M. J. & Oursland, M. “Using a Computer Model to Assess the Relationship Between Teaching Behavior and
student Engagement.” Microcomputers in Education Conference, Tempe, AZ, Mar. 15, 2004.
Kurtz, M. J. “Our Emerging role in Teacher Training: A Chemist’s Perspective.” Washington College Chemistry
Teachers Association, Leavenworth, WA, Oct. 17, 2002.
Baxter, L. B. & Kurtz, M. J. “Questioning: The Heart of Inquiry.” Washington Science Teachers Association,
Yakima, WA, Nov. 3, 2001.
Kurtz, M. J. “Assessment Potpourri.” Washington College Chemistry Teachers Association, Leavenworth, WA, Oct.
12, 2001.
Baxter, L. B. & Kurtz, M. J. “Questioning: The Heart of Inquiry.” Washington Science Teachers Association,
Vancouver, WA, Oct. 14, 2000.
Kurtz, M. J., McClung, M.,* Thiel, T.*, & Dunn, S. M.* “Using Computer Interfaces in the General Chemistry
Classroom: Do They Really Have a Positive Impact on Student Learning?” 16th Biennial Conference on
Chemical Education, Ann Arbor, MI, Aug. 2, 2000.
Holden, B. E.** & Kurtz, M. J. “An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Distance Education in Teaching Organic
Chemistry.” 16th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education, Ann Arbor, MI, Aug. 2, 2000.
Kurtz, M. J. “The Efficiency and Effectiveness of Learning When Using Computers to Acquire and Analyze Data in
General Chemistry Labs.” Washington College Chemistry Teachers Association Meeting, Leavenworth, WA,
Apr. 21, 2000.
Kurtz, M. J. “Lunar Misconceptions Held By Pre-service Teachers: Where Do They Come From and What Should
We Do About It?” Washington Science Teachers Association Meeting, Spokane, WA, Oct. 30, 1999.
Kurtz, M. J. “Misconceptions in Science: Where Do They Come From and What Can We Do About It?” Natural
Science Seminar, Central Washington University, Nov. 20, 1998.
Gerdes, DeLuca, Dibari, Logan, & Kurtz, M. J. “A Collaborative Model for Distance Organic Chemistry
Curriculum: MCUs, T1 Lines, Couriers, Adjuncts, and Administrators” 53rd Northwest Regional Meeting of
the American Chemical Society, Richland, WA, June 18-20, 1998. Presentation given by co-authors.
Kurtz, M. J. “Using the Learning Cycle in the College Chemistry Laboratory.” Washington College Chemistry
Teachers Association Meeting, Leavenworth, WA, Apr. 16-18, 1998.
Page 209
3/15/2010
Kurtz, M. J. “Assessing Departmental Goals and Student Outcomes for Chemistry 105." A Celebration of Learning;
Fall 1997 Faculty Meeting, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA, Sept. 18, 1997.
Kurtz, M. J. “Assessing Departmental Goals and Student Outcomes for Chemistry 105." Faculty Development
Seminar, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA, May 15, 1997.
Kurtz, M. J. & Birk, J. P. “Misconceptions in Chemistry: A Persistent Problem.” 211th American Chemical Society
National Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Mar. 24-28, 1996.
Kurtz, M. J. & Birk, J. P. "Using Multiple Analogies to Teach College Chemistry: A Multiple Analogy Approach."
American Chemical Society Spring Meeting, Anaheim, CA, Apr. 2-6, 1995.
POSTER PRESENTATIONS (*Denotes student co-author, **denotes student presenter)
Remington, T.**, Weller, K.*, and Johnson, D.* Faculty Mentor: Kurtz, M. and Palmquist, B. “Addressing Student
Preconceptions Through Formative Assessment,” Symposium on University Research and Creative Expression,
Central Washington University; Ellensburg, WA; May 21, 2009.
Brady, S.**, Kurtz, M., Carolan, L., Hilferty, C.**, Ketsdever, A.** and Wickwire, E. “Yakima WATERS Project:
Watershed Activities To Enhance Research in Schools,” NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education
(GK-12) Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., March 28, 2009.
Johnson, D.*, Remington, T.*, and Weller, K.** Faculty Mentor: Kurtz, M. and Palmquist, B. “Addressing Student
Preconceptions Through Formative Assessment,” Washington Science Teachers Association Meeting, Moses
Lake, WA; Mar. 20, 2009.
Bohrson, W., Braunstein, M., Ely, L. Piacsek, A., Nye, J.*, Kurtz, M. and Moses, M.* “CWU Science Talent
Expansion Program: Recruiting and Retaining the Next Generation of STEM Professionals,” NSF STEP
Grantee Meeting, Washington, D.C., March 13, 2009.
Cornell, C. **, Affholter, T., and Kurtz, M. “WATERS in Lincoln Elementary Fifth Grade,” Symposium on
University Research and Creative Expression, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA, May 15, 2008.
Cornell, C.**, Kurtz, M. J., Quitadamo, I. J., Holstad, J.*, Brown, L.*, & Hunter, B.* “Critical Thinking Grudge
Match: Biology vs. Chemistry, Academic and personal factors that affect thinking skills in non-majors science.”
Symposium on University Research and Creative Expression, Central Washington University; Ellensburg, WA;
May 17, 2007.
Huddleston, K.** & Kurtz, M. J. “STEP (Science Talent Expansion Program): The data and response behind the
three-year pilot program.” Symposium on University Research and Creative Expression, Central Washington
University; Ellensburg, WA; May 18, 2006.
Berkeley, A.** & Kurtz, M. J. “Analysis of STEP: The Freshman Science Seminar Series.” Symposium on
University Research and Creative Expression, Central Washington University; Ellensburg, WA; May 19, 2005.
DePaepe, J., Ault, P., Mathias, K., Oursland, M., Quitadamo, I., Wagner, S., Sledge, A., Kurtz, M., Englund, T., &
Briggs, K. “Teacher Interns Learn New Technological Skills Through Heart, Frog, Cougar, and Robotic
Research.” Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education 16th International Conference, Phoenix,
AZ; March 1, 2005.
Brewer, M.**, Flaugh, D.**, Quitadamo, I., & Kurtz, M. J. “A Quantitative Model for Assessment of
Undergraduate Critical Thinking.” Symposium on Undergraduate Research and Creative Expression, Central
Washington University; Ellensburg, WA; May 20, 2004.
Earlywine, J. C.** & Kurtz, M. J. “Design and Implementation of a Pedagogical Research Project to Assess the
Effectiveness of a Specially Designed Ramp in Explaining Electron Configuration to Introductory Chemistry
Students.” Symposium on Undergraduate Research and Creative Expression, Central Washington University;
Ellensburg, WA; May 17, 2001.
Earlywine, J. C.** & Kurtz, M. J. “Design and Implementation of a Pedagogical Research Project to Assess the
Effectiveness of a Specially Designed Ramp in Explaining Electron Configuration to Introductory Chemistry
Students.” 221st ACS National Meeting; San Diego, CA; Apr. 1-5, 2001.
McClung, M. G.**, Thiel, T.*, & Kurtz, M. J. “An Analysis of Computer Use and Related Student Attitudes in
General Chemistry Laboratories.” Symposium on Undergraduate Research and Creative Expression, Central
Washington University; Ellensburg, WA; May 19, 2000.
McClung, M. G.**, Thiel, T.*, & Kurtz, M. J. “An Analysis of Computer Use and Related Student Attitudes in
General Chemistry Laboratories.” 14th National Conference on Undergraduate Research; Missoula, MT; Apr.
27-29, 2000.
Holden, B.** & Kurtz, M. J. “Analysis of a Distance Education Program in Organic Chemistry.” Symposium on
Undergraduate Research and Creative Expression, Central Washington University; Ellensburg, WA; May 16,
1998.
Page 210
3/15/2010
GRANTS and CONTRACTS AWARDED
“Math 360: Building Academic Language and Content Skills in Mathematics,” Higher Education Coordinating
Board Educators for the 21st Century, Senior Personnel, $1.2M, 2009
“Family Science and Math Standards Showcase Events,” CWU Foundation, PI, $500, 2009.
“Recruiting and Retaining the Next Generation of STEM Professionals Central Washington University,” CWU
NSF: STEP grant evaluation contract, 2007.
“Through the Lens: Building Success in Science – Ensuring Success in Math and Literacy,” OSPI Math Science
Partnership, Yakima School District, Senior Personnel, $743K, 2007.
“General Science Education Program,” State Board for Community and Technical College, University Contract with
Edmonds Community College Proposal, $88,500, 2007.
“Science Education Curriculum Expansion,” CWU CESME Faculty Grant Program, PI, $1,600, 2007.
“Purchase of Large Format Printer,” CWU COTS Equipment Grant, PI, $5,616, 2007.
“Yakima Watershed Activities To Enhance Research,” NSF: GK-12, co-PI w/Gazis, Quitadamo, Wagner, and PrattSitaula, $2.8M, funded for 5 yrs., 2007.
“Center for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education,” CWU Spheres of Distinction, PI, $61K, 2006.
“Organic Chemistry,” Higher Education Coordinating Board High Demand Programs, PI, $189K, 2006; funding
converted to annual base budget, 2007.
“Tools for Lifelong Learning,” CWU SOAR Grant, co-PI w/ Quitadamo, $8,500, 2005.
“MSP Watershed Investigation Project,” OSPI, Math/Science Partnership Program, Senior Personnel, $721K,
funded for 3 yrs., 2004.
“Lincoln School Partnership,” CWU Foundation Len Thayer Small Grant, PI, $590, 2004.
“Middle Level Math/Science Endorsement,” Higher Education Coordinating Board High Demand Programs, PI,
$380K; funding converted to annual base budget, 2003.
“Faculty Workshop on Critical Thinking and Peer Led Team Learning,” CWU Faculty Senate Development and
Appropriations Committee, PI, $4,952, 2003.
“Lincoln School Partnership,” CWU Foundation Leonard Thayer Small Grants Program, PI, $500, 2003.
“In Answer to A National Challenge: A Pilot Program to Increase Participation in Science, Technology and
Mathematics (STEM) Fields,” National Science Foundation, STEP, co-PI w/Bohrson, Braunstein, Ely, Gazis,
Gellenbeck, and Piacsek, $250K, funded for 3 yrs., 2002.
“Expanding Your Horizons,” CWU Foundation Leonard Thayer Small Grants Program, PI, $300, 2002.
“Expanding Your Horizons,” CWU Foundation Leonard Thayer Small Grants Program, PI, $500, 2001.
“Summer Science Institutes,” RGK Foundation, PI, $6,000, 2001.
“Summer Science Institutes,” GTE Focus Grant, co-PI w/Baxter, $30K, funded for 2 yrs., 2000.
“Summer Science Institutes,” Northwest Learning and Achievement Group, co-PI w/Baxter, $70K, funded for 2
yrs., 2000.
“Expanding Your Horizons,” CWU Foundation Leonard Thayer Small Grants Program, PI, $700, 1999.
“Multicultural Experiences in Mathematics and Sciences,” CWU Foundation Leonard Thayer Small Grants
Program, PI, $4,500, 1998.
“Development of General Chemistry Laboratory Experiments Using a Computer-Based Design,” CWU Summer
Research Grant, PI, $3,500, 1998.
“Preservice Training for Teachers in Molecular Biology,” NSF – ILI/IP, PI, $33,614, funded for 2 yrs., 1997.
“Delivering Essential Academic Learnings in Science to All Rural Students - A collaborative Project Between
Central Washington University and Kittitas County Schools,” Eisenhower Program, co-PI w/Baxter, $36K,
1995.
COURSES TAUGHT
Chemistry:
CHEM 101 – Contemporary Chemistry with Laboratory
CHEM 105 – Processes in Physical Science: Chemistry (for Elementary Education Majors)
CHEM 111 – Introduction to Chemistry with Laboratory
CHEM 181L – General Chemistry Laboratory
CHEM 182L – General Chemistry Laboratory
CHEM 492 – Laboratory Experience in Teaching Chemistry
CHEM 495 – Undergraduate Research
CHEM 542 – Teaching Chemistry at the Community College
CHEM 595 – Graduate Research
Page 211
3/15/2010
Science Education:
SCED 301 – Interdisciplinary Science Inquiry
SCED 322 – Science Education in the Elementary Schools
SCED 354 – Science, Society, and the Teaching Community
SCED 420 – Inquiry Activities for Elementary Science
SCED 422 – Advanced Strategies for Teaching Elementary Science
SCED 442 – Development of Special Materials
SCED 495 – Undergraduate Research
SCED 501 – Interdisciplinary Science Inquiry for Teachers
SCED 541 – Chemistry Concepts for Teachers
SCED 598 – Misconceptions in Science
General:
UNIV 101 – General Education Colloquium
Education:
EDEL 598 – Middle School Educational Strategies, team taught
REPRESENTATIVE SERVICE
Professional Service
LENS Math/Science Partnership Professional Development Workshop presenter, “Science of Elements and
Compounds,” 1/10; ‘Science of Mixtures,” 12/09; “Energy,” 7/09; “Motion,” 7/09
LASER Science Partnership Academy, member, 10/09 – present
LENS Math/Science Partnership Follow Up Professional Development Planning Team, ESD 105, 8/09 - present
Environment and Sustainability Education Specialty Endorsement Standards Writing Team, 9/08 – 5/09
LENS Math/Science Partnership Steering Committee, Yakima School District, 3/06 - present
Kittitas Environmental Education Network Education Committee, 3/04 – 6/08.
Pacific Education Institute, 7/02 – present, work with non-formal educators, agency educators and public school
teachers to develop and implement integrated environmental education curricula.
WEST-E Chemistry Test Item Validation Team, 11/07, only higher education representative on team to validate
items for state exit exam for pre-service chemistry teachers.
NAAEE Environmental Education Standards Writing Committee, 5/04 – 10/07; work group to write national
NCATE standards for training environmental education teachers.
American Association for University Women Steering Committee on Women in STEM, 8/05 – 12-06
Panel Member, Summit on Women in STEM, American Association of University Women, Redmond, WA, 10/06
Session Moderator, Washington College Chemistry Teachers Association, 10/01, 10/02, 10/04; session title:
“Review and Discussion of Current Articles from the Science Ed/Chem Ed Literature.”
Panel Member, Rocky Mountain Chemistry Chairs Conference, 4/04; session title: “Student Evaluation of
Instruction.”
Standard Setting Team for PRAXIS II, 3/04, set statewide cutoff scores for the chemistry teaching content exit
exam.
Secondary Math and Science Articulation Committee, 6/02; statewide committee to develop articulation agreements
between community colleges and four-year schools for secondary science and math majors.
Associate of Science Degree Advisory Committee, 4/99; developed a proposal for a statewide transferable AS
degree.
7th Annual Washington College Chemistry Teachers Association Conference Organizer, 9/98-4/99; organized entire
conference including conference program, vendor show, accommodations.
Community Service
5th Grade Camp Plant Sale Fundraiser, Organizers, 2/10 – present
Yakima River Canyon Scenic Byway Committee, Kittitas Environmental Education Network, 3/09 – present
Nature of Night Organizer; 11/08; day long community event to explore night time science.
Expanding Your Horizons Conference Organizer, 9/99 – present; a day long conference presented by women
scientists for middle school girls.
Professional Development Workshop Organizer, 6/96 – present, organized many professional development
workshops for P-12 teacher and pre-service teachers including Project WET, Project Wild, Project Learning
Tree, NatureMapping, Fuel Cell, Renewable Energy.
Page 212
3/15/2010
GEAR UP Science and Leadership Camp, Science Coordinator, 6/03 – 7/07; coordinate 3 day camp for 6th and 7th
graders each summer, science sessions taught by CWU pre-service teachers.
Lincoln School Science Partnership, 1/00 – 3/07, 1/09 - present; 3rd grade students taught science by CWU preservice teachers twice a week for one quarter each year.
Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education Statewide Summit, Gonzaga University, participant, 10/05.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Citizen Science Statewide Summit, participant, 9/05.
Multicultural Experiences in Math and Science Host, 10/98 – 5/05; annual three day event for middle school
students to experience science and math, targeted to ethnic minorities.
Flinn Scientific Summer Science Teacher Workshop, Co-host/Director, 8/01
Youth Summer Science Institute, Co-Organizer/Co-Instructor, 7/00, 7/01; a week long residential science camp for
9th graders.
Way Cool Science Discovery Camp, Co-Organizer/Co-Instructor, 6/00, 6/01; a week long science camp for 6th
graders, sessions taught by CWU pre-service teachers.
Event Supervisor, Science Olympiad, Columbia Basin Community College, 11/96.
University Service
Science Phase II Building Committee, 9/09 – pres.
Professional Education Program Committee on Classroom Management, 2/09 – 6/09
Center for Teaching and Learning Advisory Board, 3/99 – 5/04, 9/05 – 12/07, 9/08 – pres.; chair 9/00 – 5/01
Academic Department Chairs Organization, 9/01 – 9/04, 9/05 – 12/07, 9/08 – pres.; chair-elect, 9/06 – 8/07; chair,
9/07 – 12/07
Student Chapter of the National Science Teachers Association Faculty Advisor, 9/02 – 5/04, 9/05 – 6/06, 9/08 - pres.
Environmental Research and Education Committee, 1/06 – 12/07
Assistant Vice President for Faculty Relations Search Committee, 8/07 – 12/07
Pre-Pharmacy Club Advisor, 1/07 – 12/07
Engineering Technician Steering Committee, chair, 9/05 – 12/07
Science Occupants Committee, 9/01 – 12/07
Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies Search Committee, 10/06 – 3/07
NCATE Task Force, 9/00 – 5/01, 3/06 – 5/07
NCATE Standard 6 Committee, co-chair, 4/06 – 9/06
Student Teaching Intern Supervisor, 9/02 – 5/04, mentored 5 year-long interns
Faculty Senate Representative, 9/99 – 5/04
Dean Search Committees, College of Education and Professional Studies: 9/99 – 5/00, College of the Sciences: 9/03
– 5/04
Student Affiliates of the American Chemical Society Chapter Advisor, 9/97 – 5/02
Faculty Search Committees, numerous
Faculty Professional Development Workshop Presenter; topics: peer evaluation of instruction, critical thinking
Department Committees, numerous including Undergraduate, 9/96 – 5/01; Graduate, 9/95 – 5/02; Personnel, 9/01 –
9/02, 9/04 – 9/05, TA Assignment and Orientation, 9/95 – 5/04, 9/05 – 12/07
Page 213
3/15/2010
Bruce Palmquist
University Address
Central Washington University
Science Education and Physics
Ellensburg, WA 98926-7422
e-mail: palmquis@cwu.edu
(509) 963-3142
Education
Ph. D.: University of Minnesota, Curriculum and Instruction-Science Education, 1993
Master of Science Degree: University of Minnesota, Physics, 1992
Master of Arts Degree: University of Minnesota, History of Science, 1990
Bachelor of Arts Degree: Awarded Magna Cum Laude, Augsburg College, Minneapolis, 1984
Professional Experience
Teaching
Professor: Department of Physics and Science Education Program, Central Washington
University (9/05 to present)
Associate Professor: Department of Physics and Science Education Program, Central
Washington University (9/99 to 9/05)
Assistant Professor: Department of Physics and Science Education Program, Central Washington
University (9/93 to 9/99)
Student Teaching Supervisor: Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of
Minnesota (8/91 to 9/91, 8/92 to 6/93)
Teaching Assistant: Department of Physics and General College, U of M (9/87-6/93)
Physical Science Teacher: Lake Crystal High School, Lake Crystal, MN (8/85 to 6/86)
Instructor: Augsburg College, Minneapolis, MN (9/84 to 5/85)
Administration
CWU Physics Department Chair, (8/98 to 12/98, 3/00 to 8/07)
CWU Program Director, CWU program at Green River Community College (12/01-9/06, 9/078/08)
CWU Science Education Program Director, (8/94 to 9/98, 12/07 to 8/08)
Awards
2009 Professional Education Advisory Board (PEAB) Crystal Apple award for outstanding
teacher educator.
2005 Washington Professor of the Year, awarded by the Carnegie Foundation and Council for
Advancement and Support of Education (October, 2005)
2004 Central Washington University Distinguished Professor – Public Service (May, 2004)
Academic Service Learning Distinguished Faculty Fellow (2004-6)
Academic Service Learning Faculty Fellow (2000-2)
Publications
Journals
Palmquist, Bruce (2008). Promoting a Contemporary View of the Nature of Science in Your
Classroom. Washington Science Teachers Journal. 49(2), 13-16.
Page 214
3/15/2010
Palmquist, Bruce (2008). Getting Teachers to talk About the Nature of Science. Washington
Science Teachers Journal. 49(2), 17-21.
Quitadamo, I.J., Kurtz, M. J., Sorey, T. L., Pratt-Sitaula, B., and Palmquist, B. (2006). Using ePortfolios to Evaluate Pre-Service Teacher Performance. Washington Science Teachers Journal,
46(3). 20-27.
Palmquist, Bruce (2002). "Interactive Spectra Demonstration." The Physics Teacher, 40(3),
140-142.
Faix, Timothy (CWU student) and Palmquist, Bruce (2002). “Guided practice for oral lab
reports.” The Science Teacher, 69(2), 68.
Palmquist, Bruce (2001). "Assessing Motion Graphs." The Science Teacher, 68(8), 75-77.
Palmquist, Bruce (2000). “Facilitating Communication in a Distance Education Setting.” Journal
of College Science Teaching, 29(4), 337-340.
Palmquist, Bruce (1999). "Star Search." The Science Teacher, 66(3), 55-56.
Palmquist, Bruce and Finley, Fred (1998). "A Response to Bell, Lederman and Abd-ElKhalick's Explicit Comments." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1063-4
Palmquist, Bruce (1998). "Moon Theory." The Science Teacher, 65(3), 59-62.
Palmquist, Bruce (1997). "Moon Rise, Moon Set." The Science Teacher, 64(7), 62-66.
Palmquist, Bruce and Finley, Fred (1997). "Preservice Teachers' Views of the Nature of Science
During a Postbaccalaureate Science Teaching Program." Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 34(6), 595-615.
Palmquist, Bruce (1997). "Scoring Rubric for Interview Assessment." The Physics Teacher,
35(2), 88-89.
Palmquist, Bruce (1997). "Creative Solutions." The Mathematics Teacher, 90(8), 674.
Palmquist, Bruce (1996). "Interview Assessment in Physics Labs." The Physics Teacher, 34(8),
510-511.
Palmquist, Bruce (1992). Teachers Define Science. University of Minnesota: Research Review,
XXII(5), 5.
Abstracts
Whitfield, M, Palmquist, B, Filson, R., & Heizer-Newquist, L. Abstracts of papers, National
Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual International Conference, New
Orleans, LA; NARST: Reston, VA, 2007; Abstract P-236-1419-1418-1450.
Page 215
3/15/2010
External Reports
External Evaluator for Normandale CC (MN) NSF-ATE Planning Grant. Final report submitted
August, 2005.
Other Publications
Palmquist, Bruce (Writer, Producer) (2009, May 23). A cheap “name a star gift” for college
graduates. Found at http://365daysofastronomy.org/2009/05/23/may-23rd-a-cheap%E2%80%9Cname-a-star%E2%80%9D-gift-for-college-graduates/.
Palmquist, Bruce (Writer, Producer), Fredsti, Feliciti, and Magenis, Marilyn (2009, April 13).
Edward, Annie, and Williamina Discuss Spectral Classification. Created for 365 Days of
Astronomy. Found at http://365daysofastronomy.org/2009/04/13/april-13th-edward-annie-andwilliamina-discuss-spectral-classification/.
Weekly observational astronomy column called “What’s up in the Sky” published in the
Ellensburg, WA Daily Record (circulation: about 5500), May, 2001 to present.
Palmquist, Bruce and Li, Guian (2007, July 18). Three things we can learn from comparing the
Chinese and American education systems. Ellensburg (WA) Daily Record, p. A4.
Montgomery, Aaron and Palmquist, Bruce (2006). Tracking Near Earth Objects, an
Interdisciplinary Lively Application Project (ILAP). Published locally and supported by NSFDUE grant 0410434.
Glass, Alex, Darda, David, and Palmquist, Bruce (2006). A Reading guide for “A Short History
of Nearly Everything” by Bill Bryson. Written for the CWU One Book, One Campus program.
Found at www.cwu.edu/~provost/one_book.
Books
Palmquist, Bruce (2006). Instructor's Manual for Contemporary Activities in Astronomy (3nd
edition). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Palmquist, Bruce (2003). Instructor's Manual for Contemporary Activities in Astronomy (2nd
edition). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Palmquist, Bruce (1999). Instructor's Manual for Contemporary Activities in Astronomy.
Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Palmquist, Bruce (1995). Instructor's Manual for Activities in Astronomy (4th edition).
Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Page 216
3/15/2010
Grants Received
$748,167
Jeff Bullock (PI), Chris Stark, Mary Jane Ross, Janet Gordon (all from North
Central Washington ESD); Tim Sorey, Bruce Palmquist, Teri Willard (all from CWU);
Walter Tribley, and Ralph Dawes (both from WVC) (Co-PIs) (2009) Washington State
Math Science Partnership with funding from the US Department of Education, “Progress
to Math and Science Proficiency: Reaching Out to Rural Schools”
$3,150
CWU Center for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education (2009),
Developing Curriculum for PHYS 106
$470
American Association of University Professors grant (2008), to fund invited trip
to China.
$700
International Studies and programs Advisory Committee (2008), grant to fund
invited trip to China.
$2,184
CWU Center for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education (2007),
Aligning E-Portfolios in SCED 301 and 324.
$299,845
Mary Whitfield (PI), Bob Filson, Leslie Heizer Newquist, Bruce Palmquist (CoPIs) (2005), NSF-Teacher Professional Continuum program, Project TEACH – CWU:
Targeted Science Instruction for Future teachers
$19,000
Michael Braunstein, Bruce Palmquist, David Laman, Sharon Rosell, and Andy
Piacsek (2005), Physics Demonstration Equipment.
$3,520
Chenyang Li and Bruce Palmquist (2002) CWU College of Arts and Humanities
Interdisciplinary Teaching Project Grant.
$1,269
CWU Instruction/Research Equipment Grant (2002). Using Binoculars to Learn
and Appreciate Astronomy.
$306,960
Keith Clay (PI), Sam Ball, Steve Kinholt, Bruce Palmquist, Kip Herren (Co-PIs)
(2001). NSF Proposal # 0101489, Project TEACH II.
$660
Solar Outreach Project. Len Thayer Small Grant, CWU (2001)
$212,607
Steve Kinholt (PI), Keith Clay, Kip Herren, Bruce Palmquist, Jan Rizzuti (CoPIs) (1999). NSF Proposal # 9876589. Project TEACH.
$2,000
Central Washington Regional Science Olympiad (1996). Central Washington
University Alumni Association Grant.
$36,241
Louise Baxter, Martha Kurtz and Bruce Palmquist (1995). Delivering Essential
Academic Learnings to All Rural Science Students. Eisenhower Professional
Development Program.
Page 217
3/15/2010
$2,500
Michael Braunstein and Bruce Palmquist (1995). Astronomy Access Program.
Central Washington University Alumni Association Grant.
Presentations
International
*Made nine invited presentations about American education and teacher education at Shaan’xi
Normal University (6/08, Xi’an, China.) Presentation titles:
*My Observations of Education in China
*Current Status of and Best Practices in Teacher education in the USA
*The Design and Implementation of a Middle School Science Class
*Introduction to Project TEACH and the CWU Science Education Program
*Science Education Reform in the USA
*Exploring American Physics Textbooks
*Different pathways to becoming a Teacher in America
*Using Project-Based Learning to Foster Creativity
*Project-Based Learning in the Middle School
National
*Presented, along with Mary Whitfield, Edmonds CC, Ann Anderson, CWU graduate, and Jan
Gram, Green River CC What does Reformed Elementary Science teaching Look Like? at the
National Association for Community College Teacher Education Programs conference (2/08,
Denver, CO)
*Presented, along with Mary Whitfield, Edmonds CC, Bob Filson, Green River CC, Terry
Thibodeaux, CWU graduate, and Judy Rene, Green River CC Science Teaching
Characteristics of Community College Graduates at the National Association for Community
College Teacher Education Programs conference (3/07, New Orleans, LA)
*Presented, along with Mary Whitfield, Edmonds CC, the poster Targeted Science Classes for
Future Teachers at the NSF-TPC PI conference (5/06, Reston, VA).
*Presented, along with Bob Filson, Green River CC and Kristin Norgard, CWU graduate,
Interdisciplinary Science for Future Teachers at the National Association for Community
College Teacher Education Programs conference (3/06, Atlanta, GA)
*Presented, along with Steve Kinholt, Green River CC and three community college teams,
Focus on Students: Pre-Service Activities & Courses for Future PreK-12 Teachers of Math &
Science at the National Science and Math Teacher Preparation Conference II (3/05, San
Antonio, TX)
*Presented, along with Steve Kinholt, Green River CC Connecting Teacher Preparations Across
Campus, to K-12, and to the University at the National Science and Math Teacher
Preparation Conference (2/04, Washington, DC)
*Presented, along with three community college teams, Pre-service Activities and Courses for
Future Math and Science Teachers at the National Science and Math Teacher Preparation
Conference II (10/02, Washington, DC)
*Presented, along with Pam Reising, Green River CC and student Debbie Hanninen, The
Missing Link? The Community College Role in Pre-service and In-service Teacher
Preparation at the American Association of Community Colleges national meeting (4/02,
Seattle, WA)
Page 218
3/15/2010
*Presented, along with Steve Kinholt, Green River CC Project TEACH: Creating a Pathway to a
Teaching Career at the National Science and Math Teacher Preparation Conference (3/02,
New Orleans, LA)
*Presented the paper, Preservice Teachers' Views of the Nature of Science During a
Postbaccalaureate Science Teaching Program at the 1994 National Association for Research
in Science Teaching conference (3/94, Anaheim, CA)
*Moderated two presentation sessions about Curriculum Development and Educational Policy at
the 1992 National Conference for Undergraduate Research (4/92, Minneapolis, MN).
State/Regional
*Invited Banquet Speaker for the annual meeting of the Pacific Northwest Association of
College Physics. The presentation was called 100 Hours of Astronomy (4/3/09).
*Invited Speaker for the annual meeting of the Washington Section of the American
Association of Physics Teachers. The presentation was called Science WASL in Teacher
Preparation (10/04, Auburn, WA)
* Invited Speaker for the Community and Technical College Teacher Education Collaboration
Event. Presented, along with Leslie Heizer, Science Education, a summary of CWU at
GRCC, (10/04, Ellensburg)
*Presented the poster, Using Multiple Forms of Reflection to Enhance Learning at the
Continuums of Service Conference (4/02, Portland, OR)
*Presented an astronomy teaching paper at the Washington Section of the American Association
of Physics Teachers. The presentation was called, An interactive spectra demonstration
(10/00, Ellensburg, WA)
*Presented, along with Keith Clay, Green River Community College, an informational session
called “Project TEACH: a Washington CETP” at Showcase 2000. (6/00, Forest Grove, OR)
*Advised a presentation by physics major Tim Faix at the Washington Section of the American
Association of Physics Teachers. The presentation was called, Research Involving an Oral
Presentation Assignment in an Introductory Level Physics Class (10/99, Tacoma, WA)
*Presented an astronomy assessment project at the Washington Section of the American
Association of Physics Teachers. The presentation was called, What’s that up in the sky?
(10/98, Seattle)
*Presented the results of a writing project at the Washington Section of the American
Association of Physics Teachers. The presentation was called, You call that acceptable
homework?! (10/97, Spokane)
*Presented, along with Mike Braunstein, the Workshop, Restructuring College Science
Laboratories at the Lilly Conference - Northwest (10/96, Portland, OR)
*Presented the paper, Interview Assessment in College Physics Labs, to the annual meeting to
the Pacific Northwest Association of College Physics" (3/96, Auburn, WA)
*Presented, along with physics majors Bruce Buck and Ray Harris, the Workshop, Solving "Real
World" Physics Problems in Cooperative Groups at the 1995 Washington Science Teachers
Association Conference (3/95), Wenatchee, WA.
*Presented the paper, Evaluation of the 1992 Research Explorations for Teachers Program at the
1992 Minnesota Science Teachers Association conference (10/92, Eden Prairie High School,
Eden Prairie, Minnesota).
Page 219
3/15/2010
Local
SOURCE posters
*CWU Natural Science Seminar, “Journey to the East: My Quest to Learn about Education in
Xi’an, China”, (February, 2009)
*Nature of Night planetarium shows, six shows, November, 2008 (Have averaged six shows and
over 200 people per event 2000-present)
*Gave the presentation “The Universe is Big” at two Ellensburg Christian School Chapel
sessions (January, 2008)
*Gave the presentation “Intelligent Design: Is it an Intelligent Curricular Choice” at the
Ellensburg Unitarian-Universalist Congregation for Evolution Sunday (February, 2007)
*Keynote Speaker for the Center for Teaching and Learning and Professional Education
Advisory Board reception for the CWU Top 10 student teachers (June, 2006)
*Gave the presentation Science and Religion: Friends or Foes for Darwin Week at CWU
(February, 2006).
*Gave the presentation Science and Religion: Friends or Foes for the Central Association of Life
Long Learning in Ellensburg (February, 2006).
*Developed and presented, with Martha Kurtz and Ian Quitadamo, a faculty workshop on
Critical Thinking (September, 2003)
*Contributed to the poster Bridge of the Gods and the Table Mountain Rock Alignments:
Archaeological GPS Mapping and Interpretations along with Jessica Middleton, Daniel
Alden, Steve Hackenberger, and Jack Powell (May, 2003)
*Interviewed for a locally produced distance education CD-ROM. I answered questions about
developing, teaching, and assessing a course taught via interactive video (spring, 2000)
*Participated in a panel discussion on the successes and failures pertaining to the use of
technology to enhance instruction at the fall all-university faculty meeting (9/99)
*Presented “You want me to do WHAT in this science class?!: Alternative Assessment in
College Classes” at the CWU Natural Science Seminar (2/99)
*Co-presenter at the CWU Natural Science Seminar called “Sciences Come to Life: Samples of
Faculty Research and Teaching in the New Science Building” (10/98)
*Presented a report called “Interactive Video: Reducing the Pain for Newcomers through
Lessons Learned” during a panel presentation called “Oh New Brave Electronic World, How
can CWU Keep Pace” at the fall all-university faculty meeting (9/98)
*Participated in a CWU faculty/student public debate about the role of lecture in teaching (5/97)
*Presented a report, along with Louise Baxter, called “Classroom Assessment Techniques” at a
faculty assessment workshop (5/97)
*Presented a poster, "Interview Assessment in Physics Labs" at the CWU Faculty Association
for Teaching and Learning Poster Session (5/96)
*Organized and led, with Doug Reynolds, biology, a campus workshop on Collaborative
Learning (2/96)
*Presented the lecture, Cooperative Group Problem Solving in Physics, Central Washington
University Physics Department Colloquium, (11/94)
Consulting
Phi Theta Kappa, Community College Honor Society (2001-2005). Mentored six community
colleges as they enhanced their efforts in teacher preparation.
Page 220
3/15/2010
Service
University Service
 Science Education and Physics advisor (1993 - present)
 Douglas Honors College lectures, two per year on the history and philosophy of science
(1994 - present)
 Astronomy Presentations to CWU groups such as SSS and LLCs (1993 - present)
 General Advisor for Physics and Science Education (1993 - present)
 Taught UNIV 100/101, freshman advising seminar (1997 – 2002, 2004-7), incorporated an
academic service-learning project in my courses, got academic-service learning approved as
part of the course syllabus.
 Advising Day/Major fair/CWU Open House participant (1997 – present)
University Committee memberships
 Member, Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee (2002 – present)
 Center for Teaching and Learning Standard V Committee (2008-present)
 Center for Teaching and Learning Standard V Initial Field Experience Subcommittee (2009present)
 Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities Accreditation Standard 6 committee cochair (2007 – 2008)
 Center for Teaching and Learning Advisory council (2008)
 Elementary education Advisory council (2008-present)
 Center for Teaching and Learning Scholarship committee (1995 - 2007), committee chair
(1999-2007)
 Physics Department search committees (1996-1997, 2000-2001 [chair], 2006-7 [chair])
 Physics Department Personnel Committee Chair (2007-present)
 President’s Synthesizing Committee (2000-2001)
 University Professional Education Council: Admission, Matriculation and Graduation
Subcommittee (1994 - 2001)
 Library Advisory Committee (1999-2002), committee chair (1999-2002)
 New science building steering committee (1993 - 1998)
 University Professional Education Council (1994 - 1998)
 Science Education faculty search committees (1994 – 95 [chair], 2002-3, 2004-5, 2005-6,
2007-8 [chair])
 Science Education Department Personnel Committee Chair (2008-present)
 Kent Site Director search committee (2008-9)
Thesis/Project Committees
2006: Tracy Watrous-Kelly (M.S., Chemistry)
2005: Josh Munroe (Douglas Honors Thesis)
2003: Ray Harris (M.Ed.), Roger Hume (M.Ed.)
2002: Shauna Curtis (M.Ed.), Marci Gano (M.Ed.)
2001: David Bruce (M.Ed.)
2000: Kyle Alm (Douglas Honors Thesis)
1999: Susan Thomas (M.Ed.)
Page 221
3/15/2010
1998: Ian Loverro (M.Ed.)
1997: Kerry Ward (M.Ed.), Ginni Costa (Douglas Honors Thesis)
Selected Community Service (Local, State and Regional)
Local
 Astronomy Club Advisor (2000-present)
 Public Astronomy Presentations to local school groups, approximately four per year (1993 present)
 Organize star parties for school groups and the public, approximately two per year (2000present)
 Planetarium shows for GEAR-UP students (2003-2008)
 Helped organize "Expanding your Horizons," a program to get adolescent girls interested in
science (2000-present)







State
Participated in a meeting with the state HECB to determine new college admission standards
(3/96 in SeaTac). Also gave them feedback on the work to come out of the meeting.
Developed competency-based standards college admission standards for science (11/99 in
SeaTac). Modified standards and developed assessments (10/00 in Selah)
Assessed college writing samples for the Washington Senior Writing Assessment (2000-1)
Member, Washington Science Olympiad Executive Committee (1995 - 1997)
Member, Washington Science Talent Search Board (1995 - 96)
Prepared a document relating the draft state science benchmarks to minimum college
admission standards (1995)
Regional
Member, Pacific Northwest Science Talent Search Board (1996 - 2000)
Made presentations to middle school students at the regional conference Multicultural
Experiences in Math and Science (1998-2003)
National
Reviewer for American Educational Research Journal (1998)
Reviewer for The Physics Teacher (2003, 2005)
Contributed Astronomy Education Research: An Annotated Bibliography
(www.execpc.com/~starlab/aer/biblio.html). (11/01)
Academic and Professional Organizations
*American Association of Physics Teachers
*Astronomical Society of the Pacific
*National Science Teacher's Association
*Sigma Pi Sigma (National Physics Honor Society)
*Alpha Chi (National Honor Society)
Page 222
3/15/2010
Courses Taught
Central Washington University
PHYS 101/102 – introductory astronomy courses
PHYS 105 - activity based physics course for preservice elementary teachers
PHYS 111, 112, 113 - year long algebra-based introductory physics course
PHYS 181, 182, 183 - year long calculus-based introductory physics course
PHYS 317, 318 – 2-quarter modern physics sequence
PHYS 489 – capstone course for physics majors
PHYS 492 – supervise and advise lab TAs
PHYS 498 - optics course for teachers
SCED 322 - science teaching methods course for preservice elementary teachers
I have also taught this course as a hands-on science and science methods class via two-way video
and audio (i.e., distance education)
SCED 324 - science teaching methods course for preservice secondary teachers
SCED 398 - series of one week physics courses for preservice and inservice teachers
SCED 420 – science teaching practicum
SCED 422 – advanced science teaching methods
SCED 551 – topics in physics (for middle school science teachers)
UNIV 101 – freshman advising seminar
PHIL 398 – Issues in Science and religion
University of Minnesota
GC 0615 - basic mathematics course to prepare college students for algebra
SeEd 5700/5701 - helped teach a middle school science methods class and practicum
SeEd 5702/5703 - helped teach a high school science teaching methods class and practicum
SeEd 5704/5705 - helped facilitate a student teaching seminar
Phys 1041/1042 - helped develop and teach a noncalculus-based physics lab course
Phys 1251/1252/1253 - helped develop a calculus-based physics lab course
Page 223
3/15/2010
CURRICULUM VITAE OF
BETH PRATT-SITAULA
I.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION AND CONTACT INFORMATION
A.
Geological Sciences Department and Science Education Program
B.
Hebeler 111; psitaula@geology.cwu.edu
II.
EDUCATION
Geological Sciences PhD 2005
Certif. in College & Univ. Teaching 2005
Geosciences MS 2001
Geology BA 1994
University of California Santa Barbara
University of California Santa Barbara
The Pennsylvania State University
Carleton College
III.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
2005-present Assistant Professor
Geological Sciences and Science Education, Central Washington Univ.
2004, 2005 Instructor of Record
Geological Sciences Dept., University of California Santa Barbara
2001-2005
Graduate Research & Teaching Assistant
Geological Sciences Dept., University of California Santa Barbara
1999-2001
Graduate Research Assistant
Geosciences Department, Pennsylvania State University
1996-1998
Natural History Guide
Denali Backcountry Lodge, Alaska
1995-1999
Antarctic Field Technician
California Institute of Technology
IV.
TEACHING EXPERIENCE
A.
Teaching Interests and Specialties:
Earth surface processes, climate change, science education
B.
Teaching and Training Grants:
C.
Teaching Awards and Honors:
ScienceLine Award for Outstanding Contributions to K-12 Science
Education, University of California Santa Barbara, June 2005
D.
Current Graduate Faculty Status:
Regular Member
E.
Number of Master Committees served on:
Degree granted: 6 (Brian Gray, Grant Logsdon, Stephanie Vandal, Katherine
Whitlow, Shannon Othus, Utsab Bhattarai)
In process: 5 (Matthew Durkee, Joshua Dailey, Patrick Johnston, Caitlin
Orem, Emily Parker)
F.
Names of Students who have completed Master’s Theses under your direction:
Page 224
3/15/2010
G.
H.
V.
Courses Taught
 Central Washington University: GEOL 350 Northwest Geology; GEOL 495
Undergraduate Research; GEOL 496 Individual Study; GEOL 570 Fluvial
Geomorphology; GEOL 501 Current Topics in Geology; GEOL 504
Graduate Seminar Series; GEOL 528 Active Pacific NW Geology; GEOL 595
Graduate Research; REM 595 Graduate Research; SCED 301
Interdisciplinary Science Inquiry; SCED 322 Science Education in the
Elementary School; SCED 422 Advanced Teaching Strategies in
Elementary School; SCED 487 Teaching Secondary Science Seminar; SCED
495 Undergraduate Research; SCED 501 Interdisciplinary Science Inquiry;
SCED 511 Watershed Activities – Yakima WATERS
 University of California: Introduction to Physical Geology, Introduction to
Environmental Geology
Other:
SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY
A.
Interests and Specialties:
Geomorphology, climate-tectonics-surface processes interactions, science
education, place-based earth science learning
B.
Current Projects:
 Secondary earth science teacher place-based professional development
 Himalayan glacier and river research – impact of climate on surface
processes
 Modern snowfall and snowmelt (Himalaya and Cascades)
 Thematic place-based K-12 science outreach and curriculum
 Global Positioning System (GPS) network development to detect ground
motion and earthquake hazard in the Nepalese Himalaya
C.
Peer reviewed journal articles:
Pratt-Sitaula, B., Upreti, B.N., Melbourne, T., Miner, A., Parker, E., Rai, S..,
Bhattarai, T.N., 2009, Applying geodesy and modeling to test the role of
climate controlled erosion in shaping Himalayan morphology and
evolution: Himalayan Geology, v. 30, n. 2, p. 123-131.
Gabet, E. J., Burbank, D., Pratt-Sitaula, B., and Putkonen J., 2008, Modern
erosion rates in the High Himalayas of Nepal: Earth and Planetary Science
Letters, v. 267, n. 3-4, p. 482–494.
Amidon, W. H., Farley, K. A., Burbank, D. W., Pratt-Sitaula, B., 2008,
Anomalous cosmogenic He-3 production and elevation scaling in the high
Himalaya: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 265, n. 1-2, p. 287-301.
Pratt-Sitaula, B.A., Garde, M.*, Burbank, D.W., Oskin M., Heimsath A.,
Gabet, E., July 2007, Bedload-to-suspended load ratio and rapid bedrock
incision from Himalayan landslide-dam lake record: Quaternary Research,
v. 68, n. 1, p. 111-120.
Page 225
3/15/2010
Pratt-Sitaula, B.A., December 2005, Glaciers, climate, and topography in the
Nepalese Himalaya: PhD Thesis, University of California Santa Barbara.
Pratt-Sitaula, B.A., Burbank, D.W., Heimsath, A., and Ojha, T., 2004,
Landscape disequilibrium on 1000-10,000 year scales Marsyandi River,
Nepal, central Himalaya: Geomorphology, v. 58, p. 223-241.
Gabet, E.J., Burbank, D.W., Putkonen, J.K., Pratt-Sitaula, B.A., and Ojha, T.,
2004, Rainfall thresholds for landsliding in the Himalayas of Nepal:
Geomorphology, v. 63, p. 131-143.
Gabet, E.J., Pratt-Sitaula, B.A., and Burbank, D.W., 2004, Climatic controls on
hillslope angle and relief in the Himalayas: Geology, v. 32, p. 629-632.
Burbank, D.W., Blythe, A.E., Putkonen, J., Pratt-Sitaula, B.A., Gabet, E., Oskin,
M., Barros, A., and Ojha, T.P., 2003, Decoupling of erosion and
precipitation in the Himalayas: Nature, v. 426, p. 652-655.
Pratt, B.A., Burbank, D.W., Heimsath, A.M., and Ojha, T.P., 2002, Impulsive
alluviation during early Holocene strengthened monsoons, central Nepal
Himalaya: Geology, v. 30, p. 911-914.
*student
Editor reviewed journal articles:
Quitadamo, I., Kurtz, M., Sorey, T., Pratt-Sitaula, B., and Palmquist, B., Fall
2006, Using e-portfolios to evaluate pre-service teacher performance:
Washington Science Teachers Association Journal, v. 46, n. 4.
Pratt-Sitaula, B.A., November 2004, Connecting people to science in the
Himalaya: Geotimes, v. 49, n. 11, p. 38-39.
Conference Papers and Presentations:
Pratt-Sitaula, B., Butler, R., Whitman, J., October 2009, Community college
Earth science instructors as team leaders in K-12 professional
development workshop on active Pacific NW geology and hazards.
Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon.
Pratt-Sitaula, B., Upreti, B.N. , October 2008, New GPS station network and
elastic half-space modeling of Nepalese Himalayan tectonics and
earthquake hazard. International Symposium on Mountain Building and
Climate-Tectonic Interaction, Dehra Dun, India.
Pratt-Sitaula, B., Gazis, G., Kurtz, M. Quitadamo, I., and Wagner, R. S.,
December 2007, Infusing interdisciplinary place-based watershed
research into K-12 curricula and university collaborations. Eos
Transactions AGU 88. Abstract ED23B-1294.
Pratt-Sitaula, B., Burbank, D., Bookhagen, B., and Putkonen, J., October
2007, Calculating snowfall on Himalayan Glaciers. Landscape Dynamics
and Atmospheric Sciences Workshop, Boulder, CO.
Pratt-Sitaula, B., May 2007, Aligning course activities to stated goals.
Geoscience Courses That Prepare Future Teachers Workshop, Northfield,
MN.
Page 226
3/15/2010
Pratt-Sitaula, B., January 2007, Climate Connections: The Indian Monsoon.
2007 Indo-American Frontiers of Science Symposium, National Academy
of Science, Irvine, CA.
Pratt-Sitaula, B., Burbank, D. W., Heimsath, A., Humphrey, N., Putkonen, J.,
and Oskin, M., December 2005, Climate and glaciation in the Nepalese
Himalaya. Eos Transactions AGU 86.
Pratt-Sitaula, B., Burbank, D., Heimsath, A., Gabet, E., and Humphrey, N.,
March 2005, Impacts of climate on surface processes Nepal Himalaya.
Himalayan Karakorum Tibet Workshop, France.
Garde, M.*, Pratt-Sitaula, B. A., Burbank, D. W., Oskin, M., and Heimsath, A.,
December 2004, Triple Whammy: Mid-Holocene Landslide Dam Yields
Suspended Load-Bedload Ratio, Regional Erosion Rate, and Bedrock
Incision Rate, Central Nepal Himalaya. Eos Transactions AGU 85, Abstract
T31B-1307.
Pratt-Sitaula, B. A., Burbank, D. W., Heimsath, A., and Putkonen, J.,
December 2003, Significant glacial advance during Younger Dryas,
Annapurna region, Nepal. Eos Transactions AGU 84, Abstract C11B-0817.
Pratt, B. A., Burbank, D. W., and Heimsath, A. M., December 2001,
Alluviation during strengthened Asian monsoons, central Nepal Himalaya.
Eos Transactions AGU, p. 510.
Pratt, B. A., Burbank, D. W., and Heimsath, A. M., October 2001, Landscape
disequilibrium on 1,000-10,000 year scales, Marsyandi River, Nepal,
Central Himalaya. Geological Society of America, p. 69.
Pratt, B. A., Burbank, D. W., Farrow, B. T., and Ojha, T. P., December 2000,
Using perched-strath ages and fill terrace profiles to determine river
incision and rock uplift rates, Marsyandi River, Nepal. Eos Transactions
AGU, p. 1166.
Books:
Book Chapters:
Book Reviews:
Editorial Work:
Creative Works:
D.
Grants Applied For:
NASA Terrestrial Hydrology Program Grant - Snow- and rainfall dynamics in
the Himalaya using TRMM-PR, TRMM-TMI, and MODIS satellite data
Principal CWU Investigator (Collaborative with University of California)
$615,000 over four years
Submitted January 2008; status: denied
NSF EarthScope - Collaborative Education and Outreach: Teachers on the
Leading Edge, a Summer Institute of Pacific Northwest Geoscience
Experiences for Secondary Earth Science Teachers
Principal CWU Investigator (Collaborative with University of Portland)
Page 227
3/15/2010
$850,000 over four years
Submitted July 2006; status: denied
National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Grant - Seismic hazard in the
Hanford-Yakima region: analysis of structural geology, Quaternary
deformation rates, geodetically determine modern shortening, and
tectonic geomorphology
Principal Investigator
$55,000 over one year
Submitted May 2006; status: denied
NASA Terrestrial Hydrology Program Grant - Calibrating rainfall, estimating
snowfall, and deriving vegetation cover in large Himalayan catchments
using TRMM, MODIS, and ASTER satellite data
Principal CWU Investigator (Collaborative with University of California)
$205,000 over two years
Submitted February 2006; status: denied
E.
Grants Received:
NSF Major Research Instrumentation - Collaborative Research MRI:
Acquisition of Terrestrial Laser Scanning Systems for Earth Sciences
Research
Co-Principal Investigator
$213,656 over two years, started July 2009
NSF Graduate Fellows in K-12 Education Grant International Extension –
Nepal WATERS
Principle Investigator
$100,000 over two years, started May 2008
CWU Center for Science and Math Excellence Faculty Grant – Earth Science
Education teaching materials preparation
2 release credits, Spring 2008
CWU Office of Graduate Studies and Research SEED Grant - Accessory
equipment for permanent GPS stations in Nepal
$2000, Summer 2008
CWU Office of Graduate Studies and Research SOAR Grant - Geodetic
observation of Himalayan crustal deformation
12 release credits, Fall 2008
NSF EarthScope - Collaborative Education and Outreach: Teachers on the
Leading Edge, a Summer Institute of Pacific Northwest Geoscience
Experiences for Secondary Earth Science Teachers
Principal CWU Investigator (Collaborative with University of Portland and
Pacific Lutheran University)
$450,000 over three years, started February 2008
CWU Center for Science and Math Excellence Faculty Grant - Secondary
Science Teaching Majors End-of-Program Seminar Development
1 release credit, 2007-8 academic year
Page 228
3/15/2010
NSF Graduate Fellows in K-12 Education Grant - Yakima Watershed Activities
To Enhance Research in Schools
Co-Principal Investigator
$2,800,000 over five years, started March 2007
COTS Essential Instructional/Research Equipment Request - Rock crushing
and mineral separation facilities
$10,000, started January 2007
CWU College of the Science Faculty Summer Research Grant
$3,500 over Summer 2006
VI.
F.
Honors and Awards:
Outstanding Student Paper Award, American Geophysical Union annual meeting,
Fall 2005
Alumni Graduate Award for Research Excellence, Department of Geological
Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, June 2005
Chancellor’s Fellowship, University of California Santa Barbara, 2001-2005
Migues Field Research Prize, Department of Geological Sciences, University of
California Santa Barbara, June 2002
Pennsylvania Space Grant Fellowship, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, 2000-2001
G.
Other:
Associate science advisor and remote-location camera person for public
television science documentary, Earth Forces: the rise and fall of the
Himalaya, 2000-2005
UNIVERSITY SERVICE
A.
University
 CWU Representative on Washington State Earth and Space Science
WEST-E Review Panel, November 2007
 CWU Representative on Washington State “Secondary Education Earth
and Space Science Major Related Program Workgroup”, Spring & Fall
2007
 Regular Graduate Faculty, ongoing since Fall 2007
 Associate Graduate Faculty, 2006-2007
 Science Education Program Committee of the Whole for Secondary
Teaching Portfolio Development, ongoing since Winter 2006
 Expanding Your Horizons Committee & Presenter, ongoing since 2006
B.
Faculty Senate
 Geological Science Dept. Faculty Senate Alternate, Spring 2006-Spring
2008
Page 229
3/15/2010
C.
D.
E.
VII.
College
 Professional Education Sequence Steering Committee COTS
Representative, ongoing since Winter 2008
Department
 Served on four search committees in 2008: Geology Faculty Member, Bio
Education Faculty Member, Science Education secretary, and WATERS
School Liaison
 Geological Sciences Graduate Program Coordinator, ongoing since Winter
2007
 Earth Science Teaching Major Program Coordinator, ongoing since Winter
2006
 Geomorphology Discussion Seminar organizer, Winter-Spring 2006
 Endnote software workshop organizer, Winter 2006
Other
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE & AFFILIATION
A.
Membership in Professional Associations:
 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
 American Geophysical Union (AGU)
 Geological Society of America (GSA)
 National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT)
 National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)
 Teachers of Teachers of Science (TOTOS)
 Washington Science Teachers Association (WSTA)
B.
C.
D:
E.
F.
Offices Held and Honors Awarded in Professional Associations:
 Integrated Solid Earth Sciences Steering Committee Member
 American Geophysical Union “Sediment and Landscape Dynamics”
Technical Committee Member
 Himalayan Society for Landslides and Environment Founding Member
Consultantships:
Evaluation of Manuscripts for Journals and Books Publishers and of Grant
Proposals for Agencies. Organizations served:
 Earth and Planetary Science Letters
 Geomorphology
 Journal of Geoscience Education
 National Science Foundation International Programs
 National Science Foundation Tectonics Program
Papers and Presentations at Professional Meetings (other than those listed
under “Scholarly Activity”)
Other:
Page 230
3/15/2010
VIII.
PUBLIC SERVICE
 Valley View Elementary School Science Club Fair judge – May 2007
 Supervise more than a hundred CWU elementary and secondary science education
students in field and classroom practica experiences per year, ongoing since
2006
 Working with Ellensburg science teachers to improve and implement inquiry science
into K-12 curriculum, ongoing since 2006
 Oneworld School Project – cofounder of a non-profit organization dedicated to
bridging cultural differences and improving education internationally, ongoing
since 2004
 Member of UCSB outreach team that held a series of workshops and field trips for
local 6th grade teachers to assist them in gaining knowledge and generating
curriculum/activities that fulfill the newly mandated Earth Science Standards in
California 6th grade – 2001-2003
 Co-organizer of a Community Fellowship in Mathematics and Science (CFMS)
workshop to introduce hands-on geology activities and demonstrations to ~75
minority pre-service teachers – 2003
Page 231
3/15/2010
Ian J. Quitadamo
Central Washington University
Department of Biological Sciences | Department of Science Education
400 E. University Way | Ellensburg, WA 98926-7537
Phone: 509.963.2745 | Fax: 509.963.2730 | Email: iq@cwu.edu
E D UC AT I ON
Washington State University, Pullman, WA | 2002
Interdisciplinary Ph.D. in Science, Education, and Technology
Dissertation: Critical Thinking in Higher Education: The Influence of Teaching Styles and Peer Collaboration on
Science and Math Learning.
Washington State University, Pullman, WA | 1997
M.S. in Genetics and Cell Biology
Thesis: Efficient Purification of Anti-Cancer Immunotherapy Antibodies Using Magnetic Beads.
Washington State University, Pullman, WA | 1993
B.S. in Biology
Major: Pre-medicine
South Puget Sound Community College, Olympia, WA | 1990
A.A. in General Science
Major: Biology, physical science, liberal arts
H ON OR S AN D AW A RD S
Crystal Apple Award: Professional Educators Advisory Board. 2008.
Baldridge Washington State Quality Award Examiner. 2008.
John Stanford Educational Achievement Award: Cascade Land Conservancy (Yakima WATERS). 2008.
Project Kaleidoscope: Faculty for the 21st Century. Class of 2005.
Marquis Who’s Who in Science and Engineering: (5th & 6th editions). 2000-2002.
Phi Theta Kappa National Honor Fraternity: Olympia Chapter. Class of 1990.
UN D ER GR AD U A T E T E A C HI NG E XP ER I EN C E
At Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA: Department of Biological Sciences and Science Education
Program
Biological Sciences
Instructor – Fundamentals of Biology (BIOL 101) | 2002-present.

Teach introductory biology for non-majors with emphasis on critical thinking and development of
scientific literacy. Methods used include investigative research projects, case studies aligned to major
course themes, small group collaboration, writing, and peer evaluation. Themes include the scientific
method, evolution, ecology, cell and molecular biology, and life chemistry.
Page 232
3/15/2010
Instructor – General Biology II (BIOL 182) | 2009-present.

Teach second of three courses in biology majors sequence. Emphasize cell and molecular concepts for
prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems. Methods used include discussion, think-pair-share, Socratic questiondriven labs, oral comprehensive exams, and peer evaluation. Topics discussed include macromolecular
chemistry, cell structure/function relationships, cancer and angiogenesis, energetics and metabolism, cell
signaling and communication, and gene structure and expression.
Instructor – Introductory Cell Biology (BIOL 220) | 2003-present.

Teach cell biology for biology majors with emphasis on investigative research and critical thinking.
Methods used include debate, student-driven cell culture research projects, oral comprehensive exams,
and peer evaluation. Topics discussed include macromolecular chemistry, cell structure/function
relationships, cancer and angiogenesis, energetics and metabolism, cell signaling and communication, and
gene structure and expression.
Instructor – Genetics (BIOL 321) | 2004-present.

Teach genetics for biology majors emphasizing applied problem solving and critical thinking. Methods
used include debate, genomics microarray research projects, oral comprehensive exams, and peer
evaluation. Topics discussed include Mendelian genetics and extensions, DNA structure/function, gene
expression and regulation, mutation and DNA repair with relation to disease states.
Instructor – Biotechnology for Teachers (BIOL 427) | 2003-present.

Teach laboratory-intensive biotechnology course to biology teaching majors using kit-based curriculum
aligned to state and national standards. Community-based inquiry research proposal, oral exams, peer
evaluation, and a course e-portfolio are used to assess inquiry teaching skills, critical thinking, reflection,
and professional improvement. Topics investigated include recombinant DNA technology, cell
transformation, PCR, detection of genetically-modified organisms, bioinformatics, and proteomics.
Instructor – Laboratory Experience Teaching Biological Science (BIOL 492/592) | 2009-present.

Teach undergraduate and graduate students effective process and research-based pedagogy for teaching
life science laboratory. Methods used include discussion and in-class observation with emphasis on
practical skills development.
Instructor – Senior Seminar (BIOL 499.1) | 2004-present.

Teach senior-level end of program course. Methods used include discussion of contemporary biological
issues, debate, and resume building. An end-of-program Major Field Test is also used to assess content
knowledge.
Science Education
Instructor – Interdisciplinary Science Inquiry (SCED 301) | 2004-present.

Teach interdisciplinary inquiry science course to middle-school pre-service teachers. Methods used
include current topics literature evaluation and debate, self evaluation of life, physical, and earth science
content knowledge, research proposals, notebooks, and posters presented to university and community
stakeholders, written and oral content exams, peer evaluation, and e-portfolios. Extensive hands-on
investigation of alternative energy topics, application of the scientific method, and development of
content and knowledge and skills are emphasized.
Page 233
3/15/2010
Instructor – Science Methods in the Elementary Schools (SCED 322) | 2002-present.

Teach pre-service teachers to become effective K-5 science educators. Methods used include in-class
inquiry experiences, investigative research projects, teaching practicum field experiences, peer
evaluation, and e-portfolios. Topics discussed include scientific literacy, state and national standards,
outcomes and assessment, increasing K-5 cognitive demand and critical thinking, inquiry instruction and
content integration, and professional reflection. Stress development of practical and applied skills and
instructional alignment to state and national performance benchmarks.
Instructor – Teaching Middle School Mathematics and Science (SCED/MATH 323) | 2008-present.

Teach pre-service teachers to become effective middle level science and math educators. Methods used
include discipline-specific and integrated inquiry and problem solving activities, practicum field
experiences in science and math, peer and self evaluation, and e-portfolios. Topics discussed include
science and math integration, state and national standards, deep alignment of outcomes, activities, and
assessment, critical thinking and problem solving, and professional development.
Instructor – Science Methods in the Secondary Schools (SCED 324) | 2002-present.

Teach secondary pre-service teachers to become effective 7-12 science educators. Methods used include
extensive review of primary literature, development of collaboration, bias reduction, technology, and K12 science education reform action plans, use of STAR protocol, teaching practicum field experiences,
professional e-portfolios aligned to national benchmarks, and interview-style oral final exams. Topics
discussed include national stakeholder concerns and scientific literacy, best-practices research on science
teaching, factors that influence secondary student performance and achievement, inquiry instruction,
outcomes and assessment, increasing 7-12 cognitive demand and critical thinking, and professional
reflection.
Instructor – Science Education Undergraduate Research (SCED 495) | 2003-present.

Mentor biology teaching undergraduates in theoretical and applied science education research. Topics
discussed include assessment, validity and reliability, research design, validity threats, descriptive and
inferential statistics, and data analysis using SPSS software. A goal of this course is to help students
publish their research in peer-reviewed journals.
Instructor – Teaching Secondary Science Seminar (SCED 487) | 2009-present.

Teach senior-level end of program course. Methods used include end-of-program e-portfolio, discussion,
activities, and research presentation of contemporary issues in biology, chemistry, earth science, and
physics secondary science teaching. Completion of evidence-based e-portfolio as prerequisite to student
teaching is emphasized.
At Washington State University, Pullman, WA: The Graduate School
Graduate Facilitator – Freshman Seminar | 1999-2000.

Mentored undergraduate peer leader teams in effective instructional practice and teaching with
technology. Facilitated freshman seminar discussion and development of critical thinking using research
projects.
Instructor – Peer Leadership | 1999-2000.

Instructed apprentice peer instructors in educational theory, effective educational technique, and
investigative research processes with a collaborative team of graduate instructors.
Page 234
3/15/2010
At Washington State University, Pullman, WA: Department of Genetics and Cell Biology
Teaching Assistant – General Genetics | 1996-1998.

Taught undergraduate genetics, molecular biology, and cell biology with emphasis on classical Mendelian
genetics and extensions, molecular genetics, gene cloning/manipulation, developmental, and population
genetics.
Teaching Assistant – Introduction to Biological Science | 1994-1997.

Taught undergraduate laboratory biology with emphasis on systematics and phylogeny, origins of life,
prokaryote, protist, fungal, and eukaryote life forms, evolution, and community/population ecology.
Helped to develop student seminar teams that collaboratively solved problems and wrote weekly essays.
Teaching Assistant – Gross and Micro Human Anatomy | 1991-1993.

Taught pre-medical and pre-pharmaceutical undergraduates systems-based, clinical human anatomy
using authentic human cadavers.
GR AD U A T E T E A C HIN G E X P ER I ENC E
At Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA:
Instructor – Initiating Science and Math Curriculum Reform in K-12 Schools (SCED 500) | 2005-present.

Taught in-service teachers from north central Washington to initiate and sustain integrated math and
science curriculum reform using environment as integrating context. Provided watershed inquiry
experiences and worked to align classroom activities to state performance benchmarks in science and
math.
Instructor – Interdisciplinary Science Inquiry for Teachers (SCED 501) | 2005-present.

Developed a week-long field research experience to improve K-12 in-service teacher knowledge and skill
for integrating science and math content and pedagogy. Used watershed and state grade level
expectations as integrating context for teachers from north central Washington.
Instructor – Biology Concepts for Teachers (SCED 521) | 2004-present.

Taught biology content and applied inquiry and instructional techniques to in-service teachers working
toward a Middle Level Math and Science Endorsement. Implemented year-long online course to help
teachers continue content and applied skills development to enhance middle school learning
performance.
Instructor – Yakima Watershed Activities to Enhance Research in Schools (SCED 598) | 2007-present.

Co-taught National Science Foundation GK-12 graduate fellows to integrate watershed research into K-12
classrooms in local schools. Work focused on project development, reflective practice, problem solving,
and improvement.
For Western Governors University, UT:
Instructor – Instructional Design and Performance Improvement | 1999-2000.

Taught online course to in-service teachers in principles of Instructional Design (ID). Emphasized needs
analysis, instructional design, and implementation of instructional solutions. Facilitated online discussions
to help new graduate students develop critical thinking skills.
Page 235
3/15/2010
RE S E ARC H EXP E RI EN C E
At Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA:
Critical Thinking

Investigate factors that influence critical thinking gains in science. Collaborate with students and faculty to
reform science teaching to improve critical thinking outcomes. 1999-present.
At Washington State University, Pullman, WA:
Research Associate for two Alcoholic Beverage Medical Research Foundation (ABMRF) grants. Directors: Margaret
E. Schelling and E. Carolyn Johnson. June 1998-2000.

Investigated microvascular endothelial cell adenosine receptor and VEGF/VEGF receptor protein
expression exposed to normoxia, hypoxia, and moderate chronic ethanol. Also determined normoxic and
ethanol effects on microvascular endothelial cell expression of 22 protein markers panel.
Project Associate for the National Science Foundation grant Adaptive Teaching and Learning Environments (ATLes)
grant application. Director: Greg Crouch. June 2001.

Worked with faculty from Chemistry, English, Veterinary Science, Choral Music, Mathematics, Pharmacy,
Exercise Science, Instructional Technology, Economics, and Computer Programming from WSU and
University of Dayton, OH to promote critical thinking in science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology courses.
Endothelial Cell Function and Tumor Angiogenesis

Investigated molecular mechanisms of endothelial cell proliferation, migration, and differentiation during
tumor angiogenesis using quantitative protein marker panel analyses. 1993-2002.

Investigated endothelial cell response to chronic moderate levels of alcohol and low oxygen conditions
using protein marker panel. 1993-2002.
Molecular Analysis of Plant Cells

Developed a plant tissue diagnostic antibody purification technique using magnetic beads. Conducted
quantitative study comparing magnetic bead and affinity chromatography antibody purification
techniques. 1998-2000.
Biotechnology Technical Consultant

Developed a molecular method for purifying immunotherapy-quality anti-cancer antibodies using paramagnetic beads made by Dynal, Inc (Oslo, Norway). Provided consultation services for Dynal, Inc (US
branch). 1998-2000.
Technology-Enhanced Science

Researched effectiveness of online environments on student critical thinking in science. Designed genetics
computer animations, conducted in-depth usability testing, and statistically analyzed research data. 2000.
Technical Assistant II

Worked with university faculty to develop technology-based education environments using Microsoft
FrontPage, Adobe Photoshop, and Macromedia Flash. 1999-2000.
Page 236
3/15/2010
GR ANT S
At Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA:
External Grants
Quitadamo, I.J., Kurtz, M.J., Johnson, J., Thomas, C. (co-PIs) (Jan 2010). Using Community-Based Inquiry to Build
Faculty Capacity and Student Critical Thinking. Submitted to the National Science Foundation Graduate Course,
Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement program (DUE-1023093) for $527,658.
Quitadamo, I.J., Kurtz, M.J., Johnson, J., Thomas, C. (co-PIs) (May 2009). Building Faculty Capacity and Student
Critical Thinking to Improve American STEM Competitiveness. Submitted to the National Science Foundation
Graduate Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement program (DUE-6903428) for $199,709.
Stryker, G. Donji, B., Quitadamo, I.J. (co-PIs) (May 2009). A Proposal to Improve the Cellular/Molecular Biology
Curriculum at Central Washington University. Submitted to the National Science Foundation Graduate Course,
Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement program (DUE-6900292) for $199,738.
Simpson, M., Lambert, C., Kurtz, M., Quitadamo, I.J., (Senior Project Personnel). (Mar. 2009). Personalizing
Student Learning of Math and Science to Increase Achievement. State grant submitted to the Higher Education
Coordinating Board 21st Century program for $1,200,000.
Brown, M., Kurtz, M., Harves, M., Quitadamo, I.J. (Senior Project Personnel). (Mar 2009). Excellence in Middle
School Math and Science. State grant submitted to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Math Science
Partnerships program for $750,000.
Quitadamo, I.J. (PI) (Mar 2009). Critical Thinking Assessment Test National Dissemination: Assessing and Improving
Learning. Grant funded by Tennessee Tech University via National Science Foundation for $2,500.
Gazis, C., Kurtz, M.J., Pratt-Sitaula, B., Quitadamo, I.J., Wagner, R.S. (co-PIs) (Mar 2007). Yakima Watershed
Activities To Enhance Research in Schools (Yakima WATERS). Funded by the National Science Foundation Graduate
STEM Fellows in K-12 Education program (DGE-0638648) for $2,995,224.
Quitadamo, I.J. (PI), Johnson, J., Kurtz, M.J., Wagner, R.S. (Jan 2007). Community-based Inquiry to Improve Critical
Thinking Performance and Content Knowledge. National grant submitted to the National Science Foundation
Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement program for $497,231.
Cheney, M., Brown, M., Brumley, J., Quitadamo, I.J., Kurtz, M.J. (Senior Project Personnel). (Jan 2007). Through
the LENS: Building Success in Science – Ensuring Success in Math and Literacy. State grant funded by the Office of
Superintendent of Public Instruction Math Science Partnerships program for $742,572.
Horne, J. and Quitadamo, I.J. (PI). (Dec 2006). Interdisciplinary Watershed Inquiry for New Knowledge and Skills
(iWINKS). State grant submitted the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Math and Science Partnerships
program for $1,050,000.
Horne, J. and Quitadamo, I.J. (PI). (Dec 2006). Sustainable Mentoring for Inquiry Learning Environments (SMILE).
State grant submitted the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Math and Science Partnerships program
for $550,000.
Horne, J., Quitadamo, I.J., (consultant). (Mar 2006). Astronomy Spectrum. Grant submitted to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration for $20,000.
Quitadamo, I.J. (PI), Johnson, J., Kurtz, M.J., Wagner, R.S. (Jan 2006). Tools for Lifelong Learning: Community-based
Inquiry as a Method for Improving Cognitive Performance in General Education Science Courses. Grant submitted to
the National Science Foundation Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement program for $499,997.
Gazis, C., Kurtz, M.J., Quitadamo, I.J., Wagner, R.S. (Jun 2005). Practicing Research in Science and Math (PRISM): A
Track 1 GK-12 Program at Central Washington University. Grant submitted to the National Science Foundation
Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education program for $1,971,566.
Page 237
3/15/2010
Senior Project Personnel for Interdisciplinary Lively Application Projects at Central Washington University grant.
Funded by the National Science Foundation Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement program (DUE0410434) for $74,967. April 2005
Quitadamo, I.J. (PI). (Jul 2004). A Quantitative System for Measuring the Effects of Educational Innovation on
Changes in Student Critical Thinking grant. Grant submitted to the National Science Foundation CAREER program
for $943,721.
Grant Co-Applicant for Teacher Training Pilot Program grant. Application submitted to Washington Higher
Education Coordinating Board for $294,000. September 2003.
Hudelson, M., Crouch, G., Hines, S., Brahler, C.J., Quitadamo, I.J. (co-PIs). (May 2003). Adaptive Teaching and
Learning Environments in Science and Mathematics Education. Initially funded by the National Science Foundation
(DUE 0127423) for $100,000.
Senior Project Personnel for Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology Grant. Funded by the U.S.
Department of Education for $1,300,000. April 2003.
Quitadamo, I.J. (PI), Kurtz, M.J., Weyandt, L. (Mar 2003). Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Quantitative Effects
of Peer Collaboration on Undergraduate Cognition. Grant submitted U.S. Department of Education Institute of
Education Sciences Cognition and Student Learning program for $800,000.
Senior Project Personnel for National Science Foundation grant An Undergraduate Microbial Genome Project:
Genomics Across the Curriculum. Project Director: Steve Verhey.
Internal Grants
Quitadamo, I.J. (PI). (Jan 2007). Science and Math Professional Learning Community. Funded by the CWU Center
for Excellence in Science and Mathematics for $2,000.
Quitadamo, I.J. (PI). (Sep 2006). Tools for Lifelong Learning: Using Community-based Inquiry to Improve Critical
Thinking Performance in General Education Science. Funded by the CWU Offices of the Provost and Graduate
Studies and Research for $5,000.
Quitadamo, I.J., Johnson, J., Kurtz, M.J., Wagner, R.S. (co-PIs). (May 2005). Tools for Lifelong Learning at CWU:
Integrated Inquiry as a Method for Improving Cognitive Performance in General Education Science SOAR. Funded
by the CWU Research Fund (SOAR program) through the Office of Graduate Studies and Research for $8,500.
Quitadamo, I.J. (PI). (Jul 2004). Quantitative Effects of Writing on the Development of Undergraduate Critical
Thinking research. Funded by the CWU Office of the Provost for $4,000.
Raubeson, L.A., Quitadamo, I.J. (co-PIs). (Apr 2004). A Faculty Assessment Workshop –
Creating Valid and Reliable Classroom Tests. Funded by the Faculty Senate Development and
Appropriations Committee for $7,500.
Quitadamo, I.J., Britto, M. (co-PIs). (Mar 2004). Developing Information and Technology Literacy Skills in Teachers
of Low-Income Students. Funded by federal GEAR-UP grant for $19,985.
Quitadamo, I.J. (Dec 2003). Quantitative Analysis of Factors that Influence Undergraduate Critical Thinking. Seed
grant submitted to the CWU Office of Graduate Studies and Research for $2,000.
Kurtz, M.J., Quitadamo, I.J., Palmquist, B. (co-PIs). (Apr 2003). Critical Thinking and Peer Led Team Learning.
Funded by CWU Faculty Senate Development and Appropriations Committee for $4,592.
Quitadamo, I.J. (Apr 2003). Critical Thinking and Peer Facilitate Small Group Collaborative Learning. Grant
submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies and Research for $1,800.
Quitadamo, I.J. (Feb 2003). Quantitative Effects of Teaching Style and Peer Collaboration on the Development of
Undergraduate Critical Thinking. Funded by the CWU Office of Undergraduate Studies for $3,000.
Quitadamo, I.J. (Jan 2003). Web Course Development. Funded by the CWU Office of the Provost for $3,000.
Page 238
3/15/2010
At Washington State University, Pullman, WA:
PUB L IC AT I ON S
Peer-reviewed: **: graduate; *: undergraduate
Quitadamo, I.J., Brahler, C.J., and Grouch, G. (2009). Peer Led Team Learning: A Potential Method for Increasing
Critical Thinking in Advanced Undergraduate Science Courses. Science Educator, 18(1): 29-39.
Quitadamo, I. J., Faiola, C. L.*, Johnson, J. E., Kurtz, M. J. (2008). Community-based Inquiry Improves Critical
Thinking in General Education Biology. Cell Biology Education-Life Science Education, 7(3):327-37.
Quitadamo, I.J. and Kurtz, M. (2007). Learning to Improve: Using Writing to Increase Critical Thinking Performance
in General Education Biology. Cell Biology Education-Life Science Education, 6(3): 140-154.
Wood, P.**, Quitadamo, I.J., Loverro, I., and DePaepe, J.L. (2007). A WebQuest for Spatial Skills. Science and
Children, 44(7), 21-25.
Quitadamo, I.J., Kurtz, M. J., Sorey, T. L., Pratt-Sitaula, B., and Palmquist, B. (2006). Using e-Portfolios to Evaluate
Pre-Service Teacher Performance. Washington Science Teachers Journal, 46(3), 20-27.
Kurtz, M. J. Oursland, M. and Quitadamo, I.J. (2006). Cougars across the Curriculum: Using Just-in-Time
Technology to Support Integrated Student Research, Pre-Service Teacher Development, and Enhanced K-12
Learning. Leadership Information, 5(4), 31-39.
Kurtz, M. J. Oursland, M. and Quitadamo, I.J. (2005). Enhancing the Technological Proficiencies of Educators
through Community-based Research. Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology Monograph, 17-27.
Quitadamo, I. J., & Campanella, R.* (2005). Cougars, Curriculum, and Community: A PBL Curriculum Provides
Students with Valuable Interdisciplinary Learning Experiences. The Science Teacher, 72(4), 28-31.
Hines, S. A., Collins, P. L., Quitadamo, I. J., Brahler, C. J., Knudson, C. D.*, & Crouch, G. J. (2005). ATLes: The
Strategic Application of Web-based Technology to Address Learning Objectives and Enhance Classroom Discussion
in a Veterinary Pathology Course. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 32(1), 103-112.
Brahler, C. J., Quitadamo, I. J., and Johnson, E. C. (2002). Student Critical Thinking is Enhanced by Developing
Exercise Prescription Plans in Online Learning Modules. Advances in Physiology Education, 26(1-4), 210-221.
Johnson, E. K., Schelling, M. E., Quitadamo, I. J., Andrew, S.*, and Johnson, E. C. (2002). Cultivation and
Characterization of Coronary Microvascular Endothelial Cells: A Novel Porcine Model Using Micropigs.
Microvascular Research, 64(2), 278-288.
Quitadamo, I. J., Kostman, T. A., Schelling, M. E., & Francesci, V. R. (2000). Magnetic Bead Purification as a Rapid
and Efficient Method for Enhanced Antibody Specificity for Plant Sample Immunoblotting and Immunolocalization.
Plant Science, 153(1), 7-14.
Quitadamo, I. J., & Schelling, M. E. (1998). Efficient Purification of Mouse Anti-FGF Receptor IgM Monoclonal
Antibody by Magnetic Beads. Hybridoma, 17(2), 199-207.
Submitted/Under Review:
Quitadamo, I.J. Kurtz, M.J., Griffin, L.*, Holstad, J.*, Hunter, B.*, and Cornell, C.** (2010). Critical Thinking Grudge
Match - Biology vs. Chemistry: Examining Factors that Affect Thinking Skill in Non-Majors Science. Journal of
College Science Teaching. In press.
Page 239
3/15/2010
In Preparation:
Quitadamo, I.J. (2009). Community-Based Inquiry as a Method for Improving In-Service Teacher Critical Thinking
and Professional Development. Journal of Science Teacher Education.
Quitadamo, I.J., Brahler, C.J., and Grouch, G. (2008). How We Teach: Combinations of Teaching Style that Affect
Undergraduate Critical Thinking Performance. Science Education. Under revision.
Conference Proceedings:
Gazis, C.A., Pratt-Sitaula, B., Kurtz, M., Quitadamo, I., and Wagner, R. (2009). Yakima WATERS Project: Watershed
Activities to Enhance Research in Schools in Proceedings of the Geological Society of America Annual Meeting (2936). Portland, OR. Oct. 2009.
Kurtz, M.J., Quitadamo, I.J., Sorey, T., Palmquist, B., and Pratt-Sitaula, B. (2007). Developing Electronic Portfolios to
Assess Student Performance Relative to National and State Science Education Standards: A Collaborative Process In
Proceedings of Association for Science Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp.). Clearwater, FL:
ASTE.
Kurtz, M. J., Oursland, M., & Quitadamo, I. J. (2005). Just-in-time Technology that Supports Cougar Research across
the Curriculum. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International
Conference 2005 (pp. 2701-2708). Phoenix, AZ: AACE.
DePaepe, J., Ault, P., Mathias, K., Oursland, M., Quitadamo, I., Wagner, S., Sledge, A., Kurtz, M., Englund, T., &
Briggs, K. (2005). Teacher Interns Learn New Technological Skills through Heart, Frog, Cougar, and Robotic
Research, Part 1. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International
Conference 2005 (pp. 2539-2545). Phoenix, AZ: AACE.
DePaepe, J., Ault, P., Mathias, K., Oursland, M., Quitadamo, I., Wagner, S., Sledge, A., Kurtz, M., Englund, T., &
Briggs, K. (2005). Teacher Interns Learn New Technological Skills through Heart, Frog, Cougar, and Robotic
Research, Part 2. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International
Conference 2005 (pp. 2546-2552). Phoenix, AZ: AACE.
Brown, A., Davis, J., Onarheim, K., & Quitadamo, I. (2002). Carrots, Velvet Whips, and Propeller Beanies: Providing
Incentives that Facilitate Institutional Change. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher
Education International Conference 2002 (pp. 1521-1523). Orlando, FL: AACE.
Quitadamo, I., & Brown, A. (2001). Effective Online Learning at Western Governor’s University. In Proceedings of
Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2001 (pp. 1182-1188).
Orlando, FL: AACE.
Professional Articles:
Ian J. Quitadamo (contributing author). (March 2009). Catching the Wind: Puget Sound Energy Renewable Energy
Center and Wild Horse. Teacher and Student Guides.
Ian J. Quitadamo (senior editor) and Mark Oursland (co-editor). (October 2007). Mathematics and Science
Partnership: Integrating Watershed Inquiry to Improve Teaching and Learning. MSP Compendium.
Ian J. Quitadamo. (March 2002). Technological Minimalism – Basic Technology Helps Students Focus on Content.
Online Cl@ssroom: Ideas for Effective Online Instruction, 8.
Ian J. Quitadamo. (2000). Ultimate Abs. The Scientist, 14(8), 25-28.
Ian J. Quitadamo. (Winter 1999). Enhanced Protein Application Using Dynabeads Purified Antibodies. Dynalogue
(Dynal Bioscience), 2-5.
Ian J. Quitadamo. (Autumn 1999). IgM Purification. Dynalogue (Dynal Bioscience), 4-5.
Ian J. Quitadamo. (1998). Purification of Mouse IgM from Crude Ascites. Dynabeads Biomagnetic Applications in
Cellular Immunology Handbook, 75-76.
Page 240
3/15/2010
Abstracts:
Brady, S.**, Arlt, J., Carolan, L., Quitadamo, I., and Johnson, J. Yakima WATERS: Students Investigating a
Pathogenic Water Mold. Botany and Mycology. Snowbird, UT. Mar. 2009.
Brady, S.**, Carolan, L. Arlt, J.., and Johnson, J. Yakima WATERS Project: Connecting Students to Science through
Local Watershed Quitadamo, I. Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology. Stevenson, WA. Feb. 2009.
Cornell, C.**, Quitadamo, I.J., and Kurtz, M. Measured Effects of Community-Based Inquiry on Critical Thinking in
Non-Majors Chemistry. Central Washington University Symposium on University Research and Creative Expression.
Ellensburg, WA. May 2008.
Braun, C.*, Quitadamo, I.J., Johnson, J., and Kurtz, M. Community-Based Inquiry Improves Critical Thinking in
General Education Biology. Central Washington University Symposium on University Research and Creative
Expression. Ellensburg, WA. May 2007.
Cornell, C.**, Kurtz, M. J., Quitadamo, I. J., Holstad, J.*, Brown, L.*, and Hunter, B.* Critical Thinking Grudge
Match: Biology vs. Chemistry, Academic and Personal Factors that Affect Thinking Skills in Non-majors Science.
Symposium on University Research and Creative Expression, Central Washington University; Ellensburg, WA; May
17, 2007.
Verhey, S, Bottcher, L.; Quitadamo, I.J., Wagner, R. S. and Winstead, C. Central Washington University, Ellensburg,
WA. Engaging Prior Learning: Effect on Student Attitudes Toward Evolution and Creationism. American Association
for the Advancement of Science National Meeting, Seattle, WA. Feb. 2004.
Johnson, E.K., Johnson, E.C. Quitadamo, I. J., Bagnall, S., Schelling, M.E. Isolation and characterization of coronary
microvascular endothelial cells from Yucatan micropigs. Experimental Biology. FASEB J. 2001; 15(4): A117.
Schelling, M.E., Johnson, E.K., Quitadamo, I.J., Johnson, E.C. VEGF ligand and receptor and adenosine receptor
expression in micropig coronary endothelial cells. Experimental Biology 2001 Late Breaking Abstracts, p. 9.
Johnson, E.C., Zijlstra, A., Johnson, E.K. Quitadamo, I.J., Bagnall, S., and Schelling, M.E. Endothelial extracellular
matrix assembly affected by chronic moderate ethanol exposure. Experimental Biology. FASEB J. 2000; 14(4):
A494.7.
Johnson, E.C., Zijlstra, A., Johnson, E.K., Quitadamo, I.J., and Schelling, M.E. Chronic
moderate ethanol exposure affects endothelial cell morphology, proliferation, and matrix assembly. 39th American
Society for Cell Biology Annual Meeting, Washington DC, December 1999. Abstract No. 1858, p. 321a.
Schelling, M.E., Zijlstra, A., Braun, K., Quitadamo, I.J., Clements, M., and Daoud, S.S. Anti-FGF receptor monoclonal
antibody potentiation of camptothecin-induced cytotoxicity in human breast cancer and endothelial cells.
Experimental Biology. FASEB J. 1995; 9(3): A399.
PR E S ENT A TI ON S
International Conferences:
Kurtz, M.J., Quitadamo, I.J., Palmquist, B.,Sorey, T., and Pratt-Sitaula,B. Developing Electronic Portfolios to Assess
Student Performance Relative to National and State Science Education Standards: A Collaborative Process.
Association for Science Teacher Education International Conference. Clearwater, FL. Jan. 2007.
Quitadamo, I.J. and Kurtz, M.J. Writing to Improve: Critical Thinking Performance in General Education Biology.
Association for Science Teacher Education International Conference. Portland, OR. Jan. 2006.
Britto, M. and Quitadamo, I.J. Using Web Tools to Develop and Assess Information and Technology Literacy Skills.
E-Learn 2005 World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education.
Vancouver, BC. Oct. 2005.
Page 241
3/15/2010
Kurtz, M.J., Oursland, M., and Quitadamo, I.J. Just-in-Time Technology That Supports Cougar Research Across the
Curriculum. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Conference. Phoenix, AZ. Mar. 2005.
Quitadamo, I.J. and Brown, A. Effective Online Learning at Western Governors University. Society for Information
Technology and Teacher Education Conference, Orlando, FL. Mar. 2001.
National Conferences:
Quitadamo, I.J. Tools for Lifelong Learning: Using Community-based Inquiry to Improve Critical Thinking
Performance in General Education Science. Project Kaleidoscope National Assembly, Oct. 2006.
Quitadamo, I.J. and DePaepe, J. Promoting Success in an Accountability-Based Environment: Using LiveText
Assessment Data to Drive Curriculum Development, Faculty Performance, and Program Policy. 4th Annual LiveText
Collaboration Conference. Jul. 2005.
Quitadamo, I.J., and Brown, A. Teaching Style and Instructional Design in Online Learning Environments. National
Educational Computing Conference, Chicago, IL. Jun. 2001.
Regional Conferences:
Quitadamo, I.J. and Siegel-Vexler, S. Informed and Responsive STEM Teacher Preparation: The Role of Best-Practice
Research. Washington Teachers of Teachers of Science Conference. Spokane, WA. May 2009.
Quitadamo, I.J. A Mind of Their Own: Using Community-based Inquiry to Improve Pre-service Critical Thinking.
Washington Science Teachers Association Conference. Moses Lake, WA. Mar. 2009.
Quitadamo, I.J. Yakima Watershed Activities to Enhance Research in Schools. 3rd Annual Faculty Serving
Washington Conference. Olympia, WA. Jan. 2008.
Quitadamo, I.J. Alternative Energy as an Integrating Context for Science Inquiry and Community Engagement.
Washington Teachers of Teachers of Science Conference. Pullman, WA. June 2007.
Quitadamo, I.J. Tools for Lifelong Learning: Using Environmental Inquiry to Improve Undergraduate Critical
Thinking. Washington Science Teachers Association Conference. Spokane, WA. Oct. 2006.
Quitadamo, I.J. and Kurtz, M.J. Tools for Lifelong Learning: Using Environmental Inquiry to Improve Undergraduate
Critical Thinking. Washington State Teachers of Teachers of Science Conference. Pullman, WA. June 2006.
Kurtz, M.J. and Quitadamo, I.J. Using the Environment to Integrate the Sciences: An Inquiry Course for Elementary
Teachers. Washington State Teachers of Teachers of Science Conference. Pullman, WA. June 2006.
Quitadamo, I.J. Research in Critical Thinking: Scientific Evaluation of Educational Innovation. Washington Science
Teachers Association Conference. Oct. 2005.
Quitadamo, I.J. Tools for Lifelong Learning: The Effects of Small Group Collaborative Writing on Critical Thinking
Performance in General Education Biology. Washington State Teachers of Teachers of Science Conference.
Pullman, WA. May 2005.
Kurtz, M.J. and Quitadamo, I.J. Project CAT: Authentic Research in the Classroom. Washington State Teachers of
Teachers of Science Conference. Pullman, WA. May 2005.
Quitadamo, I.J. A Quantitative Assessment Model for Measurement of Undergraduate Critical Thinking. National
Science Teachers Association Northwest Regional Conference. Seattle, WA. Nov. 2004.
Quitadamo, I.J. A Quantitative Assessment Model for Measurement of Undergraduate Critical Thinking. Pacific
Northwest Higher Education Assessment Conference. Portland, OR. May 2004.
Quitadamo, I.J., Crouch, G. and Brahler, C.J. Assessing the Effect of Collaborative Learning in Undergraduate
Organic Chemistry. 57th Northwest Regional Meeting of the American Chemical Society. Spokane, WA. Jun. 2002.
Quitadamo, I.J. Effects of Teaching Style and Instructional Design in Online Learning Environments. Northwest
Council for Computer Education, Spokane, WA. Mar. 2001.
Page 242
3/15/2010
Institutes and Workshops:
At Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA:
Co-presenter for CWU Chairs Forum for Assessment Best Practices. Sept. 10, 2009.
Co-presenter for CWU Faculty Development Day for Assessment and Continuous Improvement. Dec. 3, 2007.
Co-developer for Yakima WATERS Summer Institute. July, 2007.
Co-developer for North Central Watershed Inquiry Institute. Aug. 2005, 2006.
Co-organizer for Creating Valid and Reliable Tests. Sept. 2004.
Co-organizer/presenter for Critical Thinking: Assessment and Research Base. Sept. 2003.
At Washington State University, Pullman, WA:
PT3 GeekWeek: WSU faculty development for Colleges of Science, Education, and Liberal Arts. May 2001, 2002.
PT3 GeekWeek Instructor for:

The Internet, WWW, and Email; HTML and Webpage Editors; Introduction to Online Learning
PT3 GeekSpeak Presenter for:

Q and A on the Internet and WWW. Feb. 2001.

HTML and Webpage Editors: The Basics of Making Webpages. Nov. 2000.
Seminars:
At Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA:
Invited Presenter: Critical Thinking. CWU Center for the Teacher-Scholar. September 29, 2009.
Invited Moderator: Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? CWU. January 15, 2008.
Invited Presenter: Mixing, Matching, and Chasing Your Tail: How to Synchronize Files between Computers. CWU
Center for Teaching and Learning. April 27, 2007.
Invited Presenter: Darwin’s The Origin of Species. Censored, Banned, and Challenged Out Loud: First Amendment
Festival, March 5, 2007.
Invited Presenter: Inquiry Science Reform and the Reconstruction of American Critical Thinking. Leadership
Ellensburg Program, Ellensburg Chamber of Commerce, April 21, 2006.
Invited Presenter: Hands-On Application of LiveText to Evaluate Teaching Effectiveness and Improve Student
Learning Outcomes. College of Education and Professional Studies, April 7, 2006.
Invited Presenter: Critical Thinking Research at Central Washington University. Department of Biological Sciences
Research Methods and Techniques (BIOL 580), November 4, 2005.
Invited Presenter: Using LiveText to Evaluate Program Effectiveness. CWU Industrial and Engineering Technology
Department, October 21, 2005.
Invited Presenter: Evaluating Foundational Beliefs with Critical Thinking. CWU STEP Program, July 27, 2005.
Invited Presenter: Critical Thinking as a Vehicle for Lifelong Learning and Societal Change. CWU Center for
Excellence in Leadership ReWrite the World Symposium, May 6, 2005.
Invited Presenter: Interdisciplinary Cougar Research as an Integrating Context for Curricular Reform. CWU College
of the Sciences Faculty Development Day. March 14, 2005.
Page 243
3/15/2010
Invited Presenter: Using LiveText to Inform Course and Program Performance. CWU College of Education and
Professional Studies Center for Teaching and Learning Faculty Meeting, March 11, 2005.
Invited Presenter: Assessment and Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Using LiveText. CWU Board of Trustees
Academic Affairs Subcommittee. February 4, 2005.
Invited Presenter: Using LiveText for Quantitative Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes. Community and
Technical College Teacher Education Collaboration Event. October 26, 2004.
Presenter: A Quantitative Model for Assessment of Undergraduate Critical Thinking. Department of Biological
Sciences Natural Sciences Seminar. October 6, 2004.
Invited Presenter: Using LiveText as a Tool to Improve Teaching. General Education Institute. Sep. 8, 2004.
Invited Panelist: Pseudoscience. May 21, 2004.
Invited Presenter: Constructivist Learning in Blackboard. Apr. 14, 2004.
Invited Presenter: Critical Thinking. Thorp School District Teacher Seminar. Feb. 4, 2004.
Presenter: Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Quantitative Effects of Teaching Style and Peer Collaboration on
Science and Math Learning. Department of Biological Sciences Natural Sciences Seminar. Jan. 31, 2003.
Presenter: Assessment of Undergraduate Critical Thinking Performance. General Education Workshop, Sept. 2002.
Invited Speaker: Genetic Determinism: Are We Made This Way? Issues in Science and Religion. Nov. 6, 2002.
At Washington State University, Pullman, WA:
Co-presenter: Small Group Learning in Science and Mathematics. Science Mathematics Engineering Education
Center. Pacific Northwest Learning Alliance. Oct. 2001.
Guest Instructor: Computer Application in the Classroom. Preparation for College Teaching. WSU Dept. of
Interdisciplinary Studies. Oct. 2000 and Oct. 2001.
Guest Speaker: Teaching Style and Instructional Design Effects in Online Learning Environments. Integrating
Technology into the Curriculum. WSU Dept. of Teaching and Learning. Jul. 2000.
Guest Instructor: Exercise Science. Exercise Prescriptions for Normal Subjects and Patients with Various
Pathological Conditions. WSU Dept. of Kinesiology and Leisure Studies. Apr. 2000.
Presenter: Quantitative Analysis of Endothelial Cell Angiogenesis Markers: A Potential Role of HMG-I(Y). WSU Dept.
of Genetics and Cell Biology. Mar. 1999.
Guest Lecturer: General Genetics. Principles of Gene Cloning and Manipulation. WSU Dept. of Genetics and Cell
Biology. Mar. 1996 and Mar. 1998.
Presenter: Efficient Purification of Mouse Anti-FGF Receptor IgM Monoclonal Antibody by Magnetic Beads. WSU
Dept. of Genetics and Cell Biology. Nov. 1997.
Guest Speaker: Senior Seminar. Monoclonal Antibodies and Protein Purification. WSU Dept. of Genetics and Cell
Biology. Apr. 1997.
Guest Speaker: Biological Mechanisms of Cancer. North Thurston High School. Mar. 1997.
Presenter: Implications of Angiogenesis in Breast Cancer: the Role of Fibroblast Growth Factor. WSU Dept. of
Genetics and Cell Biology. Oct. 1995.
Page 244
3/15/2010
M EN T ORI NG
At Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA:
Master of Science Graduate Committees





Chair for Miao Gao (Biological Sciences). Research focuses on effect of interdisciplinary STEM integration
on critical thinking skill gains. Thesis title: TBD. 2008-present.
Co-chair (with L. Carnell) for Eric Voss (Biological Sciences). Research focuses on how to integrate C.
elegans research into K-12 schools and increase student critical thinking. Thesis title: TBD. 2007-present.
Co-chair (with S. Wagner) for Corinne Kenney (Biological Sciences). Research focuses on how projectbased learning in genetics courses affect undergraduate critical thinking. 2004-2006 (in stasis).
Member for James Meidell (Biological Sciences). Research focuses on human effects on herpetology
populations along I-90 corridor. Thesis title: Effects of I-90 on ecology and movement patterns of
Northern alligator lizards (Elgaria coerulea principis). 2010-present.
Member for Susan Brady (Biological Sciences). Research focuses on pollutant effects on amphibian
population dynamics. Thesis title: TBD. 2008-present.
Master of Education Graduate Committees





Co-chair (with J. DePaepe) for Krista Strohm (Education). Research investigated quantitative relationships
between self concept and critical thinking. Thesis title: Comparison of Self-Concept to Critical Thinking in
an Inquiry Based Classroom. 2005-2007.
Co-chair (with J. DePaepe) for Pamela Wood (Education). Project title: Using WebQuests to Enhance
Student Learning in Science. 2005-2006.
Member for Chance Dolezal (Education). Research investigated effects of project-based learning in high
school science achievement. Project title: TBD. 2007-2009.
Member for Jeff Charbanneau (Education). Research investigated effects of project-based learning
(Zillah’s Project CROAK) on changes in high school critical thinking performance. Thesis title: Comparative
Analysis of Constructivist Instruction to Traditional Instruction in High School Science Classes. 2004-2005.
Member for Theresa Bell (Education). Thesis title: A Resource Guide for Embedding Multicultural Capital
into the Secondary Science Classrooms of Central Washington. 2005-2009.
Douglas Honors College Thesis Chair

Chair for Mark Green (Philosophy). Research investigated parallel conciliatory writing of historical figures.
Thesis title: Consolation of Time: Metaphorical Philosophy in the Prison Works of Boethius and Messiaen.
2004.
SOURCE Faculty Mentor




Gao, M., Quitadamo, I.J., Johnson, J.E., Kurtz, M.J. (2009). Community-Based Inquiry Improves Critical
Thinking in General Education Biology, SOURCE.
Braun, C., Quitadamo, I.J., Johnson, J.E., Kurtz, M.J. (2007). Community-Based Inquiry Improves Critical
Thinking in General Education Biology, SOURCE.
Cornell, C., Kurtz, M.J., Quitadamo, I.J., Holstad, J. Brown, L., Hunter, B. (2007). Critical Thinking Grudge
Match: Biology vs. Chemistry. Academic and Personal Factors that Affect Thinking Skills in Non-Majors
Science. SOURCE.
Matthew Brewer and Daryk Flaugh. (2004). A Quantitative Assessment Model for Measurement of
Undergraduate Critical Thinking. SOURCE.
Page 245
3/15/2010
Biology Teaching Intern Supervisor

Supervisor for Ryan Campanella and Melissa Turner (Biology Teaching interns) placed in Cle Elem and
Thorp school districts as part of the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) grant.
Integrated math and science using the environment as an integrating context via Project CAT. 2003-2004.
Biology Teaching Researchers


Supervisor for Celia Braun’s research presentation of critical thinking to NCATE evaluators and College of
Education faculty and administration.
Mentor for Biology Teaching undergraduate research. Current projects range from investigations of prior
academic and personal experience on critical thinking performance to the effects of community-based
inquiry in undergraduate courses. Goal of mentoring is to produce peer-reviewed manuscripts. A brief list
of recently mentored students includes Celia Braun, Rachel Keen, Claire McKenna, Lindsay Griffin, Julie
Holstad, Brandi Hunter, Matthew Brewer, Daryk Flaugh, Ryan Campanella, Melissa Turner, and Christine
Weller, 2003-present.
Scholarship Recipients

Faculty mentor for Celia Braun, CWU Alumni Olive Ireland scholarship recipient for $1000.
Biology Teaching Assistants

Mentor BIOL 492 teaching assistants to improve teaching effectiveness in biological science. Train
assistants to apply Socratic questioning and use best practices (community-based inquiry, case studies
and writing, etc) to elicit critical thinking gains. 2003-present.
Science Education Undergraduates
 Mentor elementary pre-service teachers in inquiry-based science research projects called You Find Out
(UFO). 2003-present.
At Washington State University, Pullman, WA:
Science Research Undergraduates

Mentored science undergraduates in endothelial cellular research. Collaborated with faculty and students
to develop scientific reasoning and inquiry skills. 1994-2001.

Example students include: Shayne Andrew (WSU Neuroscience Ph.D. Program), Scott Hussell (Fred
Hutchinson Cancer Institute), Tahana Laxson (ICOS Pharmaceuticals), and Chris Piper (University of
Washington Dental School graduate).
ATLes Peer Leader Instructional Training

Managed teams of undergraduate peer leaders. Emphasized developing questioning and critical thinking
skills for science and mathematics undergraduates. 2000-2001
S ER VI C E
At Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA:
Professional:
Proposal Reviewer: College and University Science Teaching Strand, Association for Science Teacher Education. Jul.
2007.
Referee: Journal of Research in Science Teaching Manuscript. Sept. 2006.
Page 246
3/15/2010
Referee: Journal of Science Teacher Education Manuscript. Jun. 2006.
Referee: Journal of Research in Science Teaching Manuscript. Feb. 2005.
Proposal Reviewer: Strand 2 – Learning: Classroom Contexts and Learner Characteristics, National Association for
Research in Science Teaching. September 2002, Oct. 2003.
Professional Educators Standards Board WEST-E Validation Committee, Jun. 2003.
Proposal Reviewer: Strand 1 – Learning: Students’ Conceptions and Conceptual Change, National Association for
Research in Science Teaching. Sept. 2002.
Proposal Reviewer: National Educational Computing Conference. Chicago, IL. Oct. 2000.
State:
Washington State Quality Award Examiner. Aug. 2008-2009.
Washington Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) Steering Committee. Aug. 2008present.
Washington Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) Instructional Materials Reviewer.
Sept. 2008.
Washington Science Teachers Association Executive Board. Mar. 2008-2009.
Governor’s Council on P-20 Math and Science Education. Sept. 2007-Mar. 2008.
Reviewer: Professional Educator Standards Board, Washington Educator Skills Test Framework for Biology. Apr.
2007.
Reviewer: Professional Educator Standards Board, Washington Educator Skills Test Validation for Biology. Oct.
2007.
Reviewer: Professional Educator Standards Board, Washington Educator Skills Test Framework for Middle Level
Science. Aug. 2007.
University:
Co-Chair: CWU Assessment Committee. Nov. 2007-present.
University Information Technology Advisory Committee. Oct. 2009-2010.
University Information Technology Advisory Academic Strategic Plan Sub-Committee. Dec. 2009-2010.
University Writing Center Advisory Committee. Oct. 2009-present.
Professional Education Sequence Assessment Sub-Committee. Feb. 2009-present.
Academic Assessment Software Evaluation Committee. Dec. 2008-May 2009.
Interim College of the Sciences Dean Search Committee. Nov. 2007.
CWU Northwest Commission on Colleagues and Universities Standard 2 Committee. 2007-2009.
Center for Teaching and Learning NCATE Task Force. 2005-2007.
CWU Assessment Committee. Sept. 2003-2007.
Chair: Critical Thinking Committee. Sept. 2003-2007.
Center for Teaching and Learning Assessment Committee. 2004-present.
Center for Teaching and Learning Educational Technology Advisory Board. 2004-present.
Anonymous Scholarship in Literature and Science Committee. 2004.
Page 247
3/15/2010
CTL Boeing Scholarship Committee. 2004.
Critical Thinking Representative: Washington State Assessment Colloquy. 2003-present.
Ellensburg School District Science Education Liaison. 2003-present.
HEC Board Teacher Training Pilot Program Steering Committee. Sept. 2003.
Center for Teaching and Learning Member. Sept. 2003-present.
Session Referee: SOURCE (English, History, DHC, Philosophy). May 2007.
Session Chair: SOURCE (Physics). May 2007.
Session Chair: SOURCE (English). May 2006.
Session Chair: SOURCE (Computational Science). May 2003.
CWU Website Consultant Group/Production Team Oversight Committee. Jan. 2003-Dec. 2003.
Supervising Faculty for Science Teaching Interns, Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology. Apr. 20032004
Expanding Your Horizons Planning Committee. Jan. 2003-present.
Middle School Endorsement in Science and Math Committee. Sept. 2003-present.
Central Washington University Kyokushinkai Karate Club Faculty Advisor,.Sept. 2002-present.
Peer Leader Coordinator/Trainer: Adaptive Teaching and Learning Environments (ATLes). Aug. 2000-2002.
Department of Biological Sciences/Science Education:
Biological Sciences Personnel Committee. 2008-2009.
Science Education Personnel Committee. 2009-present.
Center for Excellence in Science/Math Education Steering Committee. Sept. 2006-present.
Chair: Director for CWU Center for Excellence in Science/Math Education Search Committee. Apr. 2008-Jun. 2009.
Chair: Biological Sciences/Science Education Faculty Search Committee. Nov. 2007-Mar. 2008.
Science Education Faculty Search Committee. Nov. 2008-Mar. 2008.
Biological Sciences Curriculum Committee. 2005-present.
Director of Field Supervision Search Committee. Sept. 2005.
Graduate Faculty. Apr. 2007.
Earth Science/Science Education Faculty Search Committee. Sept. 2004-Feb. 2005.
Chemistry/Science Education Faculty Search Committee. Dec. 2003-Feb. 2004.
Science Education/CESME Staff Search Committee. Nov. 2003; Jan. 2008.
Associate Graduate Faculty. Jan. 2003 – 2007.
Faculty Advisor for Science Education Club. Dec. 2002-2005.
Biological Sciences Departmental Website Specialist. Dec. 2002-2008.
Cell/Molecular/Microbiology Working Group. Sept. 2002-2005.
Community:
Karate Instructor. Lincoln Elementary School Exploration Stations. Apr. 2009.
Page 248
3/15/2010
Guest Instructor. Lincoln Elementary School, Ellensburg High School. 2007-2008.
Wild Horse Wind Farm Curriculum Developer. Jan. 2008-Sept. 2008.
Yakima Math/Science Partnership LENS Planning Committee. Sept. 2007.
Science Fair Judge, Valley View Elementary. May 2007.
East Valley High School Student Tour of CWU Science. Feb. 2007.
Critical Thinking In-service for Thorp School District. Feb. 2004.
CWU Kyokushinkai Karate Faculty Sponsor/Instructor. Sept. 2002-present.
Washington State Secretary for International Karate Organization-Matsushima. Jul. 2002-present.
Invited Martial Arts Instructor: Air Force ROTC. Oct. 2004-2006.
CWU Karate Demonstration Coordinator for GEAR-UP 6th grade students. Apr. 2004.
A DM I NI S TR AT IO N
At Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA:
Interim Program Director: Science Education

Coordinated program activities such as general administration, scheduling, budgets, personnel, public
outreach, and faculty professional development. Collaborated with various administrative offices to
develop program. Sept. 2004-2005.
Program Director: Middle Level Math Science

Coordinated activities for HEC Board grant-funded high-needs program. Perform general administration
and coordinate budgets from units within the College of the Sciences as well as the College of Education
and Professional Studies. Sept. 2004-2005.
At Washington State University, Pullman, WA:
Project Coordinator: Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3)

Coordinated activities for the Department of Education-funded PT3 grant ($1,400,000) directed by Abbie
Brown. Facilitated professional development in technology for 26 WSU professors, 20 Washington State
in-service teachers, and 30 WSU pre-service K-12 teachers based on national educational technology
standards. Also served as project webmaster. URL: http://education.wsu.edu/pt3/
PR OF E S SI ON A L D E V E LO PM EN T
At Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA:
Participant at the WA State LASER Instructional Materials Showcase Conference. Jan. 2009.
Participant at the Environmental Education Association of Washington Conference. Nov. 2008.
Participant at the National Science Foundation Regional Grants Conference. Oct. 2007.
Participant at the Project Kaleidoscope: Faculty for the 21st Century National Meeting: Translating How People
Learn into a Roadmap for Institutional Transformation. Sept. 2005.
Participant at Teachers of Teachers of Science (TOTOS). 2002-present.
Page 249
3/15/2010
CWU Representative for American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education: Improving Teacher Education:
Using Data for Decision Making Conference. Apr. 2005.
CWU Critical Thinking Representative for State Assessment Colloquy, Nov. 2003-2006.
Workshop Participant:

Office 2007, Information Technology Services. Oct. 2007.

Dreamweaver MX, Academic Computing. Jul. 2003.

Transitional XHTML, Academic Computing. May 2003.

Cascading Style Sheets, Academic Computing. Oct. 2002.
At Washington State University, Pullman, WA:
Workshop Participant:

@WSU: Resources for Teaching and Learning Forum. July 2000.

Classroom Assessment and Active Learning Workshop - WSU Center for Teaching, Learning, and
Technology. July 1999.

Critical Thinking Workshop: WSU Center for Teaching and Learning. July 1999.

Research-Based Teaching and Learning Workshop: WSU Center for Teaching, Learning, and Technology.
June 1999.

WSU College of Sciences Representative: Student Advisory Council. 1997-1998.
Attendee: IX International Vascular Biology Meeting, Seattle, WA. Sept. 1996.
PR OF E S SI ON A L M EM B ER S HI P S
Expert Knowledge Network. Member since 2008.
American Society for Cell Biology. Member since 1998.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Member since 1999.
National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Member since 2001.
International Society for Technology in Education. Member since 2001.
American Educational Research Association. Member since 2001.
National Science Teachers Association. Member since 2002.
Association for Science Teacher Education. Member since 2002.
Page 250
3/15/2010
Curriculum Vita – Timothy L. Sorey, PhD
Name:
Timothy L. Sorey
Date:
12/31/09
Current Employment:
Central Washington University
Department:
Department of Chemistry
and
Rank or Title:
Assistant Professor
Science Education Program
Office Location and Campus Mail Stop:
Science Building, #302H
# 7539
Office Phone: 1-509-963-2814
FAX: 1-509-963-1050
E-mail: soreyt@cwu.edu
Education Beyond High School:



Summer 2005 – Montana State University –PhD in Chemistry
Spring 1999 - Eastern Oregon University – B.A. in Chemistry
Spring 1995 - Graduated from Walla Walla Community College with A.A.
Teaching Experience:
University Coursework
Central Washington University – (Fall 2004-present)

CHEM 183: Third Quarter of General Chemistry
o Offerings: Fall ’04, Spring ’05, Fall’05, Fall ‘08

CHEM 183L: Third Quarter of General Chemistry Laboratory
o Offerings: Fall ’05, Fall ’06, Fall ’06, Spring ’07, Fall ’07, Spring ‘09

CHEM 182: Second Quarter of General Chemistry
o Offerings: Winter ’06, Winter ’07, Winter ‘08

CHEM 182L: Second Quarter of General Chemistry Lab
o Offerings: Winter ’06, Winter ’07, Winter ’08, Winter ‘09

CHEM 181L: First Quarter of General Chemistry Lab
o Offerings: Winter ’05, Fall ’07, Fall ‘08


CHEM 492/592: Laboratory Experience in Teaching Chemistry
Offerings: Winter ’05, Spring ’05, Academic Year ’06-‘07, Academic Year
’07-‘08, Academic Year ’08-’09, Fall ‘09

SCED 301: Interdisciplinary Science Inquiry
o Offering: Green River Community College, Summer ’06, Summer ‘08

SCED 322: Science Education in the Elementary Schools.
o Offerings:
 Ellensburg - Academic Year ’04-‘05, Fall ’05, Academic Year ’06‘07, Fall ’07, Academic Year ’08-‘09, Fall ‘09
Page 251
3/15/2010




 Des Moines Center - Winter ’06, Spring ’06, Winter ‘08
SCED 323: Science Education in the Middle Schools.
o Offerings: Winter ’05, Winter ’06, Winter ‘07
SCED 324: Science Education in the High School.
o Offerings: Winter ’08, Winter ‘09
CHEM 541: Chemistry Concepts for Teaching with Technology.
o Offerings: Spring ‘07
CHEM 295, 395, 495, and 595: Undergraduate Research
o Offerings: Fall ’05 through Fall ‘09
Montana State University – (1999-2004)
 CHEM 131E : CHEM Lab for Engineering Track Students
o Offerings: Fall ‘03 and Spring ‘04
 CHEM 121 : Freshman General Chemistry – Instructor of Record
o Offerings: Summer ‘02
Professional Development Outreach Courses:
 CHEM 580(Part II): Integrating Environmental Measurement into the
Classroom. Co-Developed and team taught with J. Amend with primary
dissemination to middle schools, high schools, and tribal colleges on or near
the Northern Cheyenne and Crow Reservations. (MSU - Bozeman)
o Offering: Spring Semester 2003
Dissemination: - Onsite, ONLINE (WebCT), and ITV (Interactive
Television)

MATH 580: TI Ag-Prep. Co-Developed and team taught with TI Instructor,
N. Nichols. Primary dissemination to middle and high schools on or near the
Northern Cheyenne and Crow Reservations with the course. (MSU Bozeman)
o Offering: Summer Semester 2003
Dissemination: - Onsite, ONLINE (WebCT), and ITV(Interactive
Television)

CHEM 580 (Part I): Integrating Environmental Measurement into the
Classroom. Co-Developed and team taught with Dr. J. Amend with primary
dissemination to middle schools, high schools, and tribal colleges on or near
the Northern Cheyenne and Crow Reservations. (MSU - Bozeman)
o Offering: Fall Semester 2002
Dissemination: - Onsite and ONLINE (WebCT)
Professional Development Workshops

December 7th, 2009 – Learning Empowering Networking in Science (LENS)
Follow-Up Fall Quarter Workshop. Co-Developed and team taught an
afternoon session based upon Integrating Technology into the Classroom with
M. Oursland and M. Kurtz. Primary dissemination to middle and high school
science teachers.
Page 252
3/15/2010

November 5th, 2009 – Mathematics and Science Partnership (MSP) NorthCentral ESD Follow-Up Fall Quarter Workshop. Co-Developed and team
taught through hands-on inquiry with B. Palmquist. Primary dissemination to
middle and high school science teachers.

August 10th-13th and 17th-20th 2009 – Mathematics and Science Partnership
(MSP) North-Central ESD First Annual Summer Workshop. Co-Developed
and team taught through hands-on inquiry chemistry with B. Palmquist, R.
Dawes, and K. Johnson. Primary dissemination to middle and high school
science teachers.

July 27th-31st of 2009 – Learning Empowering Networking in Science
(LENS) Third Annual Summer Workshop. Co-Developed and team taught a
day-long hands-on inquiry lesson on Density and Chemical Separations with
J. Dibari with primary dissemination to middle and high school science
teachers.

May 27th of 2009 – Content Specialist Training for 3rd Grade Chemical
Testing STC Kit – Educational School District 105, Yakima, WA.

May 28th of 2009 – Content Specialist Training for 5th Grade Food Chemistry
STC Kit – Educational School District 105 Yakima, WA.

August 4th-8th of 2008 – Learning Empowering Networking in Science
(LENS) Second Annual Summer Workshop. Co-Developed and team taught
a day-long hands-on inquiry lesson on Ohm’s Law and Electrochemistry with
B. Palmquist with primary dissemination to middle and high school science
teachers.
Workshops entitled “Integrating Research into Laboratory Instruction” were sponsored
by The Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at M.S.U- Bozeman, Burns
Telecommunication Center, and MicroLAB Incorporated. Primary foci for these science
teacher workshops included: (a) Curriculum, Technology and Learning Strategies and (b)
Sensors and Electronics for Environmental Measurement with participants ranging from
middle school to junior college.








Dissemination: - Onsite, ONLINE (WebCT), and ITV (Interactive
Television)
July 2003
July 2002
April 2002
- M.S.U.- Bozeman, MT.- 2 Weeks
- M.S.U. - Bozeman, MT.- 2 Weeks
-The Biennial Conference on Chemical Education at
Western Washington University- Bellingham, WA- Half
Day
July 2001
- M.S.U. - Bozeman, MT.- 2 Weeks
August 2000 - M.S.U. - Bozeman, MT.- 2 Weeks
July 2000
- M.S.U.- Bozeman, Montana. - 2 Weeks
April 2000 -The Biennial Conference on Chemical Education at
University of Michigan - Ann Arbor, MI – Half Day
Sept. 1999
- Pendleton, OR. - 1 Week
Page 253
3/15/2010
Fellowship and Awards:
Graduate Fellowship:
 Recipient of a Doctoral Fellowship through Centers for Learning and
Teaching in the West in Spring Semester 2002. (CLTWest, a consortium
five universities within the states of Oregon, Colorado, and Montana, is
one of ten recipients of a 5 year/10 million dollar National Science
Foundation grant. One of its primary goals is to increase ‘leadership
capacity’ within the field of science and math education.)
Teaching:
 Recipient of A.R. Johannson Teaching Award for “Outstanding Chemistry
T.A” at M.S.U.-Bozeman in the Spring Semester 2000.
Academic:
 Recipient of the “Outstanding Chemistry Student Award” upon graduating
from E.O.U.-La Grande in Spring Quarter 1999.

Recipient of a Meritorious award for our team’s submission of a math
modeling paper in the Spring Quarter 1999 international Consortium For
Mathematics and its Application (COMAP) contest.
Service:
 Recipient of Native American Higher Education & Career (NAHECA)
Workshop Organizer’s Award- From Native American Program at E.O.U.La Grande in Spring Quarter 1999.
Scholarly Accomplishments:
Monograph:
T. Sorey and J. Amend, “A Research-Based Approach to Solving Problems in
General Chemistry”, invited chapter in Best Practices and Lessons Learned:
Highlights from the NSF Collaborative for Excellence in Teacher Preparation
Program and Other Innovative Programs Around the Country, edited by D.
Smith and E. Swanson (M.S.U., Bozeman, MT, September 2005).
Published Manuals:
T. Sorey “CHEM 181 LAB MANUAL”, Wildcat Shop Custom Publishing, 2007present.
T. Sorey “CHEM 182 LAB MANUAL”, Wildcat Shop Custom Publishing, 2008present.
T. Sorey “CHEM 183 LAB MANUAL”, Wildcat Shop Custom Publishing, 2007present.
J. Amend, D. Hammond, R. Furstenau, and T. Sorey, “Measurements: The Basic
Science, An Introduction to Computer Based Measurements”, MicroLab Inc.,
Jan.2002.
Page 254
3/15/2010
Journal Articles Accepted for Publication:
1. T. Sorey, T. Willard, & B. Kim, “Make your own Digital Thermometer!”
NSTA’s The Science Teacher. Assigned manuscript ID: ID2009-MarTST-F-0088 Status: Received letter of acceptance on December 18th, 2009
from Dr. Steve Metz. To be published March 2010.
2. T. Sorey, T. Willard, & D. Sholz, 2010, “An Activity Promoting the
Practice of Quantitative Literacy for Pre- and In-Service Teachers of
Mathematics and Science.” National Numeracy Network, Numeracy,
Journal 3, Issue 1, Article 6. http://services.bepress.com/numeracy/
3. I. Quitadamo, M. Kurtz, T. Sorey, B Pratt-Sitaula, & B. Palmquist, 2006,
“Using e-Portfolio to Assess Pre-Service Teacher Performance.” Journal of
Washington Science Teachers Association, 46(4).
4. M. Nishina, T Sorey, R. Lancaster, and Y.E. Rhodes, “Theoretical
Observations of Aluminum Analogues of Carbocations”, E.O. Science
Journal, Vol. 15, 1998-1999, pg. 9-13.
5. T. Sorey, M. Nishina, and R. Lancaster, ”Theoretical Models of Substituent
Effect Stabilization of Aluminum Analogues of Carbocations”, E.O. Science
Journal, Vol. 15, 1998-1999, pg. 14-18.
6. T. Sorey and R. Hermens, “Experimental Conditions for the Synthesis of
(NH4)2S2O4", E.O. Science Journal, Vol. 15, 1998-1999, pg. 19-21.
7. T. Rogers, B. Fritz, and T. Sorey, “A Model for Chloride Marker Testing to
Deduce Chemical Dynamics and Ground Water Flow Rates”, E.O. Science
Journal, Vol. 15, 1998-1999, pg. 61-66.
Manuscripts Submitted for 2008-2009 academic year and Fall 2009:
1. T. Sorey, A. Diaz, and T. Helland, “Applying Pseudo-First-Order
Methodology to Study Ni-PADA Ligand Substitution with Ammonia: A
Laboratory Experiment.” The Chemical Educator peer reviewed online
journal. Assigned manuscript ID: TO911052. Status: Awaiting feedback.
2. T. Sorey, T. Willard, and Z. Balandova, Juan’s Dilemma: An Electrochemical
Twist on the Lemon Battery. Submitted to the National Science Teacher
Association’s The Science Teacher on December 30th, 2009 and assigned
manuscript ID: 2009-Dec-TST-F-0260. Status: Awaiting feedback.
Manuscripts Submitted for Publication in 2006-2007:
1. T. Sorey and J. Amend, “Identifying General Chemistry Laboratory Content
and Learning Objectives for One-Semester Engineering Students,” The
Chemical Educator. Assigned reference number T0705037. Status:
Currently shelved for later resubmission.
2. T. Sorey and J. Amend, “Problem Solving Using a Research-Based Approach
in General Chemistry Laboratories”, The Chemical Educator. Assigned
manuscript ID: T0705038. Status: Currently shelved for later resubmission.
Page 255
3/15/2010
Software and HTML-based Help:

Spring 2000 to Spring 2001 Initial work on html-based Help files to support students’ use of
educational software, Watershed Resources Management Simulator,
with developmental support through United States Geological
Services.

Spring 2000 to Fall 2001 Developed html-based Help files to support students’ use of
MicroLAB’s 10-Color Colorimeter hardware and software, with
developmental support through the University of British Columbia’s
Freshman General Chemistry program.

Fall 1999 to present Member of MicroLAB’s software/hardware development team
Professional Meeting Papers and Workshops:


October 2009 – (Peer Reviewed)
Conference of the Washington College Chemistry Teachers Association
(WCCTA)
30 minute Presentation
“A Research-Based Approach to Learning Pseudo-Rate Reactions”
June 2009 – (Peer Reviewed)
ACS - Northwest Regional Meeting (NORM) – Pacific Lutheran
University, Tacoma,WA
30 minute Presentation: Active Learning Strategies in Chemical Education
Symposium
“A Research-Based Approach to Learning Pseudo-Rate Reactions”
Presentation of 1 Undergraduate Poster
“Real-Time Comparison Polarimeter for Data Acquisition In
Determination of 0th, 1st, and 2nd Order Rate Constants” – E. Perez, and
T. Sorey*

May 2009 – (Peer Reviewed)
Symposium on University Research & Creative Expression
(SOURCE)
Presentation of 2 posters at Central Washington University, Ellensburg,
WA
“Real-Time Comparison Polarimeter for Data Acquisition In
Determination of 0th, 1st, and 2nd Order Rate Constants” – E. Perez, and
T. Sorey*
“Polychromatic Emission and Limitations to Beer's Law”, – M.
Christensen and T. Sorey*
Page 256
3/15/2010

June 2008 – (Peer Reviewed)
ACS - Northwest and Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting – Park City,
UT
Presentation of 5 Undergraduate Posters
“Hydrolysis and Coulometry” – G. Overby, and T. Sorey*
“Chemical Kinetics: A Turbidimetric Approach to Solving Rate Order
with MicroLAB 10-Color Colorimeter”– K. Mullen, T. Helland, and T.
Sorey*
“Pseudo-Rate Reaction: Reaction of Ni/PADA with NH3”, T. Helland, K.
Mullen, and T. Sorey*
“Lemon Batteries”, E. Balandova and T. Sorey*
“Projecting Polarimeter for Classroom and Laboratory”, E. Bain, D.
Scholz, and T. Sorey*

May 2008 – (Peer Reviewed)
Symposium on University Research & Creative Expression
(SOURCE)
Presentation of 5 posters at Central Washington University, Ellensburg,
WA
“Metal Plating of Silver and Copper via Gravimetric Coulometry”, – G.
Overby, and T. Sorey*
“Chemical Kinetics: A Turbidimetric Approach to Solving Rate Order
with MicroLAB 10-Color Colorimeter”– K. Mullen, T. Helland, and T.
Sorey*
“Lemon Batteries: An Exploration and Application of the Electrochemical
Series”, E. Balandova and T. Sorey*
“Pseudo-Rate Reaction: Reaction of EDTA with Ni/PADA”, T. Helland, K.
Mullen, and T. Sorey*
“Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiesel” – J. Proulx, I. O’Brien, and T.
Sorey*

March 2008 – (Peer Reviewed)
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics National Meeting –
NCTM
Workshop Presentation will be in Salt Lake City, UT
“Integrating Math and Science: The Statistics of a Population of
Resistors”

June 2007 – (Peer Reviewed)
ACS - Northwest Regional Meeting (NORM) – Boise, ID
Presentation for “Active Learning Strategies in Chemical Education
Symposium”
“A Research-Based Teaching Approach to General Chemistry Labs”
Page 257
3/15/2010





Presentation of 3 Undergraduate Posters
“Electroplating and Determination of Charge by Coulometry” – G. Baran,
G. Overby, and T. Sorey*
“Spectroscopy & Kinetics: An Inquiry-Based Determination of Reaction
Order “ – C. Warren, E. Bain, and T. Sorey*
“The Importance of Calibration – A Relationship between Mathematics
and Science”, B Kim, E. Balendova, and T. Sorey*
April 2007 – (Invited Speaker)
Eastern Oregon University Lecture Series – La Grande, OR
50 minute Presentation and Graduate Student Recruitment
“A Research-Based Teaching Approach to General Chemistry Labs”
March 2007 – (Invited Speaker)
Pacific University Lecture Series – Forest Grove, OR
50 minute Presentation and Graduate Student Recruitment
“A Research-Based Teaching Approach to General Chemistry Labs”
March 2007 – (Peer Reviewed)
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics National Meeting –
NCTM
Workshop Presentation will be in Atlanta, GA
“Integrating Mathematics and Science: The Mathematics behind CBLTM
and Probeware”, co-presenter with T. Willard
May 2006 – (Peer Reviewed)
ACS Puget Sound Undergraduate Research Symposium
Presentation of 2 Posters at Western Washington University, Bellingham,
WA
“Kinetics in the General Chemistry Learning Laboratories: A Model for
Teaching Reaction Order and the Pseudo-Rate Constant Method” – E.
Scott, K. Bjorge, C. Warren, and T. Sorey*
“Determination of Reduction Potentials at Non-standard States for
Aqueous Metallic Ions via Coulometry” – D. Nguyen and T. Sorey*
May 2006 – (Peer Reviewed)
Symposium on University Research & Creative Expression
(SOURCE)
Presentation of 4 posters at Central Washington University, Ellensburg,
WA
“Determination of Reduction Potentials at Non-standard States for
Aqueous Metallic Ions via Coulometry” – D. Nguyen and T. Sorey*
“Spectroscopy and Kinetics: Determining Reaction Order via
Colorimetry” – E. Scott and T.. Sorey*
“Kinetics and Spectroscopy: Determining Rate Order Reaction Via
Fluorimetry” – K. Bjorge and T. Sorey*
“Kinetics and Spectroscopy: Determination of Reaction Order via
Turbidity” – C. Warren and T. Sorey*
Page 258
3/15/2010

April 2006
Washington State Technology Summit - 2006
Attended “New Energy Technologies” and “Cutting edge R&D”

October 2005
Conference of the Washington College Chemistry Teachers Association
(WCCTA)
Co-Facilitator of Chemical Education Publications discussion with
Mary Whitfield of Edmond’s Community College

October 2004 – (Peer Reviewed)
Conference of the Washington College Chemistry Teachers Association
(WCCTA)
60 minute Presentation
“Solving Problems in Freshman General Chemistry: A Model for
Interdisciplinary Collaboration”

April 2004 – (Peer Reviewed)
National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST)
Annual International Conference
Single Publication within a 4-part paper set that is accompanied by
a 90 minute Presentation in Vancouver B.C.
“Centers for Learning and Teaching in the West: A Model towards
Building and Supporting Science and Math Teacher Communities
via CONTINUOUS Professional Development Outreach to rural
and Native American Populations.”

June 2003 – (Peer Reviewed)
Northwest Regional Meeting - American Chemical Society
Presentation of 2 Posters in Bozeman, MT.
“A ‘Community of Science Teachers’ on or near the Northern
Cheyenne and Crow Reservations”
And
“An Approach to understanding Kinetics and Reaction Order”

October 2003 – (Peer Reviewed)
National Indian Education Association Conference
Part of a 90 minute Presentation in Greensboro, NC.
“Centers for Learning and Teaching in the West: Professional
Development and outreach to rural and Native American science
and math teachers in Montana”

November 2003 – (Peer Reviewed)
M.S.U.-Bozeman - Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
60 minute API Seminar Series
“A Research Approach to Solving Laboratory Problems in
Freshman General Chemistry”
Page 259
3/15/2010

May 2003
Meeting in Miniature - American Chemical Society
Presentation of a 20 minute oral presentation in Bozeman, MT.
“An Approach to understanding Kinetics and Reaction Order”

March 2003
Montana-Wyoming Indian Education Association – (Peer Reviewed)
Presentation of a 90 minute workshop in Helena, MT.
“Integrating Environmental Measurement into the Classroom: A
Professional Development Cooperation Between Middle Schools,
High Schools, a Tribal College, and Montana State University”

December 2002
Centers for Learning and Teaching - National Science Foundation
Presentation of a Poster in Washington D.C.
“Building a Community of Science Teachers on or near the
Northern Cheyenne and Crow Reservations: A Preliminary
Report”

June 1999 – (Peer Reviewed)
Northwest Regional Meeting - American Chemical Society
Presentation of 2 Posters in Portland, OR.
“Theoretical Observations of Aluminum Analogues of
Carbocations”
And
‘Theoretical Models of Substituent Effect Stabilization of
Aluminum Analogues of Carbocations”
May 1999 – (Peer Reviewed)
American Chemical Society National Meeting
Presentation of Poster in Anaheim, CA.
“Experimental Conditions for the Synthesis of (NH4)2S2O4“


June 1998 – (Peer Reviewed)
Northwest Regional Meeting - American Chemical Society
Presentation of Poster in Richland, WA.
“Synthesis of (NH4)2UF6”
Page 260
3/15/2010
Grant Activity:
Co-Author - Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program – January 2009
Progress to Math and Science Proficiency: Reaching Out to Rural Schools - J.
Bullock (Wenatchee ESD Director), J. Gordan, PhD. (Assessment Coordinator),
W. Tribley (WVC Dean), R. Dawes (WVC), T. Willard (CWU), T. Sorey (CWU),
and B. Palmquist (CWU). (Requested $750,000 over 3 years – Successful).
Principal PI – C.O.T.S. Instructional/Research Equipment – February 2008
A Laboratory Measurement Technology Initiative for CWU General Chemistry
Labs
(Requested $17,246 – Successful: Including match money from Chemistry
Dept.)
Co-PI – N.S.F. - CWU Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program – April
2008
This is a 6 year scholarship program that is funded through the NSF that was
created to support college students in the completion of secondary mathematics
and science preparation and to mentor them into their first year of teaching.
Co-PI’s – C. Black, L. Elsaesser, M. Oursland, and T. Sorey
(Requested $750,000 – Not Successful)
PI – ACS Mini Grant – April 2008
This grant was written for the launch of Scientific Team to Advance the Readiness
in Technology’s (S.T.A.R.T.) Seminar and Fieldtrip Series that would support
travel costs for junior college, 4 year, and 4 year/masters institutions to visit
Pacific Northwest National Laboratories.
(Requested $500 – Not Successful)
Co-PI – Recruiting Washington Teachers Partnership Grant – December 2007
K-20 Recruitment through Inquiry and Propagation through Peer Learning
(RIPPL) was a grant proposal sponsored by the Professional Educator Standards
Board of Washington State.
CoPI’s – Mark Oursland and Teri Willard
(Requested $100,000 – Not Successful).
PI – C.E.S.M.E. Faculty Grant Application – January 2007
Centers of Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education faculty
development grant for one workload unit for 2006-2007 and one workload unit
for 2007-2008 academic school year for generating and implementing new
computer-based lab curriculum at CWU.
(2 Workload Units requested – Successful)
PI – COTS Instructional/Research Equipment – December 2006
A Laboratory Measurement Technology Initiative for CWU General Chemistry
Labs
Grant written in collaboration with A. Diaz, E. Bullock, D. Lygre, and M. Kurtz.
(Requested $10,000 – Not Successful)
Page 261
3/15/2010
Central Washington University’s Sphere of Distinction Proposal – May 2006
Energy Studies Program
CoPI’s – A. Johansen, C. Gazis, B. Bender, J. Huckabay, T. Sorey, and M.
Braunstein
(Requested $ 47,988 – Not Successful)
Chemistry Component for Yakima WATERS Grant – May 2006
Yakima Watershed Activities To Enhance Research in Schools (WATERS)
CoPI’s – C. Gazis, M. Kurtz, I. Quitadamo, and S. Wagner
Co-Author for Chemistry Component with A. Johansen
(Chemistry Requested $22,000 – Successful)
PI – CWU Instructional/Research Equipment – March 2005
A Laboratory Measurement Technology Initiative for CWU General Chemistry
Labs
Grant written in collaboration with C. Thomas
(Requested $29,494 – Not Successful)
Professional and Scholarly Organizations:









Spring of 2007 to present – National Council for Teaching Mathematics
(NCTM)
Summer of 2006 – Teachers of Teachers of Science (TOTOS)
Fall 2005 to present – Washington State Teacher’s Association (WSTA)
Fall 2005 to present – National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)
Fall 2005 to present – Rotary Club International – Ellensburg Chapter
Summer 2005 to Present – Science Assessment Leadership Team
(SALTer) for Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL)
2004 to present – Member of National Association for Research on
Science Teaching (NARST)
Fall 2004 to present – Member of Washington College Chemistry
Teacher’s Association (WCCTA)
Fall 1997 to Present – Member of American Chemical Society
Page 262
3/15/2010
Appendix H: Faculty Performance Criteria
Retention, Promotion, Tenure and Post-Tenure Evaluation Criteria
Science Education Department
The Science Education Department works collaboratively with other science departments and the
department of education to deliver interdisciplinary, standards-based programs in contemporary
science education. The department has a long history of collaboration with Biological Sciences,
Chemistry, Geological Sciences, and Physics in the College of the Sciences. A central pillar of
the Science Education Department’s philosophy is to maintain the duality of science content
discipline and education expertise. Faculty members’ teaching, scholarly, and service duties
involve work in both science education and their discipline departments as appropriate.
Partnerships, collaborative efforts, and teamwork both within and external to the departments
and the University are highly valued. Tenure and promotion requires faculty to contribute to
Science Education and discipline department mission and goals individually, and to support
colleagues in accomplishing the mission and goals in a team environment. Performance in all
three areas of faculty work is required at all levels with promotion to full professor requiring
exceptional performance in all three areas.
Instruction: Standard and Evaluation
Effective teaching is characterized by developing appropriate learner outcomes, using a variety
of assessment techniques, inviting critical analysis of teaching habits, and reflecting on
productive feedback. There are two levels of involvement in working toward being an effective
teacher and supporting effective teaching in others.
Category A: The following are the result of long-term focus on the scholarship of teaching.
Science education faculty members are expected to build a record of increasing involvement in
these activities.
 Substantial revision of a course based on external standards or student feedback
 Participating in activities that support pedagogical reform efforts (including but not
limited to workshops, summits, curriculum development, and program development)
 Leading activities that support pedagogical reform efforts
 Participating in interdisciplinary teaching activities such as STEP
 Leading assessment efforts such as NCATE and program assessment
Category B: These characteristics are fundamental to effective teaching and must become habit.
Science education faculty members must participate in these activities.
 Quarterly maintenance of syllabi in accordance with the COTS and department policy
manual.
 Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) administered according to COTS guidelines
by a designee other than the instructor for all regular instruction courses with an
enrollment greater than five.
 Yearly reflection of at least one component of the teaching and learning experience in
one class.
 Yearly participation in peer evaluation of teaching
Page 263
3/15/2010
 Yearly participation in assessment and evaluation efforts such as NCATE and program
assessment
 Faculty members will classify and document these efforts in their Structured
Performance Review.
Tenure for faculty members with a joint or full assignment in Science Education, as well as
promotion to Associate Professor, requires knowledge of the skills and concepts taught,
pedagogical content knowledge, demonstrated concern for student learning and effectiveness as
an instructor as evidenced by the items listed above. It is expected that faculty members up for
tenure will have met all Category B criteria every year and will average one Category A item
per year at CWU. There should be a general trend of continued growth and improvement over
the probationary period.
Promotion to Professor requires evidence of a sustained record of teaching effectiveness as well
as a record of continued efforts to remain current in subjects associated with the faculty
member’s teaching responsibilities. Faculty should take a leadership role in helping to support
best-practice teaching and learning outside their own courses including leading activities that
support pedagogical reform efforts or leading assessment efforts such as NCATE and program
assessment. It is expected that faculty members up for promotion to Professor will have met all
Category B criteria every year and will average one Category A item per year at CWU.
Satisfactory post-tenure review requires a sustained effort of teaching effectiveness as well as a
record of continued efforts to remain current in subjects associated with the faculty member’s
teaching responsibilities. It is expected that faculty members will have met all Category B
criteria every year and at least one Category A item per post-tenure review period.
Research and Scholarly Activity: Standard and Evaluation
The science education department recognizes two levels of scholarship. Both are important for
student learning; faculty vitality; and advancing science, science education, and related fields to
professionals and the general public.
Category A products are the fundamental products of scholarship that advance the discipline and
inform the teaching and research practitioners of the discipline. Faculty members in science
education may produce Category A products such as those in the university standards in either
science education or in their science field. For example, an article in a refereed science education
journal has equal weight in the retention, tenure, and promotion process as an article in a refereed
science journal. In addition, refereed journals whose primary audience is teachers are an
important dissemination venue for science education faculty members and are given equal
weight in the retention, tenure, and promotion process as refereed journals whose primary
audience is researchers. The National Science Teachers Association journals are examples of
refereed journals aimed at science teachers.
Another important form of scholarship for faculty members in science education is the
scholarship of application via curriculum development. Curriculum that has been disseminated
and adopted by the equivalent of at least one grade level of a school shall be considered a
Category A product. The curriculum adoption process for a school involves teachers,
Page 264
3/15/2010
administrators and community members and is a form of peer review. Adoption of the
curriculum implies acceptance of the product by one’s education peers.
Category B includes other formal activities that support a faculty member’s program of
scholarship. Science education faculty members may produce Category B products such as those
in the university standards in either science education or in their science field. Curriculum that
has been adopted by two other instructors may be considered a Category B product.
Faculty members will classify and document these scholarship products in their Structured
Performance Review.
Tenure for faculty members with a joint or full assignment in the Science Education Department,
as well as promotion to Associate Professor, requires faculty members to make significant,
measurable contributions to the fields of science or science education. To receive tenure, the
faculty member is expected to produce, during the probationary period, at least one Category A
article in a peer-reviewed science or science education journal as described above and in the
university standards. In addition, the faculty member is expected to produce at least one other
Category A product and two category B products with at least one of these four total products
being completed by the end of the third probationary year.
Promotion to Professor requires at least one Category A article in a peer-reviewed science or
science education journal during the period between promotion to Associate Professor and
promotion to Professor. In addition, the faculty member is expected to produce at least one other
Category A product and two category B products. In order to receive promotion to Professor, a
science education faculty member should be engaged in a significant partnership/alliance with
an external organization. Example partnerships include, but are not limited to, significant
contribution in a grant-funded project with another agency, curriculum project with a K-20 or
informal education partner, teacher-development project with a K-20 partner, etc.
Satisfactory post-tenure review requires evidence of a sustained record of scholarly activities
over the course of a faculty member’s career. Such evidence includes a Category A or B product,
or significant progress toward such a product, over the review period. In light of the
opportunities to generate a heavier than average service load in Science Edcucation, faculty
members may substitute participation in a Category A service product for the scholarship
evidence for post-tenure review as long as this Category A service activity is above and beyond
the service requirements met for a successful post-tenure review.
Service: Standard and Evaluation
Service is a critical aspect of a science education faculty member’s load. In addition to the
potential for twice as much department service, science education faculty members represent
COTS on numerous Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) committees. Science education
faculty members are encouraged to make significant contributions to state and national K-12
science standards and assessment as well as contributing to standards and assessments for preservice teachers. In addition to activities listed in the university and college standards, the
following represents possible service commitments that are above and beyond programmatic and
committee-related service commitments that all COTS faculty members are expected to perform.
Faculty members may, with justification, substitute different service activities for those in the A
Page 265
3/15/2010
and B list below provided the substitute activities promote science education in some way and
take a similar amount of effort as those activities on the lists.
Category A service involves reform efforts that have a significant impact on multi-institution
educational systems. Examples include:
 Working on state committees to improve science education
 Participating in the organization of state pedagogical conferences
 Working on national committees to improve science education
 Participating in the organization of national pedagogical conferences
 Conducting professional development training and workshops for local and regional
teachers
Category B service focuses on local education reform efforts.
 Serving on local school district committees to improve science teaching and learning
 Making public presentations about science or science teaching
 Organization of or participation in curriculum reform at the university level
 Participation in curriculum reform within the science education program or a science
discipline
 Participating in and supporting professional development training and workshops for
local and regional teachers
Faculty members will classify and document these efforts in their Structured Performance
Review.
Tenure for faculty members with a joint or full assignment in the Science Education Department,
as well as promotion to Associate Professor, requires faculty members to make significant,
measurable service contributions to the fields of science or science education. To receive tenure
and promotion to Associate Professor, the faculty member is expected to participate in an
average of at least one Category A or B service effort every two years during the probationary
period. In addition, tenure and promotion to Associate Professor requires participation in
departmental committees and service on a college or university committee for at least one year.
Promotion to Professor requires participation in at least one Category A service effort since
being promoted to Associate Professor. Promotion to Professor also requires the faculty member
to participate in an average of at least one Category A or B service effort every two years. In
addition, promotion to Professor requires leadership in at least one departmental, college or
university committee for at least one year in addition to the university service requirements for
promotion to Associate Professor.
Satisfactory post-tenure review requires evidence of a sustained record of significant service
opportunities activities over the course of a faculty member’s career. Such evidence includes a
Category A effort, numerous B efforts, or significant progress toward a Category A effort, over
the review period.
Page 266
3/15/2010
Discipline specific standards for title, rank and tenure
The Science Education Department adheres to the standards set by the College of the Sciences
and the University with the following provisions.
Faculty Appointments: Department tenure-track faculty are normally appointed jointly to the
Science Education Department and one of the natural science departments (Biological Sciences,
Chemistry, Geological Sciences, or Physics) but may be appointed fully in the Science Education
Department to support specific program needs (e.g. middle level science at CWU Westside
Centers). The joint appointment is normally 50% assignment in each department, however,
variations in teaching loads may occur on an annual basis to meet the needs of the departments,
if mutually agreed upon by the science education department chair and appropriate science
department chair by joint approval of the workload plan.
Faculty Reappointment, Tenure, Promotion, and Post-Tenure Review: University policy states
that tenure “is the right to continuous appointment at the University with an assignment to a
specific department.” Evaluation of Science Education Department faculty who are assigned to
two departments will be based primarily on the Science Education Department’s Reappointment,
Tenure, Promotion and Post-Tenure Review criteria. Scholarship may be conducted in discipline
or science education areas based on faculty interest and expertise. Service expectations are
typically greater in Science Education than in the content discipline. The personnel committee
for such reviews shall consist of two tenured faculty members from the Science Education
department, two tenured faculty members from the appropriate science department and a tenured
faculty member from another COTS department. All members will be of the appropriate rank as
defined in University policy. If the science department already has a joint appointment science
education faculty member, that person will replace the representative from another COTS
department. Any deviation from this arrangement must be approved by the Science Education
department chair, the appropriate science department chair and the dean of COTS and must be in
accordance with all relevant CWU policies. The department chair from each department will
make an independent evaluation. Faculty assigned entirely in Science Education will be
evaluated according to existing University policy including using the Science Education
Department Reappointment, Tenure, Promotion and Post-Tenure Review criteria.
Page 267
3/15/2010
Page 268
3/15/2010
Page 269
3/15/2010
Appendix I: Facilities
Facilities – Room Use Chart
Classroom
SCI 107
complex
SCI 111
SCI 112
SCI 114
SCI 115
SCI 116
DM 363
Page 270
Research
In-Service
Outreach
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SCED
Planning
Resource
Library
X
X
X
X
Office
Space
X
X
X
Storage
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3/15/2010