Assessment Report 2011
Evidence collected in Spring, Summer, Fall, 2011.
Report due March 31, 2012
Program Information:
Program Master’s (M.Ed & M.S)
Department(s) Curriculum and Instruction
College Education
Program Assessment Coordinator Neal Strudler, Graduate Coordinator/Assistant Chair
Report Submitted by Neal Strudler, 895-1306; strudler@unlv.nevada.edu
(include phone/email)
Date Submitted April 9, 2012
1. Student Learning Outcomes for the program. List the Student Learning Outcomes for the program. Number for later reference.
The M.Ed. and M.S. programs in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction adhere to the established College of Education principles, which are
aligned with the INTASC Standards, various Specialty Program Area (SPA) standards, and accreditation unit standards. These principles and
standards underscore all programmatic and curricular decisions in our Master’s programs and are summarized in the following learning outcomes.
COE Principles
1. Principle 1 (Content Knowledge): The COE graduate knows and understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the
discipline(s) and creates learning experiences that make these aspects of content meaningful. They are passionate about their subjects and their work.
2. Principle 2 (Individual Development): The COE graduate knows and understands how individuals learn and can develop and provide opportunities
that support intellectual, career, social, and personal development. They seek ways to enhance the success of their future students.
3. Principle 3 (Diverse Learners): The COE graduate knows and understands how individuals differ in their approaches to learning and creates
opportunities that are equitable and adaptable to the needs of diverse learners. They demonstrate dispositions that reflect a caring nature toward their
clients.
4. Principle 4 (Planning Processes): The COE graduate understands planning processes based upon knowledge of content, learners characteristics, the
community, and curriculum goals and standards. They are active participants in the local k-12 education system.
1
5. Principle 5 (Strategies and Methods): The COE graduate knows and understands and can employ a variety of strategies and methods and
encourages the development of critical thinking, problem solving, decision-making, and performance skills. They create lessons that promote student
achievement.
6. Principle 6 (Learning Environments): The COE graduate knows and understands individual and group motivation and behavior and creates a
learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation. They create enriched learning
environments.
7. Principle 7 (Communication): The COE graduate knows and understands effective verbal, nonverbal, and media communication techniques and
other forms of symbolic representation and can foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supporting interactions. They use technology to facilitate
student learning.
8. Principle 8 (Assessments): The COE graduate understands and promotes formal and informal assessment strategies and evaluates the learner’s
continuous intellectual, social, and physical development. They develop fair assessments of student achievement.
9. Principle 9 (Collaboration, Ethics, and Relationships): The COE graduate understands and fosters ethical relationships with parents, school
colleagues, and organizations in the larger community to support the individual’s learning development. They build communication opportunities
through trust and genuine regard for student personal and academic growth.
10. Principle 10 (Reflection and Professional Development): The COE graduate is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects of
choices and actions on students, adults, parents, and other professionals in the learning community, and who actively seeks opportunities to grow
professionally. They respond to the rapidly changing educational context of Southern Nevada in a thoughtful manner.
2
2. Planned assessments: Methods, Instruments and Analysis. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments
to be conducted during the Spring & Fall 2010 Academic Semesters?
The Culminating Experience Assessment Matrix (see Table 1) was developed and approved by the Master’s faculty and is used by all content areas.
The culminating experiences are administered three times annually. Outcomes are broken down by component standards.
Each content area group may customize the cells of the Culminating Experience Assessment Matrix with language specific to the paper or project
required of students in that content area. Culminating Experience Evaluation Criteria are listed in Table 2. This list of descriptors provides guidelines
to distinguish among performance levels for comparable rigor across emphasis areas. An expanded evaluation rubric for the culminating experience
was approved in Spring, 2012 (see Table 5 in the T&L Master’s Assessment Plan, revised April 2012).
Transition point assessments have been approved by each content area and are to be administered within selected courses to assess student attainment
of key knowledge and skills. We have begun to review the transition point assessments and formally gather and analyze those data in 2011.
Table 1: CIG 697 Culminating Experience Assessment Matrix
Learning Outcomes
Ratings
1. Theory into
Practice
2. Professional
Philosophy
3. Conduct and/or
Evaluate Research
4. Content and
Pedagogical
Knowledge
5. Professional
Standards
Knowledge
6. Presentation
and FormatAPA style
Distinguished (3)
Proficient (2)
Marginal (1)
Unacceptable (0)
Table 2: CIG 697 Culminating Experience Evaluation Criteria
Distinguished (3)
Exceeds expectations; provides
multiple layers of connected and
convincing evidence;
demonstrates exceptional
performance; communicates
distinctively and authoritatively;
proposes original and creative
solutions.
Proficient (2)
Meets expectations; provides
multiple sources of clear evidence;
demonstrates satisfactory
performance; communicates
accurately; presents a clear and
convincing argument.
Marginal (1)
Meets minimum expectations;
provides some evidence;
demonstrates limited performance;
exhibits limited ability to
communicate ideas; presents
partial or faulty argument.
Unacceptable (0)
Fails to meet expectations;
provides little or no evidence;
demonstrates insufficient or
incomplete performance; exhibits
lack of ability to communicate
ideas; presents unsupported or
incoherent argument.
3
• PASS (Meets Standard): Total score > 12 with no score = 0.
• NO PASS TO PASS: Total score > 8 and < 12 for NO PASS.
Revise and resubmit on or before the Friday of the last week in instruction.
Total score > 12 with no score = 0 for PASS; total score < 12 for FAIL.
• FAIL: Total score < 8 FAIL.
Table 3: Alignment Between Culminating Experience Rubric (CIG 697) and COE Principles
→ COE
Principles
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
Content
Knowledge
Individual
Development
Diverse
Learners
Planning
Processes
Strategies
and
Methods
Learning
Environments
Communication
Assessments
Collaboration,
Ethics, and
Relationships
Reflection and
Professional
Development
1. Theory into
Practice
•
•
•
•
2.
Professional
Philosophy
•
•
CIG 697
Learning
Outcomes ↓
3. Conduct
and/or
Evaluate
Research
4. Content and
Pedagogical
Knowledge
5.
Professional
Standard
Knowledge
6.
Presentation
and FormatAPA Style
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4
Assessment Instrument (e.g., survey, exit exam)
CIG 697 Culminating Experience Evaluation Rubric
Transition point assessment (vary by content area)
Learning outcome(s) assessed
(list by #)
Expected Measures (results that would indicate success)
Culminating Experience
Learning Outcomes 1-6
Mean scores of 2.0 or higher; total > 12.
Vary to adhere to Specialty
Program Area (SPA)
standards.
Scores of 2.0 or higher. Many used a 3-point scale
promoted by NCATE (3=Target, 2=Acceptable,
1=Unacceptable).
3. Results, conclusions and discoveries. What are the results of each planned assessment listed above? Is the outcome at, above, or below what was
expected? What conclusions or discoveries do you draw from the results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Table 4 lists the overall mean ratings on the CIG 697 Culminating Experience by content areas and programs administered in spring, summer, and
fall. The outcomes are broken down by component standards and assessed using the following ratings: (0) Unacceptable, (1) Marginal, (2) Proficient,
and (3) Distinguished. Scores of 2.0 or higher are expected.
The mean ratings for each component of the assessment are at or above what was expected. Of the 165 candidates who registered for CIG 697:
Culminating Experience, 162 passed and 3 failed.
Figure 1 shows a breakdown of CIG 697 ratings by the component assessment criteria (Theory into Practice, Professional Philosophy, Ability to
Conduct and/or Evaluate Research, Content and Pedagogical Knowledge, Professional Standards Knowledge, and Presentation and Format/APA
Style). Mean ratings range from 2.20 (Ability to Conduct and/or Evaluate Research) to 2.51 (Content and Pedagogical Knowledge). These ratings are
quite similar to 2010 and meet expectations (see Table 4).
5
Table 4: CIG 697 Culminating Experience Ratings by Concentrations (2011)
CONCENTRATION
N
Theory
Philosophy
Research
Content/Pedagogy
Prof
Standards
Presentation
Total
ARL-Knottt
1
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
16.00
Art
11
2.45
2.73
2.27
2.55
2.55
2.45
15.15
Art-Secondary
1
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
12.00
Child Lit
5
2.00
2.00
2.40
2.60
2.80
2.80
14.60
Child Lit (Fail)
1
Elem Educ
47
2.67
2.33
2.29
2.73
2.25
2.33
14.60
English
16
2.44
2.38
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.19
13.75
English/Soc Stud
1
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
15.00
Foreign Language
1
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
15.00
Foreign Language-Sec
1
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
16.00
Health-Sec
1
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
13.00
Library Science
4
2.00
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.50
3.00
14.25
Literacy Ed
7
2.43
2.43
2.29
2.14
2.14
2.71
14.14
Math
6
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
12.00
Math-Elem
5
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.20
12.20
Math-Elem (Fail)
1
Math-Sec
2
2.50
2.00
2.50
2.50
2.00
2.50
14.00
Math-Secondary
2
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
12.00
Multicultural Ed
2
2.00
2.50
2.50
2.00
2.50
2.50
14.00
Physical Ed
1
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
15.00
Reading Specialist
4
2.00
2.25
2.00
2.25
2.25
2.25
13.00
6
CONCENTRATION
N
Theory
Philosophy
Research
Content/Pedagogy
Prof
Standards
Presentation
Total
Science
4
2.00
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.00
1.75
12.50
Science-Elem
1
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
13.00
Science-Elem (Fail)
1
Science-HS
3
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
13.00
Science-Sec/GLP
1
2.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
16.00
Science-Secondary
13
2.62
2.54
2.00
2.54
2.31
2.46
14.91
Social Studies
8
2.13
2.75
2.13
3.00
3.00
2.63
15.63
Tech Integration
2
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.25
3.00
2.50
13.75
Tech Leadership
1
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
13.00
TESL
8
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.86
2.86
2.86
15.00
TESL Elem
2
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
12.00
TESL Post (pass)
1
2.38
2.33
2.20
2.51
2.34
2.39
14.16
2.38
2.44
2.15
2.50
2.40
2.39
14.25
2011 Mean Ratings
Total Pass Without
Ratings
Total Fail Without
Ratings
160
Total 2011 CEs
165
2010 Mean Ratings
185
2
3
7
CIG 697 Mean Ratings in 2011 by
Assessment Criteria
Presentation
Prof Standards
Content/Pedagogy
Research
Philosophy
Theory
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Figure 1: CIG 697 Mean Ratings by Assessment Criteria
In addition to the culminating experience assessments, transition point assessments were initiated during 2011. Of the program areas that
administered these assessments, it was reported that all candidates reached either the Target (3) or Acceptable (2) levels. As the transition point
assessments did not adhere to a common assessment rubric, they have not been aggregated across program areas. Details of the transition point
assessments are reported by program area in Appendix A: Program Area Assessment Reports.
8
4. Use of results. What program changes are indicated, and how will they be implemented? Include a description of who will review and act on the
findings. If none, describe why changes are not needed.
Results of the culminating experiences for each content area were reviewed and discussed in content area meetings. Summary ratings were reviewed
by the T&L Master’s Committee and the Master’s Coordinator. As all areas were above the proficient level, no program changes are indicated. It was
noted in 2010 that ratings in the area of research, while satisfactory, were consistently lower than the other areas. Committee members discussed
possible implications with their program area colleagues. In 2011, ratings for research were slightly higher than in 2010 and were a bit more in line
than other assessment areas.
For the transition point assessments, baseline data were gathered this year that will inform future assessments within the content areas. All ratings
were at the proficient or distinguished level and no program changes are indicated. It was mentioned in program area reports that faculty plan to
revisit findings and revise assessments as needed. It is hoped that these assessments in the future will include a greater degree of granularity that
could help faculty further discern candidates’ strengths and areas for improvement. Unlike the culminating experiences, which all adhere to a
common evaluation rubric, the transition point assessments vary in structure, based on the assessment needs perceived by program area faculty.
One specific area for improvement was raised by the Technology program faculty. A review of current progress of students in that area indicates that
they need more intensive writing experiences earlier in the program. Changes to CIT 608 and the transition point assessment are currently being
considered by the faculty.
5. Progress. Describe program changes that have been recommended in past reports. What progress has been made since the recommendation?
The need for transition point assessments was noted in 2010 and progress has been made in 2011 in identifying and administering such assessments
within the content areas.
9
Appendix A:
Program Area Assessment Reports
10
Assessment Report – 2012
Evidence collected in spring & fall 2011
Report due March 30, 2012
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This form was designed to provide a format for
assessment reporting and should not be used to limit the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is
designed to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Dan Bubb at x51506 or via email.
***Email form to assessment@unlv.edu (Academic Assessment/UNLV)
Program Information:
Program M.Ed. and M.S. in C&I with emphases in Science Education (six programs – all assessed in the
same way)
Department(s) Teaching and Learning
College Education
Program Assessment Coordinator Neal Strudler
Report submitted by
(include phone/email) Janelle Bailey
Date Submitted 3/21/2012
1. Student Learning Outcomes for the program. List the Student Learning Outcomes for the program. Number for later reference.
Student Learning Outcomes are based upon the National Science Teachers Association’s (NSTA’s) 2003 Standards for Science Teacher Preparation
(http://www.nsta.org/pd/ncate/). The standards listed below are those addressed by the midpoint assessment in the six science education programs
(M.Ed./M.S. elementary science education; M.Ed./M.S. secondary science education; M.Ed. RPDP middle school science; M.Ed. RPDP high school
science).
Standard 1: Content {COE Principle 1 – Content Knowledge}
Teachers of science understand and can articulate the knowledge and practices of contemporary science. They can interrelate and interpret important concepts, ideas, and
applications in their fields of licensure; and can conduct scientific investigations.
To show that they are prepared in content, candidates demonstrate that they:
11
1.4
Unacceptable
Do not understand research and cannot successfully
design, conduct, report and evaluate investigations in
science.
Acceptable
Understand research and can successfully design,
conduct, report and evaluate investigations in science.
Target
Demonstrate an exemplary understanding of research
and/or technique for designing, conducting, reporting
and evaluating investigations in science.
Standard 3: Inquiry {COE Principle 3 – Diverse Learners}
Teachers of science engage students both in studies of various methods of scientific inquiry and in active learning through scientific inquiry. They encourage students, individually
and collaboratively, to observe, ask questions, design inquiries, and collect and interpret data in order to develop concepts and relationships from empirical experiences.
To show that they are prepared to teach through inquiry, students demonstrate that they:
3.1
3.2
Unacceptable
Do not understand the processes, tenets, and
assumptions of multiple methods of inquiry leading to
scientific knowledge.
Cannot engage students successfully in
developmentally appropriate inquiries that require
them to develop concepts and relationships from their
observations, data, and inferences in a scientific
manner.
Acceptable
Understand the processes, tenets, and assumptions of
multiple methods of inquiry leading to scientific
knowledge.
Engage students successfully in developmentally
appropriate inquiries that require them to develop
concepts and relationships from their observations,
data, and inferences in a scientific manner.
Target
Possess an exemplary understanding of the processes,
tenets, and assumptions of multiple methods of
inquiry leading to scientific knowledge.
Use exemplary technique for engaging students in
developmentally appropriate inquiries that require
them to develop concepts and relationships from their
observations, data, and inferences in a scientific
manner.
Standard 4: Issues {COE Principle 4 – Planning Processes}
Teachers of science recognize that informed citizens must be prepared to make decisions and take action on contemporary science- and technology-related issues of interest to the
general society. They require students to conduct inquiries into the factual basis of such issues and to assess possible actions and outcomes based upon their goals and values.
To show that they are prepared to engage students in studies of issues related to science, students demonstrate that they:
4.2
Unacceptable
Cannot engage students successfully in the analysis of
problems, including considerations of risks, costs, and
benefits of alternative solutions; relating these to the
knowledge, goals and values of the students.
Acceptable
Engage students successfully in the analysis of
problems, including considerations of risks, costs, and
benefits of alternative solutions; relating these to the
knowledge, goals and values of the students.
Target
Use exemplary technique for engaging students in the
analysis of problems, including considerations of
risks, costs, and benefits of alternative solutions;
relating these to the knowledge, goals and values of
the students.
Standard 5: General Skills of Teaching {COE Principle 5 – Strategies and Methods}
Teachers of science create a community of diverse learners who construct meaning from their science experiences and possess a disposition for further exploration and learning.
They use, and can justify, a variety of classroom arrangements, groupings, actions, strategies, and methodologies.
12
To show that they are prepared to create a community of learners, students demonstrate that they:
Unacceptable
Do not vary their teaching actions, strategies, and
methods to promote the development of multiple
student skills and levels of understanding.
Acceptable
Vary their teaching actions, strategies, and methods to
promote the development of multiple student skills
and levels of understanding.
Target
Use exemplary technique for varying their teaching
actions, strategies, and methods to promote the
development of multiple student skills and levels of
understanding.
5.2
Cannot successfully promote the learning of science
by students with different abilities, needs, interests,
and backgrounds.
Successfully promote the learning of science by
students with different abilities, needs, interests, and
backgrounds.
Use exemplary technique for successfully promoting
the learning of science by students with different
abilities, needs, interests, and backgrounds.
5.3
Cannot successfully organize and engage students in
collaborative learning.
Successfully organize and engage students in
collaborative learning.
Use exemplary technique for successfully organizing
and engaging students in collaborative learning.
5.4
Cannot successfully use technological tools, including
but not limited to computer technology, to access
resources, collect and process data, and facilitate the
learning of science.
Successfully use technological tools, including but
not limited to computer technology, to access
resources, collect and process data, and facilitate the
learning of science.
Use exemplary technique for successfully using
technological tools, including but not limited to
computer technology, to access resources, collect and
process data, and facilitate the learning of science.
5.5
Do not understand and/or cannot build effectively
upon the prior knowledge and interests of students.
Understand and build effectively upon the prior
knowledge and interests of students.
Demonstrate an exemplary understanding and/or
technique for building effectively upon the prior
knowledge and interests of students.
5.1
Standard 6: Curriculum {COE Principle 6 – Learning Environments}
Teachers of science plan and implement an active, coherent, and effective curriculum that inconsistent with the goals and recommendations of the National Science Education
Standards.
To show that they are prepared to plan and implement an effective science curriculum, students demonstrate that they:
6.1
Unacceptable
Do not understand the curricular recommendations of
the National Science Education Standards, and can
identify, access, and/or create resources and activities
for science education that are consistent with the
standards.
Acceptable
Understand the curricular recommendations of the
National Science Education Standards, and can
identify, access, and/or create resources and activities
for science education that are consistent with the
standards.
Target
Possess an exemplary understanding of the curricular
recommendations of the National Science Education
Standards, and can identify, access, and/or create
resources and activities for science education that are
consistent with the standards.
13
6.2
Cannot plan and/or implement internally consistent
units of study that address the diverse goals of the
National Science Education Standards and the needs
and abilities of students.
Plan and implement internally consistent units of
study that address the diverse goals of the National
Science Education Standards and the needs and
abilities of students.
Use exemplary technique in planning and/or
implementing internally consistent units of study that
address the diverse goals of the National Science
Education Standards and the needs and abilities of
students.
Standards 8: Assessment {COE Principle 8 – Assessments}
Teachers of science construct and use effective assessment strategies to determine the backgrounds and achievements of learners and facilitate their intellectual, social, and
personal development. They assess students fairly and equitably, and require that students engage in ongoing self-assessment.
To show that they are prepared to use assessment effectively, students demonstrate that they:
Unacceptable
Do not use multiple assessment tools and strategies to
achieve important goals for instruction that are
aligned with methods of instruction and the needs of
students.
Acceptable
Use multiple assessment tools and strategies to
achieve important goals for instruction that are
aligned with methods of instruction and the needs of
students.
Target
Use exemplary technique in using multiple
assessment tools and strategies to achieve important
goals for instruction that are aligned with methods of
instruction and the needs of students.
8.2
Do not use the results of multiple assessments to
guide and modify instruction, the classroom
environment, or the assessment process.
Use the results of multiple assessments to guide and
modify instruction, the classroom environment, or the
assessment process.
Use exemplary technique in using the results of
multiple assessments to guide and modify instruction,
the classroom environment, or the assessment
process.
8.3
Do not use the results of assessments as vehicles for
students to analyze their own learning, engaging
students in reflective self-analysis of their own work.
Use the results of assessments as vehicles for students
to analyze their own learning, engaging students in
reflective self-analysis of their own work.
Use exemplary technique in using the results of
assessments as vehicles for students to analyze their
own learning, engaging students in reflective selfanalysis of their own work.
8.1
Standard 9: Safety and Welfare {COE Principle 9 – Collaboration, Ethics and Relationships}
Teachers of science create a community of diverse learners who construct meaning from their science experiences and possess a disposition for further exploration and learning.
They use, and can justify, a variety of classroom arrangements, groupings, actions, strategies, and methodologies.
To show that they are prepared, students must demonstrate that they:
9.2
9.4
Unacceptable
Do not know and/or practice safe and proper
techniques for the preparation, storage, dispensing,
supervision, and disposal of all materials used in
science instruction.
Acceptable
Know and practice safe and proper techniques for the
preparation, storage, dispensing, supervision, and
disposal of all materials used in science instruction.
Target
Demonstrate exemplary safe practice and proper
techniques for the preparation, storage, dispensing,
supervision, and disposal of all materials used in
science instruction.
Do not treat all living organisms used in the
classroom or found in the field in a safe, humane, and
ethical manner and respect legal restrictions on their
collection, keeping, and use.
Treat all living organisms used in the classroom or
found in the field in a safe, humane, and ethical
manner and respect legal restrictions on their
collection, keeping, and use.
Use exemplary technique in treating all living
organisms used in the classroom or found in the field
in a safe, humane, and ethical manner and respect
legal restrictions on their collection, keeping, and use.
14
2. Planned assessments: Methods, Instruments and Analysis. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments
to be conducted during the Spring & Fall 2011 Academic Semesters?
Assessment Instrument (e.g., survey, exit exam)
Learning outcome(s)
assessed (list by #)
Expected Measures (results that would indicate success)
CIE 637 / CIS 638 Implementation Plan
All listed above
See attached rubric for Implementation Plan Assignment
3. Results, conclusions and discoveries. What are the results of each planned assessment listed above? Is the outcome at, above, or below what was
expected? What conclusions or discoveries do you draw from the results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Dr. Kent Crippen taught a cross-listed course that included both CIE 637 Technology Applications K-8 Science Education and CIS 638 Technology
Applications Secondary Science Education in Spring 2011. Students completed two Implementation Projects (see attached rubric) during the course.
Dr. Crippen reported that 24 students each completed two Implementation Projects. All 48 of these assessments were scored as “Target” per the
rubric. It should be noted that students who do not earn “Target” on their initial submission are allowed to revise their work per feedback from the
instructor and resubmit it. It is not known what portion of these 48 “Target” scores were original versus resubmitted scores.
One thing we have struggled with, and it was brought to the forefront again during the development of this report, is that we actually have three
different ways of looking at this student work: with the assignment rubric (attached), the SPA standards rubric (in #1 above), and the rubric that is
used for the Culminating Experience. This particular assignment is particularly well aligned with the CE rubric on Dimension 3 (Evaluate and/or
Conduct Research) and is regularly used by students as an artifact in this dimension, but to date we have not considered scoring it in this way.
4. Use of results. What program changes are indicated, and how will they be implemented? Include a description of who will review and act on the
findings. If none, describe why changes are not needed.
Because of the Science Education faculty’s close collaboration about this process, we feel that the 2011 data accurately represents where we want our
students to be at this point in the program as demonstrated by their Implementation Projects. However, in Spring 2012 we have a new instructor team
15
who is teaching the course. We anticipate a more detailed review of the Spring 2012 data to determine to what extent the new instructors are effective
in facilitating the requisite learning and any changes to the course that might be required.
The Science Education faculty need to discuss a way to better align the three different assessments and their purposes, to determine whether we can
streamline this process. In doing so, we also need to consider that the NSTA published new standards for professional practice in 2011, and our
above efforts are based on their 2003 version.
5. Progress. Describe program changes that have been recommended in past reports. What progress has been made since the recommendation?
None noted.
16
Assessment Report – 2012
Evidence collected in spring & fall 2011
Report due March 30, 2012
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This form was designed to provide a format for
assessment reporting and should not be used to limit the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is
designed to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Dan Bubb at x51506 or via email.
***Email form to assessment@unlv.edu (Academic Assessment/UNLV)
Program Information:
Program M.Ed. Elementary Education
Department(s) Teaching and Learning
College Education
Program Assessment Coordinator Neal Strudler
Report submitted by Emily Lin, 895-2960, emily.lin@unlv.edu
(include phone/email)
03.18.12
Date Submitted
1. Student Learning Outcomes for the program. List the Student Learning Outcomes for the program. Number for later reference.
Student learning outcomes for the program are consistent with are consistent with the following propositions of the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS):
 Proposition #1: teachers are committed to students and their learning
 Proposition #2: teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students
 Proposition #3: teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning
 Proposition #4: teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience
 Proposition #5: teachers are members of learning communities
17
2. Planned assessments: Methods, Instruments and Analysis. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments
to be conducted during the Spring & Fall 2011 Academic Semesters?
Assessment Instrument (e.g., survey, exit exam)
Learning outcome(s)
assessed (list by #)
Expected Measures (results that would indicate success)
#3
CIE 683 Reflective essays assessing students’ philosophy
as it relates to classroom management practices and
development of a comprehensive management plan.
Students achieve rating of acceptable on every dimension of
rubric using a 3-point scale.
3. Results, conclusions and discoveries. What are the results of each planned assessment listed above? Is the outcome at, above, or below what was
expected? What conclusions or discoveries do you draw from the results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Results:
Semester
Total Number of Students
Fall 2011
Spring 2011
15
9
Number of Students
Attaining Target
Outcomes (%)
14 (93.3)
8 (88.9)
Number of Students
Attaining Acceptable
Outcomes (%)
1 (6.7)
1 (11.1)
Number of Students
Attaining Unacceptable
Outcomes
0
0
Conclusions and Discoveries:
Transition point assessment of MEd Elementary candidates was conducted using CIE 683 Reflective essays and measured on a 3-point scale. The
outcomes are at or above expected candidate performance as indicted in the above table. Overall, results suggest that students are performing
adequately in developing and communicating understanding of teachers’ responsibilities in managing and monitoring student learning. Most of the
candidates have reached the target range in their development during the middle of their program.
18
4. Use of results. What program changes are indicated, and how will they be implemented? Include a description of who will review and act on the
findings. If none, describe why changes are not needed.
The Teacher Education/Pedagogy faculty will meet to review and discuss the results of the findings and proposed appropriate revisions to both
content and instructional approaches.
5. Progress. Describe program changes that have been recommended in past reports. What progress has been made since the recommendation?
Since this is the initial year for identifying transition assessment points for the program, the Teacher Education/Pedagogy Committee will discuss
future plans for course/program improvements and make appropriate revisions.
19
Assessment Report – 2012
Evidence collected in spring & fall 2011
Report due March 30, 2012
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This form was designed to provide a format for
assessment reporting and should not be used to limit the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is
designed to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Dan Bubb at x51506 or via email.
***Email form to assessment@unlv.edu (Academic Assessment/UNLV)
Program Information:
Program M.Ed. Secondary Education
Department(s) Teaching and Learning
College Education
Program Assessment Coordinator Neal Strudler
Report submitted by Emily Lin, 895-2960, emily.lin@unlv.edu
(include phone/email)
03.18.12
Date Submitted
1. Student Learning Outcomes for the program. List the Student Learning Outcomes for the program. Number for later reference.
Student learning outcomes for the program are consistent with are consistent with the following propositions of the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS):
 Proposition #1: teachers are committed to students and their learning
 Proposition #2: teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students
 Proposition #3: teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning
 Proposition #4: teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience
 Proposition #5: teachers are members of learning communities
2. Planned assessments: Methods, Instruments and Analysis. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments
to be conducted during the Spring & Fall 2011 Academic Semesters?
20
Assessment Instrument (e.g., survey, exit exam)
CIG 603 Reflective essays assessing students’
commitment to students and their learning as they relate
to urban education issues.
Learning outcome(s)
assessed (list by #)
#1
Expected Measures (results that would indicate success)
Students achieve rating of acceptable on every dimension of
rubric using a 3-point scale.
3. Results, conclusions and discoveries. What are the results of each planned assessment listed above? Is the outcome at, above, or below what was
expected? What conclusions or discoveries do you draw from the results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Results:
Semester
Total Number of Students
Summer 2011
19
Number of Students
Attaining Target
Outcomes (%)
17 (89.5)
Number of Students
Attaining Acceptable
Outcomes (%)
3 (15.8)
Number of Students
Attaining Unacceptable
Outcomes
0
Conclusions and Discoveries:
Transition point assessment of MEd Secondary candidates was conducted using CIG603 Reflective essays and measured on a 3-point scale. The
outcomes are at or above expected candidate performance as indicted in the above table. Overall, results suggest that students are performing
adequately in developing and communicating understanding of teachers’ responsibilities in managing and monitoring student learning. Most of the
candidates have reached the target range in their development during the middle of their program.
4. Use of results. What program changes are indicated, and how will they be implemented? Include a description of who will review and act on the
findings. If none, describe why changes are not needed.
The Teacher Education/Pedagogy faculty will meet to review and discuss the results of the findings and proposed appropriate revisions to both
content and instructional approaches.
21
5. Progress. Describe program changes that have been recommended in past reports. What progress has been made since the recommendation?
Since this is the initial year for identifying transition assessment points for the program, the Teacher Education/Pedagogy Committee will discuss
future plans for course/program improvements and make appropriate revisions.
22
Assessment Report – 2012
Evidence collected in spring & fall 2011
Report due March 30, 2012
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This form was designed to provide a format for
assessment reporting and should not be used to limit the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is
designed to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Dan Bubb at x51506 or via email.
***Email form to assessment@unlv.edu (Academic Assessment/UNLV)
Program Information:
Program MEd GLP Elementary Education
Department(s) Teaching and Learning
College College of Education
Program Assessment Coordinator Neal Strudler
Report submitted by
(include phone/email) Emily Lin, 895-2960, emily.lin@unlv.edu
03.19.12
Date Submitted
1. Student Learning Outcomes for the program. List the Student Learning Outcomes for the program. Number for later reference.
Student learning outcomes for the program are consistent with are consistent with the following propositions of the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS):
 Proposition #1: teachers are committed to students and their learning
 Proposition #2: teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students
 Proposition #3: teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning
 Proposition #4: teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience
 Proposition #5: teachers are members of learning communities
Student learning outcomes for the program are consistent with are consistent with the following propositions of the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS):
23

Proposition #1: teachers are committed to students and their learning
Differentiated instruction
Builds Positive self-concept
Interactions with students
Cultural diversity
Student Involvement
Accommodates Individual Needs

Proposition #2: teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students
Based on prior knowledge
Introduces Lesson and States Objectives
Content Knowledge
Directions and Explanations
Procedures and Activities
Use of Materials/Equipment
Effective Pacing
Smooth Transitions
Ongoing Assessment

Proposition #3: teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning
Classroom Expectations
Efficient Activities and Routines
Classroom Management/Monitors Student Behavior
Proactive Discipline

Proposition #4: teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience
Evaluation of Lessons
Self-initiative/Independence
Ability to Reflect on Performance

Proposition #5: teachers are members of learning communities
24
2. Planned assessments: Methods, Instruments and Analysis. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments
to be conducted during the Spring & Fall 2011 Academic Semesters?
Assessment Instrument (e.g., survey, exit exam)
Learning outcome(s)
assessed (list by #)
Performance Evaluation of teaching during field
#1, 2, 3 and 4
experiences conducted by mentor teachers/site facilitators
in EDEL 313
Expected Measures (results that would indicate success)
Students achieve rating of acceptable on every dimension of
rubric using a 3-point scale.
3. Results, conclusions and discoveries. What are the results of each planned assessment listed above? Is the outcome at, above, or below what was
expected? What conclusions or discoveries do you draw from the results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Results
NBPTS proposition
#1 Differentiated instruction
#1 Builds positive Self Concept
#1 Interactions with Students
#1 Cultural Diversity
#1 Student Involvement
#1 Accommodates Individual Needs
#2 Based on prior knowledge
#2 Introduces lesson and State Objectives
#2 Content knowledge
#2 Directions and Explanations
#2 Procedures and Activities
#2 Use of Materials/Equipment
#2 Effective Pacing
#2 Smooth Transitions
#2 Ongoing Assessment
#3 Classroom Expectations
Spring 2011
Number of
students
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Spring 2011
Mean (s.d.)
2.73 (0.30)
2.82 (0.40)
2.82 (0.40)
2.82 (0.40)
2.82 (0.40)
2.82 (0.40)
2.91 (0.30)
2.73 (0.47)
2.91 (0.30)
2.73 (0.47)
2.73 (0.47)
2.91 (0.30)
2.64 (0.50)
2.55 (0.52)
2.64 (0.50)
2.82 (0.40)
Fall 2011
Number of
students
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fall 2011
Mean (s.d.)
2.80 (0.45)
2.60 (0.55)
2.80 (0.40)
2.25 (0.50)
2.60 (0.55)
2.50 (0.58)
2.80 (0.45)
2.60 (0.55)
3.60 (0.55)
2.60 (0.55)
2.40 (0.55)
2.40 (0.55)
2.20 (0.45)
2.40 (0.55)
2.67 (0.58)
2.60 (0.55)
25
#3 Efficient Activities and Routines
#3 Classroom Management /Monitors Student Behavior
#3 Proactive Discipline
#4 Evaluation of Lessons
#4 Self-initiative/Independence
#4 Ability to Reflect on Performance
7
7
7
7
7
7
2.55 (0.52)
2.45 (0.52)
2.45 (0.52)
2.82 (0.40)
3.00 (0)
2.91 (0.30)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2.60 (0.55)
2.60 (0.55)
2.60 (0.55)
2.60 (0.55)
2.80 (0.45)
2.80 (0.45)
Conclusions and Discoveries
Transition point assessment of MEd GLP Elementary candidates was conducted using available data for EDEL313 Performance Evaluation of
teaching during field experiences and measured on a 3-point scale. The outcomes are at or above expected candidate performance as indicated in the
above table. Overall, results suggest that students are performing adequately in developing and demonstrating understanding of teachers’
responsibilities to: (1) being committed to students and their learning, (2) knowing the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to
students, (3) managing and monitoring student learning, and (4) thinking systematically about their practice and learning from experiences. Most of
the candidates have reached the acceptable range in their development during the middle of their program.
4. Use of results. What program changes are indicated, and how will they be implemented? Include a description of who will review and act on the
findings. If none, describe why changes are not needed.
The Teacher Education/Pedagogy faculty will meet to review and discuss the results of the findings and proposed appropriate revisions to both
content and instructional approaches.
5. Progress. Describe program changes that have been recommended in past reports. What progress has been made since the recommendation?
Since this is the initial year for identifying transition assessment points for the program, the Teacher Education/Pedagogy Committee will discuss
future plans for course/program improvements and make appropriate revisions.
26
Assessment Report – 2012
Evidence collected in spring & fall 2011
Report due March 30, 2012
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This form was designed to provide a format for
assessment reporting and should not be used to limit the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is
designed to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Dan Bubb at x51506 or via email.
***Email form to assessment@unlv.edu (Academic Assessment/UNLV)
Program Information:
Program MEd GLP Secondary Education
Department(s) Teaching and Learning
College College of Education
Program Assessment Coordinator Neal Strudler
Report submitted by
(include phone/email) Emily Lin, 895-2960, emily.lin@unlv.edu
03.19.12
Date Submitted
1. Student Learning Outcomes for the program. List the Student Learning Outcomes for the program. Number for later reference.
Student learning outcomes for the program are consistent with are consistent with the following propositions of the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS):
 Proposition #1: teachers are committed to students and their learning
 Proposition #2: teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students
 Proposition #3: teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning
 Proposition #4: teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience
 Proposition #5: teachers are members of learning communities
Student learning outcomes for the program are consistent with are consistent with the following propositions of the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (NBPTS):
27

Proposition #1: teachers are committed to students and their learning
Differentiated instruction
Builds Positive self-concept
Interactions with students
Cultural diversity
Student Involvement
Accommodates Individual Needs

Proposition #2: teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students
Based on prior knowledge
Introduces Lesson and States Objectives
Content Knowledge
Directions and Explanations
Procedures and Activities
Use of Materials/Equipment
Effective Pacing
Smooth Transitions
Ongoing Assessment

Proposition #3: teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning
Classroom Expectations
Efficient Activities and Routines
Classroom Management/Monitors Student Behavior
Proactive Discipline

Proposition #4: teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience
Evaluation of Lessons
Self-initiative/Independence
Ability to Reflect on Performance

Proposition #5: teachers are members of learning communities
28
2. Planned assessments: Methods, Instruments and Analysis. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments
to be conducted during the Spring & Fall 2011 Academic Semesters?
Assessment Instrument (e.g., survey, exit exam)
Learning outcome(s)
assessed (list by #)
Performance Evaluation of teaching during field
#1, 2, 3 and 4
experiences conducted by mentor teachers/site facilitators
in CIS 602
Expected Measures (results that would indicate success)
Students achieve rating of acceptable on every dimension of
rubric using a 3-point scale.
3. Results, conclusions and discoveries. What are the results of each planned assessment listed above? Is the outcome at, above, or below what was
expected? What conclusions or discoveries do you draw from the results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Results
NBPTS proposition
#1 Differentiated instruction
#1 Builds positive Self Concept
#1 Interactions with Students
#1 Cultural Diversity
#1 Student Involvement
#1 Accommodates Individual Needs
#2 Based on prior knowledge
#2 Introduces lesson and State Objectives
#2 Content knowledge
#2 Directions and Explanations
#2 Procedures and Activities
#2 Use of Materials/Equipment
#2 Effective Pacing
#2 Smooth Transitions
#2 Ongoing Assessment
#3 Classroom Expectations
Spring 2011
Number of
students
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Spring 2011
Mean (s.d.)
2.13 (1.02)
2.44 (0.51)
2.50 (0.63)
1.85 (0.9)
2.38 (0.62)
2.27 (0.88)
2.75 (0.45)
2.56 (0.51)
2.69 (0.48)
2.50 (0.52)
2.50 (0.52)
2.60 (0.51)
2.13 (0.52)
2.25 (0.58)
2.53 (0.52)
2.33 (0.82)
Fall 2011
Number of
students
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Fall 2011
Mean (s.d.)
2.70 (0.48)
2.80 (0.42)
3.0 (0)
2.63 (0.52)
3.00 (0)
2.80 (0.42)
2.90 (0.32)
2.90 (0.32)
3.0 (0)
2.90 (0.32)
2.80 (0.42)
2.70 (0.48)
2.70 (0.48)
2.70 (0.48)
2.90 (0.32)
3.00 (0)
29
#3 Efficient Activities and Routines
#3 Classroom Management /Monitors Student Behavior
#3 Proactive Discipline
#4 Evaluation of Lessons
#4 Self-initiative/Independence
#4 Ability to Reflect on Performance
6
6
6
6
6
6
2.44 (0.51)
2.13 (0.72)
2.13 (0.72)
2.31 (0.79)
2.53 (0.52)
2.69 (0.48)
5
5
5
5
5
5
2.90 (0.32)
2.90 (0.32)
2.70 (0.48)
2.89 (0.33)
2.90 (0.32)
3.00 (0)
Conclusions and Discoveries
Transition point assessment of MEd GLP Secondary candidates was conducted using available data for CIS602 Performance Evaluation of teaching
during field experiences and measured on a 3-point scale. The outcomes are at or above expected candidate performance as indicted in the above
table except for meeting cultural diversity expectations in learning environments during Spring 2011. Overall, results suggest that students are
performing adequately in developing and demonstrating understanding of teachers’ responsibilities to: (1) being committed to students and their
learning, (2) knowing the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students, (3) managing and monitoring student learning, and (4)
thinking systematically about their practice and learning from experiences. Most of the candidates have reached the acceptable range in their
development during the middle of their program.
4. Use of results. What program changes are indicated, and how will they be implemented? Include a description of who will review and act on the
findings. If none, describe why changes are not needed.
The Teacher Education/Pedagogy faculty will meet to review and discuss the results of the findings and proposed appropriate revisions to both
content and instructional approaches.
5. Progress. Describe program changes that have been recommended in past reports. What progress has been made since the recommendation?
Since this is the initial year for identifying transition assessment points for the program, the Teacher Education/Pedagogy Committee will discuss
future plans for course/program improvements and make appropriate revisions.
30
Assessment Report – 2012
Evidence collected in spring & fall 2011
Report due March 30, 2012
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This form was designed to provide a format for
assessment reporting and should not be used to limit the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is
designed to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Dan Bubb at x51506 or via email.
***Email form to assessment@unlv.edu (Academic Assessment/UNLV)
Program Information:
Program Mathematics Education
Department(s) Teaching & Learning
College College of Education
Program Assessment Coordinator
Report submitted by
(include phone/email) Dr. Travis A. Olson; 895-0471; travis.olson@unlv.edu
Date Submitted March 19, 2012
1. Student Learning Outcomes for the program. List the Student Learning Outcomes for the program. Number for later reference.
DIMENSION 1: Demonstrated ability to articulate and apply theories and practices.
DIMENSION 2: Demonstrated ability to articulate and implement a professional philosophy.
DIMENSION 3: Demonstrated ability to evaluate and/or conduct research, apply problem- solving techniques, and effectively communicate processes,
implications and results.
DIMENSION 4: Demonstrated knowledge and understanding of content and related pedagogy.
DIMENSION 5: Demonstrated knowledge and understanding of professional standards.
DIMENSION 6: Demonstrated ability for academic presentation and format (APA 5th/6th Edition).
31
2. Planned assessments: Methods, Instruments and Analysis. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments
to be conducted during the Spring & Fall 2011 Academic Semesters?
Assessment Instrument
(e.g., survey, exit exam)
Final Exam CIG 620 –
Principles of Learning
Mathematics (Fall
2011)
Learning
outcome(s)
assessed
(list by #)
1, 2, 4, 5,
6
Transition Point (TP)
Assessment for Math
Ed Programs
Culminating
Experience (Exit
Instrument) – Final
paper for program
(Spring, Summer, &
Fall 2011)
Final Point (FP)
Assessment for Math
Ed Programs
Expected Measures (results that would indicate success)
Exceeds
expectations by
insightfully
articulating
relationships
between theory and
practice regarding
the teaching and
learning of
mathematics
Provides
convincing
evidence of a
coherent and
consistent
philosophy of
teaching and
learning
mathematics
Communicates
distinctively and
authoritatively
mathematical
content and
pedagogy in the
teaching and
learning of
mathematics
Communicates
exemplary
evidence of ability
to meet
professional
standards (NCTM)
and performance
standards for
student learning of
mathematics
Demonstrates
exemplary use of
correct grammar,
spelling and
punctuation and
APA style
formatting
Each outcome assessed on a 4 point rubric (Distinguished - 3, Proficient - 2, Marginal - 1, and
Unacceptable - 0)
1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6
Exceeds expectations
by insightfully
articulating
relationships between
theory and practice
regarding the teaching
and learning of
mathematics
Provides convincing
evidence of a coherent
and consistent
philosophy of teaching
and learning
mathematics
Demonstrates on a
consistent basis the
ability to identify,
study, and solve
problems related to the
teaching and learning
of mathematics
Communicates distinctively
and authoritatively
mathematical content and
pedagogy in the teaching and
learning of mathematics
Communicates
exemplary
evidence of ability
to meet
professional
standards
(NCTM) and
performance
standards for
student learning of
mathematics
Demonstrates
exemplary use of
correct grammar,
spelling and
punctuation and
APA style
formatting
Each outcome assessed on a 4 point rubric (Distinguished - 3, Proficient - 2, Marginal - 1, and
Unacceptable - 0)
3. Results, conclusions and discoveries. What are the results of each planned assessment listed above? Is the outcome at, above, or below what was
expected? What conclusions or discoveries do you draw from the results? Describe below or attach to the form.
The results of the Fall 2011 Transition Point Assessment were 9 scores ranging from 11 to 15 points out of 15 possible points. Scores above 9 points
are considered “passing” with respect to analogous “passing” metrics applied to the Final Point assessment (e.g., 12 of 18 points considered
“passing” cut-off).
32
The outcome of the TP Assessment was at the expected level identified by the mathematics education faculty. Conclusions drawn from the results
were that the current TP Assessment should continue to be considered as relevant, and students were making adequate progress towards the expected
learning outcomes for the program.
Final Point Assessments were all identified at being at the “passing” level (all 12 points or above out of 18). Conclusions drawn from the 2011 results
were that students were making adequate progress throughout the program in order to achieve final scores commensurate with “proficient”
achievement in the mathematics education programs. One exception to the scores in 2011 was 1 non-submittal of a Culminating Experience paper,
which resulted in a score of 0.
4. Use of results. What program changes are indicated, and how will they be implemented? Include a description of who will review and act on the
findings. If none, describe why changes are not needed.
No program changes were identified at the current time through discussions engaged in by the mathematics education faculty. Continued
commitment to re-visit the design of the TP and FP assessments was confirmed by the content faculty. However, with regard to the results identified
in 2011, any changes to assessments will be suggested to be minor in order for consistent data to continue to be gathered across like assessment
measures for 2012.
5. Progress. Describe program changes that have been recommended in past reports. What progress has been made since the recommendation?
Progress has been made in the actual collection, storage, and coordinated analysis of TP and FP assessment data among the mathematics education
faculty. Such coordinated efforts will continue and be thoughtfully revised as needed according to data collected, and reassessments of learning
outcomes for the program.
33
Assessment Report – 2012
Evidence collected in spring & fall 2011
Report due March 30, 2012
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This form was designed to provide a format for
assessment reporting and should not be used to limit the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is
designed to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Dan Bubb at x51506 or via email.
***Email form to assessment@unlv.edu (Academic Assessment/UNLV)
Program Information:
Program Literacy, Reading Specialist, Library Science, Children’s Literature, English Education
Department(s) Teaching and Learning
College Education
Program Assessment Coordinator Steven Grubaugh
Report submitted by
(include phone/email) Steven Grubaugh, grubaughs@gmail.com 702-460-4325
March 24, 2012
Date Submitted
1. Student Learning Outcomes for the program. List the Student Learning Outcomes for the program. Number for later reference.
The M.Ed. and M.S. programs in the Department of Teaching and Learning in Literacy, Reading Specialist, Library Science, Children’s
Literature, and English Education adhere to the established College of Education principles as well as IRA and NCTE standards. These principles
and standards underscore all programmatic and curricular decisions in the above-mentioned Literacy areas. The COE and IRA Standards are attached
as well as the assignments and rubrics for midpoint and final assessments in our program(s).
See below for specific standards:
34
2. Planned assessments: Methods, Instruments and Analysis. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments
to be conducted during the Spring & Fall 2011 Academic Semesters?
Assessment Instrument (e.g., survey, exit exam)
Midpoint Assessment For Literacy, Library Science
& Children’s Literature
Learning outcome(s)
assessed (list by #)
COE Outcomes 15 and IRA
Outcomes 2.1, 2.2,
COE Standard(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
2.3 were
measured through
IRA Standard(s) 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Curriculum and
examining our CIL
Instruction
680 Contemporary
Literature for
COE Outcomes 1-5 and IRA Outcomes 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3
Children & Young
were measured by examining our CIL 680 Curricular
Adults Curricular
Plan and assessed by an accompanying Rubric.
Plan and assessed
by an
accompanying
Rubric.
COE Outcomes 1Culminating Assessment For Reading Specialist,
10 and IRA
Literacy, Library Science & Children’s Literature
Outcomes1.1, 1.3,
COE Standard(s) 1-10
3,4,5, & 6were
measured through
IRA Standard(s)1.1 & 1.3 Foundational Knowledge, 3
examining our
Curriculum & Instruction, 4 Diversity, 5 Literate
Culminating
Environment and 6 Professional Learning and Leadership Experience
elements and
COE Outcomes 1-10 and IRA Outcomes1.1, 1.3, 3,4,5, & assessed by an
6 were measured through examining our Culminating
accompanying
Experience elements and assessed by an accompanying
Rubric.
Rubric.
Expected Measures (results that would indicate success)
Our student results are that for the most part, the scores were all
target or acceptable. These results reflect student learning in the
CIL 680 prerequisite courses and CIL 680 itself. Our students
do quite well in this assessment and we conclude that the related
COE and IRA Standards are being achieved with a high degree
of proficiency and even distinction.
Our student results are that for the most part, the scores were all
target or acceptable. These results reflect student learning in the
required courses for the Reading Specialist, Literacy, Library
Science and Children’s Literature specializations offered in our
T & L Master’s Degree Program in Literacy Education. Our
students do quite well in this assessment and we conclude that
the related COE and IRA Standards are being achieved with a
high degree of proficiency and even distinction.
35
Midpoint Assessment For Reading Specialist
COE Standard(s) 7, 8
IRA Standard(s)3.1, 3.2, 3.3 & 3.4 Assessment and
Evaluation
COE Outcomes 7 & 8 and IRA Outcomes 3.1, 3.2, 3.3&
3.4 `were measured through examining our CIL 622 Case
Study Assignment and Rubric.
English Education
COE Outcomes 7
Our student results are:
& 8 and IRA
(Not taught in 2011)
Outcomes 3.1, 3.2,
3.3& 3.4 were
measured through
examining our CIL
622 Practicum
Literacy Diagnosis
and Instruction
Case Study
Assignment and
Rubric. (not taught
in 2011)
In Progress
In Progress
COE Standard(s)
NCTE Standard(s)
3. Results, conclusions and discoveries. What are the results of each planned assessment listed above? Is the outcome at, above, or below what was
expected? What conclusions or discoveries do you draw from the results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Since the assessments were completed, the Literacy interest group has discussed the results of the findings during several meetings in 2011.
As an example of our deliberations, here is an excerpt from the literacy minutes from February 13, 2012, reflecting back on 2011 assessment data.
Assessment data: Dunkerly, Giorgis, McKinney and Kaalberg supplied assessment data for the benchmark assessments for undergraduate
and master’s programs. For the most part, the scores were all target or acceptable. For the EDRL 443/CIL 453 classes the assignment of
letters (or a case report) to teachers and parents involves opportunities to reach mastery. There was considerable discussion of issues related to
the scoring rubric. What does it mean to be target? Isn’t everyone supposed to be Target? What is the meaning of Target, acceptable,
unacceptable? There may be differences in performance due to online/face-to-face teaching in the CIL 680 class. Hendricks suggested that we
make available examples for faculty who score, e.g., an example of target with commentary and an example of acceptable with commentary.
McKinney suggested we have a department conversation about what is target.
36
Our conclusions have been that the majority of students do quite well on both the mid point and Culminating Experience assessments. Our Literacy
group is continually raising issues and discussing the accuracy and alignment of the assessment activities and the IRA and COE standards from
which they have been generated.
4. Use of results. What program changes are indicated, and how will they be implemented? Include a description of who will review and act on the
findings. If none, describe why changes are not needed.
Through our assessment discussions this year, we have decided to revisit our standards and the alignment of standards with our assignments with
rubrics. There is a strong possibility that we will revisit our assignments to make improvements to our programs, especially the Culminating
Experience, during the 2012 calendar year.
5. Progress. Describe program changes that have been recommended in past reports. What progress has been made since the recommendation?
There have been no program changes recommended in past reports.
37
Assessment Report – 2012
Evidence collected in spring & fall 2011
Report due March 30, 2012
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This form was designed to provide a format for
assessment reporting and should not be used to limit the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is
designed to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Dan Bubb at x51506 or via email.
***Email form to assessment@unlv.edu (Academic Assessment/UNLV)
Program Information:
Emphasis in Technology Integration
Program
Teaching and Learning
Department(s)
Education
College
Kendall Hartley
Program Assessment Coordinator
Report submitted by
(include phone/email)
3/20/2012
Date Submitted
1. Student Learning Outcomes for the program. List the Student Learning Outcomes for the program. Number for later reference.
COE Principles:
1. Principle 1 Content Knowledge
2. Principle 2 Individual Development
3. Principle 3 Diverse Learners
4. Principle 4 Planning Processes
5. Principle 5 Strategies and Methods
6. Principle 6 Learning Environments
7. Principle 7 Communication
8. Principle 8 Assessments
9. Principle 9 Collaboration, Ethics, and Relationships
10. Principle 10 Reflection and Professional Development
38
Specialty Area Standards.
NETS-T for Technology Integration
1. Facilitate and Inspire Student Learning and Creativity
2. Design and Develop Digital Age Learning Experiences and Assessments
3. Model Digital Age Work and Learning
4. Promote and Model Digital Citizenship and Responsibility
5. Engage in Professional Growth and Leadership
2. Planned assessments: Methods, Instruments and Analysis. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments
to be conducted during the Spring & Fall 2011 Academic Semesters?
Assessment Instrument (e.g., survey, exit exam)
Class Project – Technology Integration Lesson
Learning outcome(s)
assessed (list by #)
COE Principles 1,
3, 4, 5, 6
NETS-T 1, 2, & 3
Expected Measures (results that would indicate success)
Acceptable or better in all of the rubric criteria.
3. Results, conclusions and discoveries. What are the results of each planned assessment listed above? Is the outcome at, above, or below what was
expected? What conclusions or discoveries do you draw from the results? Describe below or attach to the form.
The review of the assessments was completed by the faculty member teaching CIT 608. He presented the status of the assessment and current
practices regarding the grading and archiving of the assignments.
The assignments are currently kept in the course management system. This presents challenges for review by other program faculty. In addition, only
the total score is recorded. Thus, it is not possible to make aggregate judgments regarding specific criteria.
39
4. Use of results. What program changes are indicated, and how will they be implemented? Include a description of who will review and act on the
findings. If none, describe why changes are not needed.
In the past we have used a rubric that utilized Excellent, Acceptable and Unacceptable. We have changed the ratings to be consistent with the other
areas to Distinguished, Proficient, Marginal and Unacceptable.
We also noted that our criteria for the technology integration lesson needs to better align with the learning outcomes of the program. At present, the
criteria are more closely aligned with content requirements rather than learning outcomes.
A review of current progress of students in the program indicates that they need more intensive writing experiences earlier in the program. Changes
to CIT 608 will be approved prior to the end of the term.
5. Progress. Describe program changes that have been recommended in past reports. What progress has been made since the recommendation?
The reporting of the results (albeit general) to the program faculty was first completed this year.
40
Assessment Report – 2012
Evidence collected in spring & fall 2011
Report due March 30, 2012
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This form was designed to provide a format for
assessment reporting and should not be used to limit the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is
designed to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Dan Bubb at x51506 or via email.
***Email form to assessment@unlv.edu (Academic Assessment/UNLV)
Program Information:
Program Workforce Education & Development – M.Ed./M.S.
Department(s)
College
Program Assessment Coordinator
Report submitted by
(include phone/email)
Date Submitted
Educational Leadership
Education
Clifford R. McClain
Clifford R. McClain
702-895-3860 mcclainc@unlv.nevada .edu
March 19, 2012
1. Student Learning Outcomes for the program. List the Student Learning Outcomes for the program. Number for later reference.
See # 2 below
2. Planned assessments: Methods, Instruments and Analysis. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments
to be conducted during the Spring & Fall 2011 Academic Semesters?
Assessment Instrument
(e.g., survey, exit exam)
Learning outcome(s) assessed (list
by #)
Various outcomes in Standards 1-10 were assessed and are
as follows (refer to Assessment Plan)
Expected Measures (results that would indicate success)
These results reflect student grades in the following courses EDW 775, EDW 748/749,
EDW 745, EDW 739 & EDW 733
Standard 1: Content Knowledge (Outcomes 1.1, 1.2, 1.3)
Outcome 1.1, 1.2 & 1.3 were measured by
examining students’ projects and lesson
plans in EDW 733, 739 & 745. These
included presentations and review of
lesson plans during the student teaching
experience.
Standard 2: Individual Development (Outcomes 2.1 & 2.3)
Outcome 2.1 & 2.3 were measured
In total, six students completed both the M.Ed. and M.S. degree. Four students
finished with their M.Ed. degree and two students an M.S. degree. One student had to
delay graduation until the summer because of a slight problem getting IRB approval.
All four students pursuing the M.Ed. successfully completed their comprehensive
exam. (EDW 775- M.S.)
Four of the five students enrolled in an internship completed it successfully. One
received an incomplete. (EDW 748/749)
41
through presentations, internship projects
and observation of the interaction with
students during the student teaching
experience; evaluation of lesson plans,
teaching and journal reflections. (EDW
745 & 748, 749)
Standard 3: Diverse Learners (Outcomes 3.1 & 3.2)
Outcomes 3.1 and 3.2 were measured by
evaluating lesson plans for inclusion of
various populations and learning
modalities. (EDW 745 & 748)
Standard 4: Planning Processes (Outcomes 4.1 & 4.3)
Outcome 4.1 & 4.3 were measured by
curriculum projects; internship projects;
evaluating lesson plans, discussion with
teacher mentors and observation of
student. (EDW 733, 739, 748 & 749)
Standard 5: Strategies & Methods (Outcomes 5.3, 5.4, 5.5
& 5.6)
Outcomes 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, & 5.6 were
measured by evaluating learning
objectives and instructional strategies
proposed/implemented during student
teaching experience. (EDW 739 & 748)
Standard 6: Learning Environments (Outcome 6.2)
Outcome 6.2 was measured by evaluating
the lesson plans; observation of student
teaching; interaction with students and
discussion with teacher mentor. (EDW
748)
Standard 7: Communication (Outcome 7.1)
Outcome 7.1 was measured by student
ability to integrate technology in their
presentations, lesson planning and student
teaching as well as projects which revolve
around technology. (EDW 739, 745, 748,
749)
Standard 8: Assessments (Outcomes 8.2)
Outcome 8.2 was measured by students’
lesson plans and their ability to conduct
formative and summative evaluations
during their student teaching experience.
(EDW 739, 748)
Standard 9: Collaboration, Ethics, and Relationships
(Outcomes 9.1 & 9.2)
Outcomes 9.1 & 9.2 were measured by
discussions with teacher mentors as with
colleagues in professional organizations.
(EDW 739, 748 & 749)
42
Standard 10: Reflection and Professional Development
(Outcomes 10.1)
Outcome 10.1 is measured through the
students’ reflective journals about the
teaching and learning process and their
effectiveness as an instructor. (EDW 739,
748 & 749)
3. Results, conclusions and discoveries. What are the results of each planned assessment listed above? Is the outcome at, above, or below what was
expected? What conclusions or discoveries do you draw from the results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Because of reorganization of the College of Education, including the deletion of the Department of Educational Leadership; the splitting of the
Workforce Education and Development Program; and the reconstituting a new masters emphasis in Career & Technical and Postsecondary within the
new Department of Teaching & Learning, it is difficult to measure the effect all of this has had on our students. Currently there are only a few
students remaining in the old program that is scheduled to sunset in December 2012.
The data does indicate that students were meeting the planned objectives and completing the program successfully. However, one of the concerns of
students recently has been the disjointedness of the whole process that was felt as a result of the whole reorganization process.
4. Use of results. What program changes are indicated, and how will they be implemented? Include a description of who will review and act on the
findings. If none, describe why changes are not needed.
After several semesters of discussion about student outcomes for the program, the faculty spent several semesters realigning and redeveloping the
curriculum. It was redesigned (Spring 2009), standards were developed (Fall 2008 & Spring 2009) and were finalized (Spring 2010), and new
doctoral program was designed, developed (Spring 2009) and recently approved (Fall 2009). New assessment plans will now have to be designed to
collect more meaningful information. The anticipated completion time will be for Spring 2010.
5. Progress. Describe program changes that have been recommended in past reports. What progress has been made since the recommendation?
Changes include the dissolution of the Workforce Education and Development Masters Degree, the development of a new Masters emphasis Career
& Technical and Postsecondary Education within the Curriculum and Instruction Masters Program in the new Department of Teaching and Learning.
Accordingly, they constitute evidence of program improvements against which student success will be evaluated moving forward.
43
Assessment Report – 2012
Evidence collected in spring & fall 2011
Report due March 30, 2012
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This form was designed to provide a format for
assessment reporting and should not be used to limit the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is
designed to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Dan Bubb at x51506 or via email.
***Email form to assessment@unlv.edu (Academic Assessment/UNLV)
Program Information:
Program Multicultural Education
Department(s) Teaching and Learning
College Education
Program Assessment Coordinator
Report submitted by
(include phone/email) Christine Clark, 702-895-3888, chris.clark.unlv@me.com
Date Submitted 2.21.12
1. Student Learning Outcomes for the program. List the Student Learning Outcomes for the program. Number for later reference.
Affective Outcomes
Program students will:
1. Demonstrate profound awareness of the pre-existing beliefs they hold about themselves, those whom they perceive to be like them, those they
perceive to be unlike them, as well as society as a whole, especially as these beliefs impact schooling.
2. Demonstrate profound awareness of their own experiences of differences (or lack there of) in and out of school contexts, and the implications of
these experiences (or of the absence of these experiences) for teaching children and engaging parents from similar and dissimilar experiential
backgrounds.
44
3. Be able to define the concepts of equity and inequity; equality and inequality; individual, cultural, and institutional power, privilege, prejudice,
discrimination, marginalization, and oppression; diversity, multiculturalism, and dimensions of difference (related to race; color; ethnicity; Deafhood;
geographic origin; immigration status; language; caste; socioeconomic class background; employment status; sex; gender; gender identity and
expression; family configuration; sexual orientation; physical, developmental, or psychological ability; Veteran’s status; age or generation; religious,
spiritual, faith-based, or secular belief; physical appearance; environmental concern; political affiliation; and, on the basis of the exercise of rights
secured by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States) especially as these concepts impact teaching and learning.
4. Demonstrate a complex understanding of the role schools play in sustaining inequity and, thus, inequality, as well as the ability schools have to
promote equity and, thus, equality.
5. Demonstrate a sophisticated "disposition" for teaching all children.
6. Demonstrate advanced oral and written communication and research skills.
Behavioral Outcomes
Program students will demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions to:
1. Review current (on an ongoing basis) assessment data (classroom, school, state, national, international) related to all children’s educational
performance.
2. Develop specific curricular and instructional practices, based on assessment and performance data, to improve the educational outcomes of all
children.
3. Develop recommendations for classroom, school, and community innovation (informed by but not strictly tethered to knowledge of current
research on and practice of effective program interventions) to improve the educational success of all children.
45
2. Planned assessments: Methods, Instruments and Analysis. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments
to be conducted during the Spring & Fall 2011 Academic Semesters?
Learning outcome(s)
assessed (list by #)
Expected Measures (results that would indicate success)
Transition point assignment (narrative essay) in CIG 662,
and culminating experience assignment (comprehensive
essay) in CIG 697.
Affective 1-6;
Behavioral 1-3
B or better grade on each assignment and/or cumulatively in
each course, as well as in the program overall.
Faculty engagement with program students in program
courses, as well as through formal and informal advising
and mentoring.
Affective 1-6;
Behavioral 1-3
Student progression through program of study in an
appropriately timely manner (not too quickly, not too slowly) so
as to demonstrate general personal, academic, and professional
maturity.
Assessment Instrument (e.g., survey, exit exam)
3. Results, conclusions and discoveries. What are the results of each planned assessment listed above? Is the outcome at, above, or below what was
expected? What conclusions or discoveries do you draw from the results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Also see #5 below. While all of the students in this program have successfully completed it, the overall number of students in this program currently
is low, as it has been historically. Very little program promotion has been done to try and increase interest in it until now. Moving forward, the
program will be actively promoted to try and increase enrollments thereby making robust and meaningful assessment possible.
46
4. Use of results. What program changes are indicated, and how will they be implemented? Include a description of who will review and act on the
findings. If none, describe why changes are not needed.
1. Course assignments (and other course design elements) are continuously refined—via informal and formal teacher action research-based inquiry—
to increasingly support achievement of program students' program learning outcomes.
2. Course evaluations are continually reviewed to facilitate course refinements.
5. Progress. Describe program changes that have been recommended in past reports. What progress has been made since the recommendation?
This program has undergone a change of faculty and leadership this last semester. The aforereferenced outcomes and assessments are new.
Accordingly, they constitute evidence of program improvements against which student success will be evaluated moving forward.
47