Using Program Review to Identify and Effect Needed Change
(these documents mentioned in presentation, but not shown)
Dr. Stephen Halfaker
Dr. Alan Belcher
Ashford University
Supplemental Documents for WASC-ARC 2014
Analysis of Specialization in Curriculum and Instruction
Prepared by Alan Belcher and Connie Lower at the request of Stephen Halfaker
December 4, 2012
Introduction
The Ashford University website states that, “The Master of Arts in Education degree at Ashford
University is designed to present a foundational perspective and increased specialization for
educational leaders.” It continues, saying that students, “will benefit from opportunities to
advance your career with a degree in education at the Master's level. While teaching positions
may only require state certification, most school districts require candidates to hold a Master of
Arts in Education degree before advancing to senior management positions.” Ashford
University places its Master of Arts in Education (MAED) in the market place to provide
graduates with the skills to advance their educational careers. The specialization in Curriculum
and Instruction exists specifically “to build the skills to develop both an engaging curriculum
and a caring and responsive learning environment. The Curriculum and Instruction
specialization covers such diverse topics as systems thinking, metacognition, and differentiated
instruction.”
Market need
The United States Bureau of Labor produces the Occupational Outlook handbook which
annually reports the status of a number of career fields and predicts the growth for the
upcoming ten years. The report shows a higher than average expected growth of 20% over the
years from 2010 to 2020 (http://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/instructionalcoordinators.htm). There appears to be a definable need for curriculum leaders for the near
future, hence the viability of the specialization with the MAED program. And the Bureau of
Labor Statistics reports that most school districts expect these employees to have at least a
master degree.
The National Center for Education Statistics reports that, for graduate school enrollments,
education represents the fourth-largest percentage of students in grad school, for those who
are enrolled in any advanced degree.
Comment [AB1]: http://nces.ed.gov/das/library
/tables_listings/showTable2005.asp?popup=true&t
ableID=3577&rt=p
The Council for Graduate Schools also suggests that a graduate degree will be in increasing
demand.
Comment [AB2]: http://www.cgsnet.org/datasources-strong-employment-growth-expectedgraduate-degree-recipients-0
Curriculum
The curriculum of the specialization consists of the core of the MAED program plus five courses.
Those courses and their learning outcomes are listed here.
A.
EDU 674 Foundations & Trends in Curriculum & Instruction
1. Analyze past and present trends in curriculum and instruction for their impact on
achievement.
2. Demonstrate an understanding of design and delivery processes for a guaranteed and
viable curriculum.
3. Synthesize the impact of culture and climate on the implementation of curriculum
and instruction for improved achievement.
B.
EDU 615 Leading the Change Process in Curriculum & Instruction
1. Identify characteristics of successful change agents and their impact on teaching and
learning.
2. Describe the change process and how to use it for improved performance on the
individual, course, program, and system levels.
3. Investigate issues and models for effective curriculum and instruction leading to
improved teaching and learning.
4. Implement social technologies and facilitation skills that support the change process.
C.
EDU 676 Curriculum & Instruction Design for Increased Achievement
1. Apply the backward design model in the creation and implementation of curriculum
and instruction for a specific audience and purpose.
2. Articulate the power of integration and mapping in the design of a system for
effective curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
3. Evaluate curriculum and instruction processes and procedures including the impact of
meta-cognition on achievement results.
D.
EDU 677 Monitoring & Evaluating Curriculum & Instruction through Systems Thinking
1. Describe what differentiated instruction is, why it is important in both curriculum and
instruction, and how it impacts teaching and learning.
2. Evaluate curriculum and instruction programs for effectiveness and equity through a
comprehensive process.
3. Describe the power of systems thinking in the improvement of individual, course,
program, and institutional levels of teaching and learning.
E.
EDU 678 Seminar in Curriculum & Instruction for Diverse Needs
1. Synthesize the components of effective curriculum and instruction processes and
procedures into a real-world application meeting the needs of diverse learners.
2. Demonstrate meta-cognitive skills throughout the planning, implementation, and
evaluation stages of the chosen project.
3. Analyze and evaluate projects using the components of effective curriculum and
instruction processes and procedures.
In reviewing the curriculum and in ensuring its appropriateness for today’s needs in education,
Ashford has compared itself to the following institutions: Argosy, CSU San Marcos, CSU East
Bay, and Brandman. The programs and/or concentrations in higher education from those
programs shows a consistency of expectations for graduates, while also showing broader
exposure at times since some schools provide a master degree specifically in higher education.
In other words, it can be asserted that Ashford’s program is comparable to others and
therefore is representative of current best practices in the preparation of graduates for roles in
institutions of higher education.
Evidence of learning
The curriculum map for the specialization shows a wide range of opportunities for students to
acquire and then demonstrate the skills and knowledge represented in the learning outcomes.
The map for the overall program shows the learning outcomes and which courses in the core
students have the opportunity to master those outcomes. The Office of Institutional Research
summarizes the findings from the specialization’s assessment plan as follows:
Comment [AB3]: https://folio.taskstream.com/f
olio/CurMap/view.asp?qyz=AzEFWV9iOgbQcNkSa3K
&folder_id=kjzgzl00k6c0ckz8euhwclfj&map_id=kdzg
fezlzgzn&viewMode=Print&bShowAll=1
Across program learning outcomes, MAED students specializing in Curriculum and Instruction
exceeded the acceptable targets for most 2011-12 assessment measures. Many students also
exceeded or are approaching the ideal targets for 2011-12 assessment measures. In addition,
End of Course Survey findings indicate mostly favorable opinions about the real-world
applicability of courses, value of course materials after graduation, contribution of assignments
to understanding of course material, and course quality. Please note, however, that there was
insufficient data to report on many of the key assignments identified.
Comment [AB5]: https://folio.taskstream.com/f
olio/preview.asp?switchArea=8&RedirectPath=%2F
Folio%2FWebView%2FPreview%2Ffycgzd00uozpzbf
dzkzhzlfu%3F&tcid=xbdgk&folder%5Fid=fycgzd00uo
zpzbfdzkzhzlfu&pl%5Fid=2&bypassSwitch=1
MAED students specializing in Curriculum and Instruction did not meet the acceptable target
set for the EDU 673 Week 3 assignment, the EDU 673 Final Project, or the EDU 695 Week 3
assignment content criteria for the PLOs (3 and 7) with which they were associated.
From this compilation, it is evident that students are meeting most of the intended learning
outcomes for the specialization. There is one learning outcome in one course for which
students did not score as well as the acceptable target indicated they should.
Enrollment and Persistence
The enrollment for the MAED program overall has increased from 267 in the fall of 2008 to
4,367 in the fall of 2012. This quick growth suggests that the program is meeting a perceived
need on the part of students to earn the degree. During the same time, the percentage of
students persisting from year to year has increased from 61% to 67%. This increase is believed
to be reflective of more aggressive advising and faculty outreach to enrolled students.
Next Steps
1. Review those learning outcomes which students did not meet.
Comment [AB4]: https://folio.taskstream.com/f
olio/CurMap/view.asp?qyz=pOjjODDAJm74YQV8Q4
T&folder_id=aefgzm00kwcozvcpz_zxcfzc&map_id=k
xcshbzlzgzv&viewMode=Print&bShowAll=1
2. Ensure that there are adequate data points for each learning outcome in the 2012-13
academic year.
Other Schools Reviewed
Argosy University
Argosy University (2012) Curriculum and instruction, master of arts in education. Retrieved on
December 3, 2012, from http://www.argosy.edu/locations/atlanta/programs/curriculum-andinstruction-degree-353812.asp
Pedagogy and technology are emphasized in the Master of Arts in Education in Curriculum and
Instruction program at Argosy. The program is intended for P-12 educators who wish to
strengthen their knowledge and skills in the current classroom environment. Program
outcomes include a focus on differentiation (academic and sociocultural), evaluation of
curricular and instructional practices, school improvement efforts and assessment, professional
development planning, and working with various constituencies to enhance student success.
CSU at San Marcos
California State University, San Marcos (2012) Master of arts in education, general option.
Retrieved on December 3, 2012, from http://www.csusm.edu//search.html#pTxt=MA in
Curriculum and Instruction&pType=both
“This program is designed for K-12 classroom teachers, administrators, and other educators
who wish to extend or refine their knowledge and skills beyond the level attained in their
previous studies. “
The emphasis of this program is on pedagogy and reflective practice. The program views
educators as instructional and curricular leaders and is designed for educators who wish to
extend their knowledge and skills for the purpose of improving their performance or seeking
leadership roles. Course work is required in the categories of “schooling, culture, and
language”, “literacy education”, “English learner authorization”, “science, math, and technology
for diverse populations”, and “global teacher studies and preparation”.
Cal State at East Bay
California State University, East Bay (2012) Masters of science in education curriculum.
Retrieved on December 3, 2012, from
http://www20.csueastbay.edu/ceas/department/ted/MastersDegree/curriculum/index.html
This is an option program of the Masters of Science in Education. It is designed to provide
advanced preparation and competencies for education professionals at all levels. Degree
enhancements are available in reading and literacy, early childhood, and work done at the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Brandman University
Brandman University, Chapman University System (2012) Education graduate degree and
credential programs. Retrieved Dec. 3, 2012, from http://admission.brandman.edu/maeducation-b.aspx
Those who wish to advance into a leadership or administrative role would be interested in this
program. Opportunities are available for those who are credentialed in education with a
master’s degree. The program is designed for individuals seeking career advancement
opportunities. “The primary goal of the program is the development of knowledgeable,
thoughtful and ethical educator/citizens who are committed to the universal values of
democracy, diversity, equity, and social justice”. An emphasis can be chosen in curriculum and
instruction, instructional technology, early childhood education, educational leadership, or
teaching and learning. The “teaching and learning” emphasis prepares an educator to become
a mentor teacher, curriculum leader, or college instructor of teacher preparation programs
Community of Practice – MA in Education
Course Content Review Rubric
Instructions:
When scoring a criterion as Proficient, Developing, or Beginning, explain the reason for selecting that Performance Level including specific issues that need to be addressed.
For example, “The article referenced in Week 3’s Assignment is more than 5 years old and is not an influential work.” It is expected that each program will determine the
meaning of quantifying words used in the Course Content Review Rubric, such as All, Most, Some, Few and None. The Course Content Review Rubric is to be applied to the
content of a course, irrespective of instruction. It is not intended to be used in isolation; refer to other tools to evaluate other course quality indicators.
Course Number & Title: EDU 674: Foundations and Trends in Curriculum and Instruction
Date Reviewed: 11.19.2012
Reviewer(s): Denise Maxwell and Colleen Miron
Criteria
Recency of Materials
Performance Level
Distinguished
(4)
Proficient
(3)
Developing
(2)
Beginning
(1)
All required books, journal
articles, multimedia, and other
materials are recent (within last 5
years) OR are influential works in
the discipline (as determined by
each program).
Most required books; journal
articles, multimedia, and other
materials are recent (within last 5
years) OR are influential works in
the discipline (as determined by
each program).
Some required books; journal
articles, multimedia, and other
materials are recent (within last 5
years) OR are influential works in
the discipline (as determined by
each program).
Few or none of the required
books, journal articles,
multimedia, and other materials
are recent (within last 5 years)
OR are influential works in the
discipline (as determined by
each program).
The required text for the course is
relevant, although with the
publication date of 2006, the
course may require revisions with
a more recent publication of a
text book focused on
Instructional Design. The dates
for some of the articles provided
represent dates that are older
than 5 years. The options
provided for additional resources
beyond websites are limited.
Providing recent articles and a
greater variety of resources
would increase the quality and
significance of materials available
in the course.
Relevance of Materials
All required books, journal
articles, multimedia, and other
materials demonstrate relevance
by supporting achievement of
one or more course learning
outcomes.
Ref: Course Content Review Rubric 9-26-2012c lmj cbc
Most required books, journal
articles, multimedia, and other
materials demonstrate relevance
by supporting achievement of
one or more course learning
outcomes.
Score
3/4
Some required books, journal
articles, multimedia, and other
materials demonstrate relevance
by supporting achievement of
one or more course learning
outcomes.
Few or none of the required
books, journal articles,
multimedia, and other materials
demonstrates relevance by
supporting achievement of one
or more course learning
2/4
Critical Thinking Level
Most required course activities
require learners to do one or
more of the following: elaborate
on their thoughts, question
assumptions, examine biases,
defend an argument.
Some required course activities
require learners to do one or
more of the following: elaborate
on their thoughts, question
assumptions, examine biases, and
defend an argument.
Several of the topics presented in
the assignments, literature, and
resources are relevant when
considering the topics involved in
curriculum and instruction.
Relevant topics connected to
different resources included
needs assessments used to design
and deliver instruction, rubrics,
professional development for
new teachers, the use of
technology to influence
instruction, and learning style
assessment. The concern with
the topics is few of these topics
were embedded in the course.
Majority of the topics
represented an idea in a
discussion question or a reflection
question. Several important
topics were not included and
other topics not as relevant to
curriculum and instruction were
included. Additional comments
about areas to improve or include
is included in the narrative
section.
outcomes.
Few required course activities
require learners to do one or
more of the following: elaborate
on their thoughts, question
assumptions, examine biases, and
defend an argument.
Required course activities do not
require learners to do one or
more of the following: elaborate
on their thoughts, question
assumptions, examine biases,
defend an argument.
Students are required to analyze,
create a unit requiring the skill of
synthesis, justify responses,
compare opinions, and critique
resources reviewed in some, but
not all assignments. Assignments
are disconnected and focus more
on talking about ideas rather than
actually applying them.
Application to a Real
World Situation
Most required course activities
require learners to connect or
apply course concepts or skills to
Ref: Course Content Review Rubric 9-26-2012c lmj cbc
Some required course activities
require learners to connect or
apply course concepts or skills to
Few required course activities
require learners to connect or
apply course concepts or skills to
2.5/4
Required course activities do not
require learners to connect or
apply course concepts or skills to
2.5/4
a real world situation (e.g.,
scenarios, case studies,
fieldwork).
a real world situation (e.g.,
scenarios, case studies,
fieldwork).
a real world situation (e.g.,
scenarios, case studies,
fieldwork).
a real world situation (e.g.,
scenarios, case studies,
fieldwork).
The relevant topics and
assignments had application to
the real world situations.
Although, these assignments and
connections could be enhanced
by embedding the topic in more
than one discussion question,
journal topic, assignment. The
topics appear to be disconnected
to each other, and several of the
previously stated topics are not
relevant to the subject of
curriculum and instruction. The
scoring for the application to the
real world could be enhanced by
including topics of greater
relevance needed by teachers in
the classroom.
Total Score:
10/16
Suggestions for Improving the Course Design:
1. Providing recent articles and a greater variety of resources would increase the quality and significance of materials available in the course.
2. The journal entry in week two required students to identify the elements of their generation and explain how this knowledge would facilitate their interaction with
students and staff from other generations. This is an interesting topic, but is not related to the topic of curriculum and instruction. This topic was also not connected to
any other topic or discussion in the course. This journal entry needs to be revised to reflect a direct connection to the topic of curriculum and instruction.
3. The discussion in week four focused on how to respond to student’s disagreement with the rubric score provided. There is not a written assignment for week four.
Application of the knowledge of rubrics could be applied in an assignment requiring a comparison of different rubrics, different language provided in various rubrics, or
an assignment requiring students to align a rubric to measure specific standards. There is a need to design an assignment in week four requiring the students to
compare, analyze, or justify the alignment of a rubric to standards.
4. The assignment in week five is not relevant to the role of educators in a culture of high accountability and assessment driven instruction. The assignment focuses on
the professional organizations that influence curriculum development. This assignment could benefit teachers more effectively by requiring teachers to analyze the
elements included in the standards that must be connected to the curriculum, analyze the components of curriculum maps, or evaluating the various components
included in prepared curriculum from publishers to assist in alignment with standards and assessment based on standards.
5. Topics that could be considered to increase the relevancy of this course might include the plan / teacher / monitor / adjust cycle for teachers focusing on planning,
teaching, and assessment; focus on the importance of data driven instruction and lesson design; and the need to align curriculum and instruction to specific standards
that results in assessment results to monitor the demonstrated learning of students.
6. Very little in the course actually has students engaged in curriculum design and instruction. This is a course that should largely be application based where students
create a lesson, activity, unit, example, etc. using the theory and concepts they have read about. Would like to see discussions and assignments focused more on
actually engaging in creating models and examples.
Ref: Course Content Review Rubric 9-26-2012c lmj cbc
Credit Hour Equivalency Overview
MA in Education
EDU 623: Introduction to Teaching and Learning
EDU 645: Learning & Assessment for the 21st Century
EDU 620: Meeting Individual Student Needs with Technology
EDU 639: Human Relationships and Learning in the Multicultural
Environment
EDU 673: Strategies for Differentiated Teaching and Learning
EDU 675: Change Leadership for the Differentiated Educational
Environment
167.52
166.29
179.7
Over/Under
135 Hr. Target
(132-138)
32.52
31.29
44.7
178.18
167.91
43.18
32.91
3.96
3.73
194.68
59.68
4.33
EDU 626:
EDU 695: Capstone
248.10
117.75
110.1
-17.25
5.51
2.62
Courses
Credit Hours
Averages
167.43
32.43
Credit Hour
Equivalency
3.72
3.7
3.99
3.72
Notes
Credit Hour Equivalency
3.72
3.7
3.99
3.96
4.33
3.73
2.62
EDU 623
EDU 645
EDU 620
EDU 639
EDU 673
EDU 675
EDU 695
MA in Education – new PLOs
MAED I PLOs
MAED II PLOs
IO
INTASC
NETS-T
NCATE
*represents
elements of NCATE
that intersect with
the program
PLO1 Needs of Diverse Students
Analyze basic educational needs of
diverse learners within the context
of a community.
PLO2 Differentiated Instruction
Identify and apply components of
Differentiated Instruction within
the classroom in delivering core
content to multiple learning needs.
PLO 3 Assessment Strategies
Analyze and Implement
assessment strategies for the
educational setting and program
PLO 1: Instructional Planning for Learner Development
5,6
1, 7, 8
1
4,5,6
1,2,3,7,8
2,4
4
6
6,7
2
1
The MAED graduate designs appropriate and challenging learning experiences
informed by analysis of how learners develop individually across the cognitive,
linguistic, social, emotional, and physical patterns to promote student learning and
growth.
PLO 2: Differentiated Practice for Diverse Learners
The MAED graduate employs differentiated instructional practices aligned with learner
strengths and differences, diverse cultures, and diverse communities to promote
student learning in a safe, collaborative, engaging, inclusive, 21st century learning
environment.
st
PLO 3: Assessment for Learning in the 21 Century
The MAED graduate designs a variety of evidence-based assessments used for ongoing
evaluation of student progress, and to guide teacher and learner decision making.
MA in Education – new PLOs
improvement.
PLO 4 Research Principles
PLO 4: Leading Change through Research
Implement research principles in
the design and delivery of
instruction to meet the needs of
diverse learners.
The MAED graduate executes an action research study that draws on the research and
methods of various disciplines to address local or global educational issues.
PLO 5 Designing Curriculum &
Instruction
PLO 5: Dynamic Curriculum and Instruction in the 21 Century
Demonstrate knowledge of
designing effective curriculum and
instructional processes within the
educational setting.
st
The MAED graduate designs learner-centered instruction aligned with Common Core
st
State Standards, digital age standards (NETS-S), and 21 Century skills to promote
learner achievement and growth.
1,6,7,8
10
3,5
1, 3
6
3,5,7,8
1,2
1
MA in Education – new PLOs
st
PLO 6 Leadership Principles
PLO 6: Professional Growth, Leadership, and Ethical Practice in the 21 Century
Apply leadership principles in
advancing classroom practices for
diverse learning needs within the
profession.
The MAED graduate engages in continuous professional growth through leadership in
educational environments and the demonstration of legal and ethical behavior in
professional practices.
1,6,7,9
9,10
1,6,7,9
4,5,7
4,5
3
PLO 7 Reflective and Critical
Analysis
Demonstrate reflective and critical
analysis of curriculum and
instructional delivery models in
meeting the needs of diverse
learners.
PLO 7: Content Knowledge
The MAED graduate uses knowledge of subject matter and central concepts of the
discipline(s) to create technology-enriched learning environments that promote
learner achievement and innovation.
1
MA in Education – new PLOs
PLO 8: Communication and Collaboration in a Digital Age
2,3,7
1,3,7,10
1,3
1
3
5,8
3
1
The MAED graduate effectively communicates and collaborates with various
stakeholders through written communication, verbal communication, and a variety of
current and emerging digital age tools to ensure learner growth and to advance the
profession.
PLO 9: Information, Media, and Technology Skills
The MAED graduate uses a range of digital technology tools to research, organize,
evaluate, and communicate information while exhibiting an understanding of ethical
and legal issues surrounding the use of information technologies.
MAED
WASC Self-Study
Team:
Melissa Phillips
Colleen Miron
Course Content Review Project
Project Lead:
Gina Warren
Materials:
Course Guides
Course Content Review Rubric [hard copy]
Course Content Review Results Summary Table [hard copy included; emailed as well]
Course Content Review Results SAMPLE [hard copy included; emailed as well]
Instructions:
1) Using the Course Content Review Rubric and related Course Guide, evaluate the 4 criteria for each course:
a. Recency of Materials
b. Relevance of Materials
c. Critical Thinking Level
d. Application to a Real World Situation
2) When scoring a criterion as Proficient, Developing or Beginning, explain the reason for selecting that
Performance Level including specific issues that need to be addressed. For example, “The article
referenced in Week 3’s Assignment is more than 5 years old and is not an influential work.” You can record
your notes on the back side of the rubric or create a separate notes document.
3) Communicate with the team member who was assigned the same course and work to reach consensus on
each criterion score and total course score.
4) Final results will be recorded on three separate versions of the Course Content Review Results Summary
Table…one for each program. See the SAMPLE for a guideline.
5) Conduct a discussion among the three of you (let us know if you need a conference call number). Reflect
on your overall findings for each program including course strengths, areas of opportunity, and specific
issues which need to be addressed (such as outdated resources, redundant assignments, etc.). You can
record these in any manner that works for you, but please keep your reflections for each program
separate.
6) The final project product will include these elements:
a. All the individual rubric sheets (these can be handwritten) [42]
b. A typed Course Content Review Results Summary Table for each program [3]
c. A typed reflection for each program [3]
Due date: November 20
Ref: Course Content Review Rubric project cover page
Please e-mail the 3 Course Content Review Results Summary Tables and the 3 Program Reflections to
Gina.Warren@ashford.edu by Tuesday, November 20 . The individual rubric sheets can be sent via email/scan
or snail mail when you no longer need them.
Ref: Course Content Review Rubric project cover page
Comparison of Ashford’s MA ED Program
PLOs with Similar Institutions
Compared Institution
Argosy University
Master of Arts in
Education in Teaching
and Learning
•
•
•
•
Open enrollment
- no specific tests
or GPA required
Online and
blended program
offerings
Private
For-profit
Program Outcomes of Compared
Institution
• Commitment to Student Learning:
Students will have the opportunity to learn
to apply developmentally appropriate
practices regarding individual academic
and socio cultural differences for optimal
student learning.
• Knowledge of Pedagogy: Students will
have the opportunity to learn to identify,
discriminate, select, and apply relevant
research method(s) to plan, implement and
evaluate curricular and instructional
practices that support improved teaching
and learning; they will also use data to
guide school improvement efforts,
implementation, assessment, and resource
allocation.
• Facilitation of classroom instruction
and environment: Students will have the
opportunity to learn to develop
appropriate strategies to create a positive
and engaging learning environment.
• Self-Assessment: Students will have the
opportunity to learn to develop personal
and professional development plans using
self-assessment processes to think
systematically from practice and learn
from experience.
• Collaboration with Community:
Students will have the opportunity to learn
to work collaboratively with various
constituencies to develop local and global
perspectives to further educational success
and productive citizenship.
• Knowledge of Content and PedagogyReading: Students will have the
opportunity to learn to apply current
practices and theories, teaching strategies,
and assessment techniques in diverse
settings to enhance student skills.
Comparison to Ashford
Ashford Strengths:
• Ashford places a stronger
emphasis on diversity
• Argosy only states outcomes as
students having the "opportunity
to learn" not that they will
master those outcomes; Ashford
states in action verbs in
alignment with Bloom's
Taxonomy.
• Both universities provide clear
organizational categories or
titles for each outcome.
• Ashford’s PLOs represents a
slightly different emphasis, but
the all encompassing outcomes
are in alignment with the
InTASC Model Core Teaching
Standards, including topics such
as leadership, research/theory,
and differentiated instruction.
• Ashford outcomes are more
concise in comparison to Argosy
University.
Ashford Weaknesses:
• Argosy provided a stronger
emphasis on pedagogy and
classroom management, both in
alignment with InTASC
standards.
• Argosy elaborates and provided
more descriptive detail for each
outcome, similar to the format
provided in InTASC.
• Ashford outcomes are worded
with language that is not as
descriptive as the language
included by Argosy.
California State
University, San Diego
“Clear” Master’s Degree
in Cultural and Linguistic
Diversity in Urban
Education
•
•
•
•
Competitive
enrollment
(GRE, GPA, etc.
considered - 30%
acceptance rate)
Primarily
campus-based
Non-profit
State
Cal State, East Bay, San
Francisco
M.S. in Educational
Leadership
•
•
•
•
3.0 required for
admission, along
with other things
such as 3 years
teaching
experience and
writing exam.
No GRE
required.
Online and
blended program
offerings
Non-profit
State
• Understanding and utilizing the cultural
strengths of diverse students
• Teaching English learners through
effective instructional practice
• Addressing the achievement gap as a
systemic issue
• Creating inclusive classrooms that support
all learners
• Developing engaging, culturally relevant
curriculum
• Improving the academic performance and
schooling outcomes for students living in
poverty
Ashford Strengths:
• Programs provide a slightly
different focus - CSU
emphasizes diversity, high-need
learners, culture because that is
the specific focus of the
program. Ashford's outcomes
are more broad and all
encompassing for a more
generalist degree.
• Ashford outcomes are very
concise.
• Ashford provides clear
organizational categories or
titles for each outcome.
Ashford Weaknesses:
• Ashford may wish to consider
some of the ideas here such as
achievement gap, meeting needs
of students in poverty, etc. as
specifics under a revised
diversity outcome.
• Ashford outcomes are somewhat
vague.
Students graduating with an M.S. in
Education with an Option in Urban Teacher
Leadership from Cal State East Bay will
have:
(1) explored leadership in general and teacher
leadership in particular including evaluation
of personal leadership knowledge, skills,
dispositions and style;
(2) developed leadership skills to support
learning and teaching for equity and high
achievement for all students;
(3) developed systems thinking and strategic
approaches for teacher leaders to help create a
learning community that demonstrates ethical,
caring and reflective practice.
Ashford Strengths:
• Ashford list of learning
outcomes is more
comprehensive. One of the few
institutions to include research
and critical thinking in the list of
PLOs.
• Ashford has clear organizational
categories or titles for each
outcome.
Ashford Weaknesses:
• Cal State provides more
explanatory description attached
to each of the outcomes.
• Systems thinking and strategic
approaches might be something
to consider integrating into the
leadership PLO for Ashford.
• Ashford does not include the
topic of ethics within the
outcomes.
Brandman (MAED)
Education – Master of
Arts in Educational
Leadership and
Administration with
Preliminary
Administrative Services
Credential
•
•
•
•
Does require
GRE, Praxis or
MAT test for
admission fairly low scores
required.
Online and
campus program
offerings
Non-profit
Private
PLO 1 – Vision: Organize the development,
articulation, implementation and stewardship
of a vision of learning that is shared and
supported by the school community
PLO 2 – Collaboration: Collaborate with
stakeholders, respond to diverse community
interests and needs, and mobilize community
resources to promote the success of all
students.
PLO 3 – Management: Design the
management of the organization, operations,
and resources for a safe, efficient, and
effective learning environment.
Ashford Strengths:
• Fairly comparable to Ashford's
list of learning outcomes
• Both have clear organizational
categories or titles for each
outcome.
Ashford Weaknesses:
• Brandman provides more
explanatory description for
each of the outcomes.
• Vision and management might
be topics to consider
integrating into the leadership
PLO for Ashford.
• Ashford does not include
ethics as an area within the
learning outcomes.
PLO 4 – Cultural Awareness: Plan for and
nurture cultural awareness in order to sustain
a school culture and instructional program
conducive to student learning and staff
professional growth.
PLO 5 – Ethics: Construct and model a
professional code of ethics and develop
professional leadership capacity.
PLO 6 – Leadership: Advocate for the
success of all students by influencing the
larger political, social, economic, legal, and
cultural context of schools.
University of Phoenix
Master of Arts in
Education/Teacher
Leadership
•
•
•
•
Open enrollment
Online and
blended program
offerings
Private
For-profit
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Advocating for Learning
Collaborating with Educational
Communities
Engaging in Reflective Practice
Integrating Technology
Leading through Innovative
Practices
Practicing Professional Ethics
Valuing Diversity
Ashford Strengths:
• Ashford list of learning
outcomes is more
comprehensive. Ashford is
one of only a few within this
analysis to include research
and critical thinking in the list
of PLOs. No explanation is
provided regarding what is
intended with each bullet point
PLO provided by UoP.
Ashford Weaknesses:
• Ashford does not include
practicing professional ethics
as a topic within the list of
learning outcomes.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
University of
Northern
Colorado
State University
Non-profit
GPA of 3.0
Required; SAT
GRE required for
MA programs
MA Programs
require one year
of teaching
experience
No general MA
in Education
Program
Offered, each
MA program is a
specialization in
Reading,
Teacher
Leadership,
Special
Education,
Administration,
etc.
Combination of
Online, campus,
and blended
programs
MA programs
are primarily
online programs
only
Metropolitan State
College of Denver
•
Open
enrollment: No
assessment
scores required
These evolving scholars are guided and
encouraged to pursue knowledge, commit to
inquiry, engage in problem solving related to
reading/literacy processes and practices, and
participate as leaders in reading/literacy
related activities. The inquiring practitioners
learn to use reading/literacy knowledge,
practices, and processes to serve the changing
technological, diversity, and reading/literacy
education needs of dynamic local and global
environments.
Students will:
•
•
•
• Develop best practices in teaching
and learning activities.
• Attain leadership strategies
and capacities to engage in
collaborative leadership with
peers, administrators and the
community.
Provide significant
contributions to continuous
school improvement efforts.
Develop the skill set to be a
successful peer mentor and
instructional coach.
Prepare for leadership roles in
Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs).
The Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT)
programs prepare students for successful
careers in education through high quality and
accessible education. The goal of MAT is to
prepare teachers to make effective decisions
in diverse classrooms. To accomplish this
goal, emphasis is placed on producing master
Ashford Strengths:
• Ashford’s list of learning
outcomes is more
comprehensive with
specific headings and
categories.
• Outcomes for UNC
consist of multiple skills
focused on higher order
thinking however the
listing lacks descriptive
language; Ashford’s PLOs
are stand alone statements.
• The specifics provided by
UNC in each degree
program indicate
outcomes at a basic
knowledge or application
level. Learners are also
encouraged to engage in
certain skills, but the
outcomes do not specify
exactly what the student
will demonstrate.
Ashford’s PLOs include
higher level thinking
requiring analysis and
application.
Ashford Weakness
• There is a greater
emphasis at UNC on the
students being currently
employed in education
and applying the skill set
interacting with other
professionals and students
while completing the MA
coursework.
• The coursework for the
entire MA program at
UNC is concentrated only
on the area of
specialization without a
focus on general education
coursework.
Language included in the general
description for Metro State aligns
with language include the InTASC
standards, although there are no
indicators of what students will
demonstrate, analyze, or apply
beyond the generic listing of global
•
•
•
•
•
Online and
Campus, or
blended
programs offered
State University
Non-profit
MA Programs
started in 2010
Two Programs
offered: MA in
Teaching and
MA in Special
Education
teachers who are self-reflective, life-long
learners who have an understanding of child
development, content, and pedagogy. MAT
licensure candidates must be able to use
theory, research, classroom experience, and
professional judgment to lead others in
collaborative planning, implementation, and
evaluation of effective instruction for
students.
•
•
Program offered describes all the
courses and prerequisite classes
required to enroll in each class,
descriptions of learning outcomes
not provided in online catalog
Course emphasis is placed on
specific content in math, reading,
writing, and science methods and
teaching techniques at the MA level
skills.
Ashford Strengths:
• Specific categories and
outcomes are identified
that relate to the courses
and to the InTASC
standards.
• The MA ED PLOs relate
to the institution outcomes
and to the specific
outcomes in each area of
specialization in the MA
program. This alignment
was not transparent with
the Metro State course
descriptions.
Table 1: MAED Students’ Achievement of Key Assignments
Non-Waypoint (Indirect
Measure)
Waypoint (Direct Measure)
1
2
76.88
77.96
4
6
52.75
1
52.75
2
72.26
4
52.75
52.75
5
7
79.11
79.11
1
5
PLO
90.21
90.21
Ideal
3
PLO
85.05
Acceptable
1
PLO
PLO
84.01
Ideal
Acceptable
Percentage of Students who met:
93.75
6
89.63
1
86.71
7
EDU 623
EDU 639
EDU 645
EDU 626
MAED Core
Courses
EDU 673
EDU 620
EDU 675
EDU 695
EDU 615
Specialization:
Teacher
Leader
ESE 633
EDU 677
78.92
2
72.86
3
71.30
4
78.06
63.12
5
7
73.49
82.52
74.07
3
7
6
81.89
81.56
4
6
EDU 686
EDU 653
Specialization:
Higher
Education
EDU 654
EDU 657
EDU 662
Specialization:
Special
ESE 691
75.61
2
82.93
6
84.15
81.71
7
1
84.52
4
84.52
5
84.52
6
83.33
5
76.4
7
78.33
2
76.67
3
76.67
84.44
4
3
80.73
80.73
3
6
Education
ESE 633
ESE 695
80.14
1
80.14
3
80.14
4
80.14
5
80.14
7
73.14
73.14
1
2
ESE 631
EDU 615
EDU 674
Specialization:
Curriculum &
Instruction
87.34
1
87.34
2
87.34
87.34
5
7
88.33
2
88.01
6
90.60
94.01
3
5
88.8
3
76.88
77.96
80.18
EDU 676
79.11
EDU 677
EDU 678
79.11
77.78