Outcomes and Assessment - Department of Education

Undergraduate

Teacher Education Program, K-8 and Secondary

Program Outcomes

Content: Candidates understand the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the disciplines and can create standards‐based learning experiences that make these aspects of subjects or content knowledge meaningful for students.
Diversity: Candidates create learning environments that allow ALL students to be socially and academically successful, by validating students’ cultural heritages, integrating their life experiences, and promoting their overall development. Candidates demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions to address the instructional responsibilities needed to integrate Indian Education for All across the curriculum in a culturally responsive manner.
Pedagogy: Candidates understand and use a variety of instructional strategies to foster students’ motivation for learning and encourage the development of students’ conceptual understandings and performance/work force skills. Candidates use knowledge of effective communication techniques and make appropriate use of educational technology to support planning, instruction, and student learning.
Assessment: Candidates understand and demonstrate use of formal and informal assessment strategies and tools to direct planning of instruction for the continuous intellectual, social and physical development of all learners. This ongoing practice includes pre‐, formative and summative analysis of student learning, individually, in groups, and in whole class settings. Candidates plan lessons and instructional sequences are based upon knowledge of subject matter, standards, learning outcomes, students, and the community.
Professionalism: Candidates demonstrate the ability to reflect on classroom decision‐making with regard to content, diversity, pedagogy and assessment in order to improve teaching and learning. Candidates are reflective practitioners that examine their own biases and endeavor to provide equitable educational opportunities for students.Candidates demonstrate an understanding that education happens in a context and develop effective relationships with family and community members.

Technology Education - Industrial Technology Option

Program Outcomes

Concepts: Students understand are able to discuss and demonstrate broad technology concepts related to the areas of manufacturing, construction, power and energy, and communication.
Ethics: Students recognize there are substantial interrelated ethical issues between technological advancements in industry and society, and as such are able to demonstrate their ability to engage in knowledgeable conscious decision-making activities for future industrial practices through the research, analysis, and evaluation of historical events and industrial practices.
Specifics: Students understand and can identify the advantages and disadvantages of various major materials and processes as they are employed in a multitude of current industry practices, as well as demonstrate the safe implementation and use of tools, equipment, and other resources specific to their industrial career focus.
Application: Students engage in an internship program where they are able to apply their gained technological knowledge and skills in the industrial workforce while enhancing their understanding of and need for exemplifying professional ethics and good business practices in the field.

EHHD_ED_UG_BS_TEP_K-8_and_Secondary_PLAN_2016-20

The Technology Education Broadfield and Tech Ed Industrial Technology programs have now been moved out of the Department of Education and into the Department of Agricultural and Technology Education.

Montana State University ‐ Bozeman
Department of Education
Program Assessment System Plan

All Department of Education majors and minors are part of the Teacher Education Program and are included in the TEP assessment system, with the exception of the Tech Ed Industrial Technology Option (TEIT) which has its own assessment plan.

Sheet Tabs (linked)	Contents
Intro	This sheet. The Back to Top link on each sheet returns to this sheet.
TEP ‐ Step 1	Teacher Education Program ‐ Outcomes
ELED ‐ Step 2	Elementary Education ‐ Delivery Matrix
ELED ‐ Step 3	Elementary Education ‐ Assessment Matrix
EDGS ‐ Step 2	General Science Broadfield ‐ Delivery Matrix
EDGS ‐ Step 3	General Science Broadfield ‐ Assessment Matrix
EDSS ‐ Step 2	Social Studies Broadfield ‐ Delivery Matrix
EDSS ‐ Step 3	Social Studies Broadfield ‐ Assessment Matrix
TEBD ‐ Step 2	Technology Education Broadfield ‐ Delivery Matrix
TEBD ‐ Step 3	Technology Education Broadfield ‐ Assessment Matrix
Minors Step 2	Reading and Tech Ed Teaching Minors ‐ Delivery Matrix
Minors Step 3	Reading and Tech Ed Teaching Minors ‐ Assessment Matrix
TEP Step 4 ‐ Expectation	Teacher Education Program ‐ Assessment Expectations
TEP Step 5 ‐ Schedule	Teacher Education Program ‐ Assessment Schedule
TEP Step 6 ‐ Process	Teacher Education Program ‐ Assessment Process
TEIT Step 1	Tech Ed Industrial Technology Option ‐ Outcomes
TEIT Step 2	Tech Ed Industrial Technology Option ‐ Delivery Matrix
TEIT Step 3	Tech Ed Industrial Technology Option ‐ Assessment Matrix
TEIT Step 4 ‐ Expectation	Tech Ed Industrial Technology Option ‐ Assessment Expectations
TEIT Step 5 ‐ Schedule	Tech Ed Industrial Technology Option ‐ Assessment Schedule
TEIT Step 6 ‐ Process	Tech Ed Industrial Technology Option ‐ Assessment Process
FEPA Rubric	TEP ‐ Field Experience Performance Assessment Rubric
TWS Rubric	TEP ‐ Teacher Work Sample Rubric
TEP ‐ SA Rubrics 1	TEP ‐ Signature Assignments ‐ Rubrics
TEP ‐ SA Rubrics 2	TEP ‐ Signature Assignments ‐ Rubrics
TEIT Rubric 1	Tech Ed Industrial Technology Option Rubrics
TEIT Rubric 2	Tech Ed Industrial Technology Option Rubrics
TEIT Rubric 3	Tech Ed Industrial Technology Option Rubrics
TEIT Rubric 4	Tech Ed Industrial Technology Option Rubrics

Program Learning Outcomes
ELED, EDGS, EDSS and TEBD majors; TRDG and TTCH minors

1	Content	Candidates understand the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the disciplines and can create standards‐based learning experiences that make these aspects of subjects or content knowledge meaningful for students.
2	Diversity	Candidates create learning environments that allow ALL students to be socially and academically successful, by validating students’ cultural heritages, integrating their life experiences, and promoting their overall development. Candidates demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions to address the instructional responsibilities needed to integrate Indian Education for All across the curriculum in a culturally responsive manner.
3	Pedagogy	Candidates understand and use a variety of instructional strategies to foster students’ motivation for learning and encourage the development of students’conceptual understandings and performance/work force skills. Candidates use knowledge of effective communication techniques and make appropriate use of educational technology to support planning, instruction, and student learning.
4	Assessment	Candidates understand and demonstrate use of formal and informal assessment strategies and tools to direct planning of instruction for the continuous intellectual, social and physical development of all learners. This ongoing practice includes pre‐, formative and summative analysis of student learning, individually, in groups, and in whole class settings. Candidates plan lessons and instructional sequences are based upon knowledge of subject matter, standards, learning outcomes, students, and the community.
5	Professionalism	Candidates demonstrate the ability to reflect on classroom decision‐making with regard to content, diversity, pedagogy and assessment in order to improve teaching and learning. Candidates are reflective practitioners that examine their own biases and endeavor to provide equitable educational opportunities for students. Candidates demonstrate an understanding that education happens in a context and develop effective relationships with family and community members.

Delivery ‐ Elementary Education

I = Introductory		Outcomes
D = Developmental		_Content	_Diversity	_Pedagogy	_Assessment	_{Professionalism}
M = Mastery	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDU 101 US Teaching & Learning	3		I	I		I
WRIT 101 W College Writing	3					I
EDU 222 IS Ed Psych and Child Development	3		I
Life Science: BIOB 100IN; BIOM 103IN; or approved elective	3	I
M 132 Number and Operations for K-8 Teachers	3	I
EDU 204 IA Creative Arts & Lifelong Learning	3	I
HSTA 101 or 102 or HSTR101 or 102 IH American History I or II or Western Civilization I or II	4	I
GPHY121; GPHY 141; ANTY101 Human Cultures	3	I
Earth Science: GEO 101; GEO103; GPHY111; or approved elective	3-4	I
M 133Q Geometry and Geometric Measurement for K-8 Teachers	3	I
EDU 370 Integrating Technology into Education	2			I
TE 250 CS Technology & Society	3	I
Physical Science: PHSX 103IN; PHSX201IN; CHMY102; or approved elective	3-4	I
M 234 Higher Mathematics for K-8 Teachers	3	I
NASX 105, or 205, or 232 Native American Studies	3	I
EDU 331 Literature & Literacy for Children	3	I		I
Approved STEM elective	3	I
PSCI 210 American Government	3	I
EDU 397 K-8 Health Enhancement	3			I
EDU 382 Assessment, Curriculum & Instruction	3				I	I
HDCF 356 Exceptional Children	3		I
EDU 330 Emergent Literacy	3	I		I
EDU 211 D Multicultural Education	3		I
EDU 438 Literacy Assessment, Diagnosis & Instruction	3	D		D	D	D
EDU 397 K-8 Creative Arts Methods	3	D	D	I	D
EDU 397 K-8 Science Methods	3	D		I	D
EDU 342 Managing the Learning Environment	2		I	I		I
EDU 395 Practicum: K-8 (After School Partnership)	3	D	D	D	D	D
EDU 397 K-8 Language Arts Methods	3	D		D
EDU 397R K-8 Social Studies Methods	3			I
EDU 397 K-8 Math Methods	3	D		I	D
EDU 395 Practicum: K-8 (Classroom)	3	D	D	D	D	D
EDU 495 Student Teaching	12	M	M	M	M	M

Assessment ‐ Elementary Education

SA = Signature Assignment		Outcomes
FEPA = Field Experience Performance Assessment		_Content	_Diversity	_Pedagogy	_Assessment	_{Professionalism}
TWS = Teacher Work Sample	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDU 101 US Teaching & Learning	3
WRIT 101 W College Writing	3
EDU 222 IS Ed Psych and Child Development	3		SA
Life Science: BIOB 100IN; BIOM 103IN; or approved elective	3
M 132 Number and Operations for K-8 Teachers	3
EDU 204 IA Creative Arts & Lifelong Learning	3
HSTA 101 or 102 or HSTR101 or 102 IH American History I or II or Western Civilization I or II	4
GPHY121; GPHY 141; ANTY101 Human Cultures	3
Earth Science: GEO 101; GEO103; GPHY111; or approved elective	3-4
M 133Q Geometry and Geometric Measurement for K-8 Teachers	3
EDU 370 Integrating Technology into Education	2			SA
TE 250 CS Technology & Society	3
Physical Science: PHSX 103IN; PHSX201IN; CHMY102; or approved elective	3-4
M 234 Higher Mathematics for K-8 Teachers	3
NASX 105, or 205, or 232 Native American Studies	3
EDU 331 Literature & Literacy for Children	3
Approved STEM elective	3
PSCI 210 American Government	3
EDU 397 K-8 Health Enhancement	3			SA
EDU 382 Assessment, Curriculum & Instruction	3				SA	SA
HDCF 356 Exceptional Children	3
EDU 330 Emergent Literacy	3			SA
EDU 211 D Multicultural Education	3		SA
EDU 438 Literacy Assessment, Diagnosis & Instruction	3
EDU 397 K-8 Creative Arts Methods	3			SA
EDU 397 K-8 Science Methods	3			SA
EDU 342 Managing the Learning Environment	2
EDU 395 Practicum: K-8 (After School Partnership)	3	FEPA	FEPA	FEPA	SA/FEPA	SA/FEPA
EDU 397 K-8 Language Arts Methods	3			SA
EDU 397R K-8 Social Studies Methods	3			SA
EDU 397 K-8 Math Methods	3			SA
EDU 395 Practicum: K-8 (Classroom)	3	FEPA	FEPA	FEPA	SA/FEPA	SA/FEPA
EDU 495 Student Teaching	12	FEPA/TWS	FEPA/TWS	FEPA/TWS	FEPA/TWS	FEPA/TWS
Praxis II Content Knowledge Exam		Praxis II
Graduate Survey		GS	GS	GS	GS	GS

Delivery - General Science Broadfield

I = Introductory		Outcomes
D = Developmental		_Content	_Diversity	_Pedagogy	_Assessment	_{Professionalism}
M = Mastery	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
BIOB 170IN--Prin Biological Diversity	4	I
BIOB 160--Principles of Living Systems	4	I
CHMY 131--General Chemistry I	4	I
CHMY 132--General Chemistry II	4	I
EDU 202--Early Field Experience	1		I	I		I
WRIT 101W--College Writing I	3					I
FCS 101IS--Lifespan Human Dev or EDEC 160--Early Childhood through Adolescent Development	3		I
M 170--Survey of Calculus or M 181--Calculus & Anl Geom I	4	I
CHMY 215--Elements Organic Chem	5	I
EDU 223--Ed Psy & Adolescent Dev	3		I
EDU 370--Integrating Tech into Education	2			I
GEO 101IN--Intro to Physical Geol	4	I
GPHY 111CS--Intro to Physical Geog	4	I
PHSX 205--College Physics I	4	I
PHSX 207--College Physics II	4	I
HSTR 101IH--Western Civilization I or HSTR 102IH--Western Civilization II	4	I
BIOB 375--General Genetics	3	I
BIOE 370--General Ecology	3	I
BIOB 420--Evolution	3	I
EDU 382--Assessment, Curric, Instruction	2				I	I
EDU 211D--Multicultural Education	3		D			I
EDU 494--Seminar: Lab Safety	1	I		I
ASTR 371--Solar System Astronomy	4	I
HDCF 356--Exceptional Needs (0-21)	3		I
BIOO 412--Animal Physiology or BIOO 433--Plant Physiology	3	I
ERTH 303--Weather and Climate or GEO 211--Earth History & Evolution	3	I
BIOM 103IN--Unseen Universe: Microbes or BIOM 360--General Microbiology	3 or 5	I
EDU 497--Methods: 5-12 Science	3	I		I
RLST 217IH--Religion and Science or HSTR 417 431--Sci Tech Soc 1500-1800 or HSTR 419--Modern Science	3	I
EDU 395--Practicum: 5-12	3	D	D	D	D	D
EDU 495--Student Teaching: 5-12	12	M	M	M	M	M
EDU 408--Professional Issues: 5-12	2					M

Assessment ‐ General Science Broadfield

SA = Signature Assignment		Outcomes
FEPA = Field Experience Performance Assessment		_Content	_Diversity	_Pedagogy	_Assessment	_{Professionalism}
TWS = Teacher Work Sample	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
BIOB 170IN--Prin Biological Diversity	4
BIOB 160--Principles of Living Systems	4
CHMY 131--General Chemistry I	4
CHMY 132--General Chemistry II	4
EDU 202--Early Field Experience	1
WRIT 101W--College Writing I	3
FCS 101IS--Lifespan Human Dev or EDEC 160--Early Childhood through Adolescent Development	3
M 170--Survey of Calculus or M 181--Calculus & Anl Geom I	4
CHMY 215--Elements Organic Chem	5
EDU 223--Ed Psy & Adolescent Dev	3		SA
EDU 370--Integrating Tech into Education	2			SA
GEO 101IN--Intro to Physical Geol	4
GPHY 111CS--Intro to Physical Geog	4
PHSX 205--College Physics I	4
PHSX 207--College Physics II	4
HSTR 101IH--Western Civilization I or HSTR 102IH--Western Civilization II	4
BIOB 375--General Genetics	3
BIOE 370--General Ecology	3
BIOB 420--Evolution	3
EDU 382--Assessment, Curric, Instruction	2				SA	SA
EDU 211D--Multicultural Education	3		SA
EDU 494--Seminar: Lab Safety	1
ASTR 371--Solar System Astronomy	4
HDCF 356--Exceptional Needs (0-21)	3
BIOO 412--Animal Physiology or BIOO 433--Plant Physiology	3
ERTH 303--Weather and Climate or GEO 211--Earth History & Evolution	3
BIOM 103IN--Unseen Universe: Microbes or BIOM 360--General Microbiology	3 or 5
EDU 497--Methods: 5-12 Science	3			SA
RLST 217IH--Religion and Science or HSTR 417 431--Sci Tech Soc 1500-1800 or HSTR 419--Modern Science	3
EDU 395--Practicum: 5-12	3	FEPA	FEPA	FEPA	SA/FEPA	SA/FEPA
EDU 495--Student Teaching: 5-12	12	FEPA/TWS	FEPA/TWS	FEPA/TWS	FEPA/TWS	FEPA/TWS
EDU 408--Professional Issues: 5-12	2
Praxis II Content Knowledge Exam		Praxis II
Graduate Survey		GS	GS	GS	GS	GS

Delivery - Social Studies Broadfield

I = Introductory		Outcomes
D = Developmental		_Content	_Diversity	_Pedagogy	_Assessment	_{Professionalism}
M = Mastery	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDU 202--Early Field Experience	1		I	I		I
WRIT 101W--College Writing I	3					I
FCS 101IS --Lifespan Human Devlpmt or EDEC 160--Early Childhood through Adolescent Development	3		I
HSTR 101IH--Western Civilization I	4	I
HSTR 102IH--Western Civilization II Present	4	I
GPHY 141D--Geography of World Regions or GPHY 121D--Human Geography or ANTY 101D--Anth &Human Experience Exp	3	I
PSCI 210IS--Intro to American Government	3	I
HDHL 106--Drug Hlth Issues for Educ	1					I
EDU 223--Ed Psy & Adolescent Dev	3		I
EDU 211D--Multicultural Education	3		D
HSTR 140D--Modern Asia	4	I
HSTA 101IH--American History I	4	I
HSTA 102IH--American History II	4	I
NASX 232D--Montana Indians: Cult, Hist, Current Issues	3	I
PSCI 214--Principles of Political Sci	3	I
PSCI 230--Intro to International Rel	3	I
EDU 370-- Integrating Tech into Education	2			I
EDU 382--Assessment, Curric, Instruction	2				I	I
HDCF 356--Exceptional Needs (0-21)	3		I
NASX 405--Gender Issues in Nat Am Studies or NASX 304--Native American Beliefs & Phil or NASX 340--Native American Literature or NASX 430--Am Indian Educ	3	I
HSTA/HSTR elective (upper division 300-400)*	12	I
PSCI elective (upper division 300-400)**	9	I
EDU 497--Methods: 5-12 Social Studies	3			I
HSTA/HSTR elective (upper division 300-400)*	3	I
HSTA/HSTR or PSCI elective (upper division 300-400)**	6	I
PSCI elective (upper division 300-400)**	3	I
EDU 395--Practicum: 5-12	3	D	D	D	D	D
EDU 495--Student Teaching: 5-12	12	M	M	M	M	M
EDU 408--Professional Issues: 5-12	2					M

Assessment ‐ Social Studies Broadfield

SA = Signature Assignment		Outcomes
FEPA = Field Experience Performance Assessment		_Content	_Diversity	_Pedagogy	_Assessment	_{Professionalism}
TWS = Teacher Work Sample	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDU 202--Early Field Experience	1
WRIT 101W--College Writing I	3
FCS 101IS --Lifespan Human Devlpmt or EDEC 160--Early Childhood through Adolescent Development	3
HSTR 101IH--Western Civilization I	4
HSTR 102IH--Western Civilization II Present	4
GPHY 141D--Geography of World Regions or GPHY 121D--Human Geography or ANTY 101D--Anth &Human Experience Exp	3
PSCI 210IS--Intro to American Government	3
HDHL 106--Drug Hlth Issues for Educ	1
EDU 223--Ed Psy & Adolescent Dev	3		SA
EDU 211D--Multicultural Education	3		SA
HSTR 140D--Modern Asia	4
HSTA 101IH--American History I	4
HSTA 102IH--American History II	4
NASX 232D--Montana Indians: Cult, Hist, Current Issues	3
PSCI 214--Principles of Political Sci	3
PSCI 230--Intro to International Rel	3
EDU 370-- Integrating Tech into Education	2			SA
EDU 382--Assessment, Curric, Instruction	2				SA	SA
HDCF 356--Exceptional Needs (0-21)	3
NASX 405--Gender Issues in Nat Am Studies or NASX 304--Native American Beliefs & Phil or NASX 340--Native American Literature or NASX 430--Am Indian Educ	3
HSTA/HSTR elective (upper division 300-400)*	12
PSCI elective (upper division 300-400)**	9
EDU 497--Methods: 5-12 Social Studies	3			SA
HSTA/HSTR elective (upper division 300-400)*	3
HSTA/HSTR or PSCI elective (upper division 300-400)**	6
PSCI elective (upper division 300-400)**	3
EDU 395--Practicum: 5-12	3	FEPA	FEPA	FEPA	SA/FEPA	SA/FEPA
EDU 495--Student Teaching: 5-12	12	FEPA/TWS	FEPA/TWS	FEPA/TWS	FEPA/TWS	FEPA/TWS
EDU 408--Professional Issues: 5-12	2
Praxis II Content Knowledge Exam		Praxis II
Graduate Survey		GS	GS	GS	GS	GS

Delivery - Technology Education Broadfield Teaching Option

I = Introductory		Outcomes
D = Developmental		_Content	_Diversity	_Pedagogy	_Assessment	_{Professionalism}
M = Mastery	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
CHMY 121IN--Intro to General Chemistry	4	I
COM 110US--Public Communication	3					I
EDU 202--Early Field Experience	1		I	I		I
WRIT 101W--College Writing I	3					I
FCS 101IS--Lifespan Human Devlpmt	3		I
TE 101--Intro to Technology Ed	1	I
EELE 101--Intro to Electrical Fundamentals	2	I
DDSN 114--2-D Comp Aided Draft	3	I
TE 207 --Materials and Processes	4	I
EDU 223--Ed Psy & Adolescent Dev	3		I
M 151Q--Precalculus	4	I
EDU 211D--Multicultural Education	3		D			I
TE 250CS--Technology and Society	3	I	I	I		I
PHSX 205--College Physics I	4	I
AGED 333--Construction Technology or ARCH 241--Build Const	3	I
EDU 382--Assessment, Curr, & Instruction	3				I	I
TE 330--Alternative Power/Energy Technology	3	I
TE 331--Electronic & Video Communication	4	I		I		I
EDSP 306--Exceptional Learners	3		I
TE 410 --Comp Aid & Industrial Mach & Man	3	I		I	I
TE 353--Teaching Practices	1	D	D	D	D	D
TE 406--Curr & Facilities Plan	3	I	I	I		I
TE 417--Manufacturing Technology	3	I				I
EDU 497--Methods: AgEd & Tech Ed	3	D	I	I	I	I
EDU 395--Practicum: 5-12	1	D	D	D	D	D
EDU 495--Student Teaching: 5-12	12	M	M	M	M	M
EDU 408--Professional Issues: 5-12	2					M

Assessment ‐ Technology Education Broadfield Teaching Option

SA = Signature Assignment		Outcomes
FEPA = Field Experience Performance Assessment		_Content	_Diversity	_Pedagogy	_Assessment	_{Professionalism}
TWS = Teacher Work Sample	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
CHMY 121IN--Intro to General Chemistry	4
COM 110US--Public Communication	3
EDU 202--Early Field Experience	1
WRIT 101W--College Writing I	3
FCS 101IS--Lifespan Human Devlpmt	3
TE 101--Intro to Technology Ed	1
EELE 101--Intro to Electrical Fundamentals	2
DDSN 114--2-D Comp Aided Draft	3
TE 207 --Materials and Processes	4
EDU 223--Ed Psy & Adolescent Dev	3		SA
M 151Q--Precalculus	4
EDU 211D--Multicultural Education	3		SA
TE 250CS--Technology and Society	3
PHSX 205--College Physics I	4
AGED 333--Construction Technology or ARCH 241--Build Const	3
EDU 382--Assessment, Curr, & Instruction	3				SA	SA
TE 330--Alternative Power/Energy Technology	3
TE 331--Electronic & Video Communication	4			SA
EDSP 306--Exceptional Learners	3
TE 410 --Comp Aid & Industrial Mach & Man	3
TE 353--Teaching Practices	1
TE 406--Curr & Facilities Plan	3
TE 417--Manufacturing Technology	3
EDU 497--Methods: AgEd & Tech Ed	3			SA
EDU 395--Practicum: 5-12	1	FEPA	FEPA	FEPA	SA/FEPA	SA/FEPA
EDU 495--Student Teaching: 5-12	12	FEPA/TWS	FEPA/TWS	FEPA/TWS	FEPA/TWS	FEPA/TWS
EDU 408--Professional Issues: 5-12	2
Praxis II Content Knowledge Exam		Praxis II
Graduate Survey		GS	GS	GS	GS	GS

Delivery - Teaching Reading Minor

I = Introductory		Outcomes
D = Developmental		_Content	_Diversity	_Pedagogy	_Assessment	_{Professionalism}
M = Mastery	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDU 432--Lit & Literacy for Yng Adults	3	I		I
EDU 438--Literacy Assessment, Diagnosis & Instruction	3	D		D	D	D
EDU 401--Intro Lit Leadership Ed	3	I				I
EDU 498--Internship	2	M		M	D	I
EDU 331--Literature & Literacy for Children	3	I
EDU 330--Emergent Literacy	4	I		I
EDU 431--Teaching Reading 4-8	4			I
EDU 481 --Literacy Across the Curriculum	2	I		D

Delivery - Teaching Technology Education Minor

I = Introductory		Outcomes
D = Developmental		_Content	_Diversity	_Pedagogy	_Assessment	_{Professionalism}
M = Mastery	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
TE 207--Materials and Processes	4	I
AGED 333--Construction Technology OR ARCH241- Building Construction	3	I
TE 406--Curr & Facilities Plan	3	I		I		I
TE 101--Intro to Technology Ed	1	I
DDSN 114--2-D Comp Aided Draft	3	I
TE 330--Alternate Power/Energy Tech	3	I
TE 331--Electronic Communication Tech	4	I		I		I
TE 353--Teaching Practices	1	D	D	D	D	D
TE 417--Manufacturing Technology	3	I				I
EDU 497--Ag. & Tech Ed.	3			I

Assessment - Teaching Reading Minor

SA = Signature Assignment		Outcomes
FEPA = Field Experience Performance Assessment		_Content	_Diversity	_Pedagogy	_Assessment	_{Professionalism}
TWS = Teacher Work Sample	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDU 432--Lit & Literacy for Yng Adults	3
EDU 438--Literacy Assessment, Diagnosis & Instruction	3
EDU 401--Intro Lit Leadership Ed	3
EDU 498--Internship	2
EDU 331--Literature & Literacy for Children	3
EDU 330--Emergent Literacy	4			SA
EDU 431--Teaching Reading 4-8	4
EDU 481 --Literacy Across the Curriculum	2

Assessment - Teaching Technology Education Minor

SA = Signature Assignment		Outcomes
		_Content	_Diversity	_Pedagogy	_Assessment	_{Professionalism}
	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
TE 207--Materials and Processes	4
AGED 333--Construction Technology OR ARCH241- Building Construction	3
TE 406--Curr & Facilities Plan	3
TE 101--Intro to Technology Ed	1
DDSN 114--2-D Comp Aided Draft	3
TE 330--Alternate Power/Energy Tech	3
TE 331--Electronic Communication Tech	4			SA
TE 353--Teaching Practices	1
TE 417--Manufacturing Technology	3
EDU 497--Ag. & Tech Ed.	3			SA

In order to get a teaching minor at MSU, a student must also get a teaching major, so all of the assessments in that major apply to the minors as well.

Programmatic Expectations
ELED, EDGS, EDSS and TEBD majors;
TRDG and TTCH minors

Failure of our candidates to meet any of these expectations
would be interpreted as indicating an area in need of improvement.

SA	On each of the Signature Assignments, we expect 80% or our students to reach "Meets Expectations" (Basic) or higher.
FEPA ‐ Practicum	On each item of the Field Experience Performance Assessment, we expect 80% of our Practicum candidates to reach "Meets Expectations" or higher.
FEPA ‐ Student Teaching	On each item of the Field Experience Performance Assessment, we expect 95% of our Student Teaching candidates to reach "Meets Expectations" or higher.
TWS	On each section of the Teacher Work Sample, we expect 95% of our Student Teaching candidates to reach "Meets Expectations" or higher.
Praxis II	The state of Montana has not established itself as a ‘testing state’ in the legal sense defined by the Educational Testing Service. Mandating the use of a standardized content exam has been politically untenable, so the Montana colleges of education agreed on the use of multiple measures that include the Praxis II exam. “Minimum scores” were established by the Montana Council of Deans of Education in a tripartite metric that also includes subject matter GPA and recommendation by the cooperating teacher for student teaching. We currently use the PRAXIS II minimum scores determined by Montana’s Office of Public Instruction in recommendation for licensure.
Graduate Survey	On each of the five objectives, we expect at least 80% of our graduates’ survey responses to indicate that our graduates felt they were prepared at the “Basic” level or higher. Not all candidates respond to the survey.
Employer Survey	On each of the five objectives, we expect at least 80% of our employers’ survey responses to indicate that they felt our graduates were prepared at the “Basic” level or higher. Implementation of the Employer Survey has been problematic.

Assessment Schedule
ELED, EDGS, EDSS and TEBD majors;
TRDG and TTCH minors

Schedule for Assessing Each Outcome

While we understand the university expects a three or four year cycle for each assessment, our Teacher Education Program's national accrediting organization, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), expects annual reporting and review, so we study and report on this assessment data each year.

Schedule for Reviewing Assessment Plan Elements

We are writing a pre‐accreditation report for CAEP in fall 2014, and for the state of Montana in spring 2015, in anticipation of a joint CAEP/Montana accreditation. We will not be making significant changes to our established assessment system between the writing of those reports and the time of those visits, November 1‐4, 2015. The results of those visits may be a factor in determining our schedule for reviewing our assessment plan. Assuming all goes well, the suggested review of each element every three years, doing outcomes one year, rubrics the next, and the matrix and schedule the year after, could be adopted.

Annual Assessment Process ‐ TEP

1	Data is collected each semester from faculty in identified courses by the Teacher Education Program's Assessment Coordinator and housed in the Program Assessment System database.
2	Annually an assessment data team consisting of faculty aided by graduate student assistants requests both raw data for all students in the identified courses and aggregated statistics by program from the Assessment Coordinator for that year's analysis. The data team my chose to modify or refine their requests as needed each year.
3	The data team analyzes data for validity and reliability. Areas where established performance thresholds have not been met are highlighted.
4	The team provides reports for each of the programs in the Department of Education, as well as other licensure areas in the Teacher Education Program housed in other departments.
5	Faculty in each program review the assessment results and make decisions, in coordination with other faculty and administration, on how to respond. If performance thresholds have not been met, possible responses include but are not limited to: Gather additional data next year to verify or refute the result. Identify and modify some aspect of the curriculum to fix the problem. Modify the acceptable performance threshold if it is found to have been inappropriate. Select or create a better assignment to assess the outcome. Faculty may choose to respond to assessment results even if the acceptable performance threshold has been met.
6	A summary of the year's assessment activities and faculty decisions will be reported to the Provost's Office in our Department's Annual Assessment Activities report.

Program Learning Outcomes
Technology Education Industrial Technology Option

1	Concepts	Students understand are able to discuss and demonstrate broad technology concepts related to the areas of manufacturing, construction, power and energy, and communication.
2	Ethics	Students recognize there are substantial interrelated ethical issues between technological advancements in industry and society, and as such are able to demonstrate their ability to engage in knowledgeable conscious decision making activities for future industrial practices through the research, analysis, and evaluation of historical events and industrial practices.
3	Specifics	Students understand and can identify the advantages and disadvantages of various major materials and processes as they are employed in a multitude of current industry practices, as well as demonstrate the safe implementation and use of tools, equipment, and other resources specific to their industrial career focus.
4	Application	Students engage in an internship program where they are able to apply their gained technological knowledge and skills in the industrial workforce while enhancing their understanding of and need for exemplifying professional ethics and good business practices in the field.

Delivery - Technology Education Industrial Technology Option

I = Introductory		Outcomes
D = Developmental		Concepts	Ethics	Specifics	Application
M = Mastery	Cr	1	2	3	4
M 151Q--Precalculus	4	I
COM 110US--Public Communication	3
WRIT 101W--College Writing I	3
TE 101--Intro to Technology Ed	1	I	I
EELE 101--Intro to Electrical Fundamentals	2	I
DDSN 114 --2-D Comp Aided Drafting	3	I			D
CHMY 121IN --Intro to Gen Chemistry	4	I
EGEN 105--Intro to Engineering	2
EGEN 125--Tech, Innovation & Society	3
M 165Q--Calculus for Technology I or STAT 216Q-- Intro to Statistics	3	I
TE 207--Materials & Processes	4	I	D	D	D
TE 250CS--Technology & Society	3	D	D
AGED 333--Construction Technology or ARCH 241-- Build Const	3	I		D
PHSX 205 --College Physics I	4
TE 330--Alternative Power/Energy Technology	3	I	D	D	D
TE 331--Electronic & Video Communication	4	I	D	D	D
TE 410--Comp Aid & Industrial Mach & Manfc.	4			D	D
ENGR 301R --Multidisc Engineering Design	3
TE 417--Manufacturing Technology	3	I	D	D	M
TE 498--Internship	12		D	D	M

Assessment - Technology Education Industrial Technology Option

		Outcomes
		Concepts	Ethics	Specifics	Application
	Cr	1	2	3	4
M 151Q--Precalculus	4
COM 110US--Public Communication	3
WRIT 101W--College Writing I	3
TE 101--Intro to Technology Ed	1
EELE 101--Intro to Electrical Fundamentals	2
DDSN 114 --2-D Comp Aided Drafting	3
CHMY 121IN --Intro to Gen Chemistry	4
EGEN 105--Intro to Engineering	2
EGEN 125--Tech, Innovation & Society	3
M 165Q--Calculus for Technology I or STAT 216Q-- Intro to Statistics	3
TE 207--Materials & Processes	4
TE 250CS--Technology & Society	3		X
AGED 333--Construction Technology or ARCH 241-- Build Const	3
PHSX 205 --College Physics I	4
TE 330--Alternative Power/Energy Technology	3
TE 331--Electronic & Video Communication	4	X
TE 410--Comp Aid & Industrial Mach & Manfc.	4			X
ENGR 301R --Multidisc Engineering Design	3
TE 417--Manufacturing Technology	3			X
TE 498--Internship	12				X

Programmatic Expectations
Technology Education Industrial Technology Option

Failure of our candidates to meet any of these expectations
would be interpreted as indicating an area in need of improvement.

TE 331 ‐ Electronic Portfolio	We expect students to achieve a minimum overall score of 85% on the scoring rubric.

TE 250 ‐ Medical Technology Debates	Students participate in debates addressing specific issues related to medical technologies and society. Students are expected to achieve an 80% or higher in all criteria on the scoring rubric.

TE 410 ‐ Plum Bob	Students must read & understand a design layout in order to complete an accurate markup of material stock, and fabrication/machining of a plumb bob. Students are expected to score 80% or higher in all areas of the rubric prior to being approved to move on a final machining project.

TE 498 ‐ Internship	Students in the Internship are expected to achieve an overall score of 80% or higher from their Cooperator and On‐Campus Supervisor for the Final Evaluation. Demonstrated growth in eleven specific characteristics is expected to occur over the course of the Internship as indicated on the Final evaluation form. Students are expected to achiever a minimum of 75% on each of these individual characteristics.

Assessment Schedule
Technology Education Industrial Technology Option

Schedule for Assessing Each Outcome

We understand the university expects a three or four year cycle for each assessment, however it is important that our program content strives to meet current industry practices. Therefore faculty review assessment data each year in order to make modifications to the curriculum which reflect current industry practices.

Schedule for Reviewing Assessment Plan Elements

Due to a change in Technology Education faculty during the last two years, review of program outcomes/assessments has not been conducted as it has been historically. This academic year a new tenure track faculty member has been hired and as such, a review of program assessments will once again take place annually.

Annual Assessment Process
Technology Education Industrial Technology Option

1	At the end of each semester Technology Education faculty come together to review the final grades assigned in each of the courses.
2	Courses in which students did not attain the minimum scores are identified.
3	A review of the student(s) progress in the course takes place and areas of weakness are noted.
4	If in fact multiple students did not meet the minimum expectations of a course and demonstrated similar areas of weakness in a course, those areas are flagged as needing modification/improvement prior to the next offering of the course.
5	When course design takes place for the next offering of the course(s) curricular changes are implemented in areas such as, but not limited to, course reading materials, demonstrations, activities, projects, mid‐ term & final course assessments. These changes are based on a review of current practice both in the classroom and industry, as well as previous course evaluations.
6	Upon completion of the revised course, faculty first evaluate student performance in the previously identified areas of weakness to ensure the modifications to the course resulted in an increase in student(s) achievement.

Field Experience Performance Assessment (FEPA)

Scoring Rubric

Not Scored
Value = NS
[Recorded as 0, but excluded from calculations]

Below Expectations
Value = 1
Performance below expected level or expected but absent

Meets Expectations
Value = 2
Performance observed at expected level

Exceeds Expectations
Value = 3
Performance exceeds criteria defined by indicators of expected behaviors

Content	C1	Demonstrates understanding of the central concepts and structures of the discipline
	C2	Creates experiences that allow students' to develop their own understanding
	C3	Implements learning experiences aligned with content standards
	C4	Creates learning experiences that are purposeful, appropriate and relevant to learners
Diversity	D1	Fosters a learning environment that supports/encourages social and academic success for all students
	D2	The instruction demonstrates an awareness of students' developmental needs
	D3	Incorporates Indian Education for All into instruction
	D4	Connects content to students' personal, family and/or community experiences
	D5	Adapts instruction to accommodate for diversity in a culturally responsive manner
Pedagogy	P1	Differentiates instructional strategies to encourage the development of conceptual understanding
	P2	Incorporates student motivation for learning
	P3	Incorporates higher order thinking or problem solving skills when teaching
	P4	Incorporates teaching strategies to strengthen students' 21 st century skills
	P5	Employs effective communication techniques to enhance the development of student understanding
	P6	Integrates media and learning technologies to support instruction and student learning
	P7	Uses a variety of classroom management techniques to promote a positive learning environment
Assessment	A1	Uses a variety of assessment strategies that are appropriate for the learning outcomes being evaluated
	A2	Uses assessment strategies to monitor student progress to modify teaching and learning strategies
	A3	Provides students with descriptive feedback
	A4	Assessment strategies are aligned with students' developmental needs
Professionalism	R1	Reflects on content to improve teaching and student learning
	R2	Reflects on diversity to improve teaching and student learning
	R3	Reflects on pedagogy to improve teaching and student learning
	R4	Reflects on assessments to improve teaching and student learning
	R5	Reflects and identifies areas for future professional growth
	R6	Reflects on personal biases
	R7	Reflects on the lesson's connection to students' personal, social and cultural experiences

Teacher Work Sample (TWS)

Scoring Rubric

N/A Indicators not Observed

[Counts as 0, since everything is required.]

1 = Below Expectations

Fails to meet expected level of performance in content, presentation, and/or professional writing.

2 = Meet Expectations

Demonstrates appropriate level of performance in content, presentation, and/or professional writing.

3 = Exceeds Expectations

Surpasses expected level of performance in content, presentation, and/or professional writing.

SECTION ONE: Contextual Factors	The candidate provides evidence of understanding community, school, classroom, and student contextual factors. The candidate has selected factors affecting student learning and instruction, including evidence of how to use those factors in instructional decision‐making. The candidate presents specific data to analyze and reflect on the work done in Section One.	Community Context
		School Context
		Classroom Context
		Student Characteristics
		Conclusion
SECTION TWO: Aligned Unit and Lesson Planning	The candidate selects appropriate content standards and supports them with carefully planned unit goals and assessments. Lesson planning aligns with content standards and lesson sequence planning. The lesson sequence, lesson objectives, and lesson assessments support content standards, the unit goals and assessments. The candidate presents specific data to analyze and reflect on the work done in Section Two.	Unit Planning and Assessment
		Lesson Planning Alignment
		Conclusion
SECTION THREE: Instructional Planning and Student Achievement	The candidate writes lesson plans which connect to all concepts and align with TWS Sections One and Two to support the learning of all students. Lesson plans need to include all required elements and are attached in Appendix A of the TWS. The candidate collects and presents the pre‐, formative, and summative learning achievement data for the whole class and one subgroup or one case study and presents specific data to analyze and reflect on the work completed in in this section.	Lesson Plans
		Whole‐class Data Analysis
		Individual or Subgroup Data Analysis
		Conclusion
SECTION FOUR: Self‐Assessment and Reflection	The candidate uses specific data and reflective skills to a) analyze the effectiveness (strengths and weaknesses) of the learning sequence of the TWS; b) analyze the effectiveness (strengths and weaknesses) of his or her personal performance in all areas of instruction, c) develop personal and specific professional goals as well as action plans to achieve these goals.	Unit Product Assessment and Reflection
		Personal Performance Assessment and Reflection
		Personal Goals and Action Plans

Current courses: EDU 397/497 (Various sections indicate various methods courses.)

The 0 to 3 scale on this assignment is used as a guide in converting the other signature assignments to the same scale

Current courses: EDU 222IS/223IS

Current course: EDU 395

Current course: EDU 211D

Current course: EDU 370

Current course: EDU 382

TE 331 - Portfolio Rubric

Instructor Name: ____________________________________________

Student Name: ____________________________________________

Category	5	4	3	1	SCORE X 2
Portfolio Navigation	All links work in the portfolio.	90% of the links work in the portfolio.	80-89% of the links work in the portfolio.	70-79% of the links work in the portfolio.
Organization	Content is well organized using headings or bulleted lists to group related material.	Uses headings or bulleted lists to organize, but the overall organization of topics appears flawed.	Content is logically organized for the most part.	There was no clear or logical organizational structure, just lots of facts.
Attractiveness	Makes excellent use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance the presentation.	Makes good use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance presentation.	Makes use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. but occasionally these detract from the presentation content.	Use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. but these often distract from the presentation content.
Grammar and spelling	There are no misspelled words on the web page or pages. Correct grammar is used throughout website.	There are few misspelled words on the web page or pages. Correct grammar is used throughout website.	There are less than 10 misspelled words on the web page or pages. Correct grammar is used throughout website.	There are several misspelled words on the web page or pages. Correct grammar is used throughout website.
Content	Contains: resume, course descriptions of major, writing samples, digital movies, and other representative artifacts.	Contains 90% of artifacts required.	Contains 80% of artifacts required.	Contains 70% of artifacts required.
Design Considerations	Web page design does not detract from content. Pages are short with little or no scrolling required to view page. Page format is consistent.	Few web page design elements detract from content.	Half of page design detracts from content.	Most of page design detracts from content.
COMMENTS:					0 TOTAL

TE 250 - Medical Technology Debate Rubric


Category	5	4	3	1
Topic Introduction	Introduction is well organized, identifies the specific medical technology, and the factors influencing the position of the group/student.	Introduction is organized, identifies the medical technology and current position of the group/student.	Introduction identifies the medical technology and offers some insight into the possible position of the group/student.	Introduction is fragmented and does not really introduce the topic or the group/student position.
Initial Response to Moderator Questions	Group/Student responses to questions are direct; prepared; address all aspects of the question using supporting research and specific citations from that research. Answers support the position of the group/student and infer weakness in the opposing sides position as answer heavily influence the audiences position on the topic.	Group/Student responses to questions address all aspects of the question using supporting research and specific citations from that research. Answers support the position of the group/student and infer weakness in the opposing sides position.	Group/Student responses to questions address some aspects of the question using source citations. Answers offer little support for the position of the group/student.	Group/Student responses to questions address some aspects of the question using no source citations. Answers appear to be somewhat off topic and based on opinion not research.
Rebuttal to Opponents Question Response	Group/Student rebuttals address specific issues presented by the opposing side; includes multiple citations and specific examples; supports the pro or con side of the argument. Information is based on research and fact, no opinions. Group/student rebuttals includes identified ethical issues which influence pro/con stance.	Group/Student rebuttals address specific issues presented by the opposing side; includes citations and specific examples; supports the pro or con side of the argument. Information is based on research and fact, no opinions. Group/student rebuttals identify possible ethical issues.	Group/Student rebuttals address issues presented by the opposing side with broad responses; may include citations or examples. Information is based on some research and some voiced opinions. Group/student rebuttals do not identify possible ethical issues.	Group/Student rebuttals do not address specific issues presented by the opposing side; do not include citations or examples. Little information is based on research; mostly opinions are expressed. Group/student rebuttals do not identify possible ethical issues

page 1 of 2


Category	5	4	3	1
Societal / Ethical issues	Group/Student cite numerous (more than 3) specific examples, both positive and negative, of societal / ethical issues related to the medical technology and offer suggestions to address these. Group/student presents specific numerous historical examples to inform audience and strengthen argument.	Group/Student cite specific examples (1 or 2), both positive and negative, of societal / ethical issues related to the medical technology and offer some suggestions to address these. Group/student presents an historical example to inform audience and influence argument.	Group/Student cite broad example, either positive or negative, of societal / ethical issues related to the medical technology but offer few/no suggestions to address these. Group/student presents historical example which neither informs audience and or influences argument.	Group/Student cite no examples of societal / ethical issues related to the medical technology. Group/student presents no historical example.
Time Limits	Group/Student stayed within all specified structured time limits for the debate and the over time limit.	Group/Student stayed within most specified structured time limits for the debate phases and within the overall established time limit.	Group/Student went over or under all specified time limits for the debate phases but stayed within the overall established time limit.	Group/Student went over or under all specified time limits for the debate phases including the overall established debate time limit.
Source Citation	Group/Student cited a minimum of three sources during each phase of the debate; all citations are from peer reviewed articles/journals and verified medical resources.	Group/Student cited the minimum of three sources for most phases of the debate; most citations are from peer reviewed articles/journals.	Group/Student cited three sources during the whole debate; few citations are from peer reviewed articles/journals.	Group/Student cited fewer than three sources for the entire debate; none from peer reviewed articles/journals
Group Presentation	Group/Student keeps presentation and arguments focused on the actual chosen medical technology throughout the presentation. All members of the group are actively engaged in the debate research & process.	Group/Student keeps the presentation and arguments focused on the actual chosen medical technology the majority of time. Most members of the group are actively engaged in the debate research & process.	Group/Student occasionally wander from the actual chosen medical technology but are able to get back on task. It is apparent that only a few members of the group were actively engaged in the debate research & process.	Group/Student appear to struggle keeping presentation and arguments focused on the actual chosen medical technology. Group seems fragmented and unprepared with their research and presentation of information.
COMMENTS:
		TOTAL

page 2 of 2

TE 410 ‐ Plumb Bob Project

CATEGORY	5	3	1	X 2
Material Choice	Student presented documented evidence of researching various materials type.	Student presented some evidence of researching materials types.	Student presented little to no evidence of researching various materials types.
Material Use	Student was able to describe the physical, mechanical, and chemical properties of the researched materials as they related to manufacturing and specified use of a plumb bob.	Student addressed some of the physical, mechanical, and chemical properties of the researched materials as they related to manufacturing and specified use of a plumb bob.	Student noted only one or two physical, mechanical, and chemical properties of materials and made minimal connection to the manufacturing and specified use of a plumb bob.
Dimensions: Taper	Object meets exact dimensions set in engineering drawing.	Object is within allowable tolerances: +/‐ .003".	Object is outside tolerances.
Dimensions: Holes	Object meets exact dimensions set in engineering drawing.	Object is within allowable tolerances: +/‐ .003".	Object is outside tolerances.
Dimensions: Shoulder & Shank Length	Object meets exact dimensions set in engineering drawing.	Object is within allowable tolerances: +/‐ .003".	Object is outside tolerances.
Finish	Object was polished and sealed. Very few major scratches can be detected.	Object was only partly polished and sealed. There were several scratches marring the finish.	Object was not sealed and there were several scratches marring the finish.
Safety	Student modeled all established rules of safety in the lab area and in using tools/equipment.	Student employed some of the established rules of safety in the lab area but needed to be reminded of several specific rules regarding tools use.	Student employed minimal established rules of safety in the lab area and in using tools/equipment, and required constant supervision.
Time on task	Student used allotted lab time to complete project by deadline.	Student did not use allotted lab time to complete project in a timely manner.	Student was late in completing project.
Total Points:

TE 498 - Internship Rubric

Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5

EHHD_ED_UG_BS_TEP_K-8_and_Secondary_REPORT_2015-16

Question 1 – What did you do on assessment this year?

Signature Assignments (SAs)

TEP courses taken prior to student teaching include selected assignments aligned to the TEP Claims and the State Standards. These assignments are referred to as Signature Assignments (SAs), which demonstrate Pre-Ed Students’ and Teacher Candidates’ knowledge and pedagogical skill within specific content areas and aligned to our claims. SAs are evaluated by instructor of record for each individual class. The SA scores are submitted to the TEP’s Assessment Coordinator at the end of each semester and entered into the Program Assessment System (PAS) database for analysis.

Field Experience Performance Assessment (FEPA)

Field Supervisor (FSs) and Cooperating Teachers (CTs) complete all 27 indicators of the Final Performance Assessment individually and submit these to the MSU database. In the case of two or more Cooperating Teachers, the two (or more) FEPA scores are averaged to create one CT score. The CT and FS scores are then recorded by the FS on the Observations and Evaluation Score Sheet to produce the final FEPA score. The FEPA scores are submitted to the TEP’s Assessment Coordinator and entered into the PAS database for analysis.

For in-area (within 50 miles of MSU) FSs, we provide face-to-face training at the beginning of each fall semester. FSs and CTs discuss the Performance Assessment process, including how to use descriptors, how to communicate scores to the Teacher Candidate, and how to submit the assessment electronically. Another session is offered before the beginning of the spring semester for new field supervisors who were unable to attend the fall training. We also provide podcast training for CTs and FSs at a distance:
http://www.montana.edu/fieldplacement/podcasts/overview_perf.html
and http://www.montana.edu/fieldplacement/podcasts/using_perf.html.

Teacher Candidates receive feedback using the FEPA rubric a minimum of six times each semester: four times after each FS-observed lesson via the Observation Worksheet http://www.montana.edu/fieldplacement/documents/PDFs/Tchr_Cand_Assmt.pdf
once at mid-term with assessments completed by the CT and the FS, http://www.montana.edu/fieldplacement/documents/PDFs/Tchr_Cand_Assmt.pdf
and once at the end of the student teaching experience with the final FEPA completed and submitted by the CT and FS https://www.montana.edu/fepa/. CTs are also encouraged to use the FEPA rubric as an observation worksheet for weekly observations http://www.montana.edu/fieldplacement/documents/PDFs/Tchr_Cand_Assmt.pdf.

Field Experience Performance Assessments always occur in the context of real classroom practice. Twenty of the 27 FEPA indicators must be demonstrated during dynamic teaching situations. These are observed directly by MSU Field Supervisors and Cooperating Teachers and/or viewed by video in certain field supervisory situations. The final seven indicators under the category, “Professionalism — The Teacher Candidate engages in reflective practice to improve teaching and learning,” occur after the actual teaching situation in collaborative contexts with the field supervisor and cooperating teacher(s). Teacher candidates also provide weekly professional, reflective journals to their field supervisors from which additional evidence of professional reflection, professional adaptation, and professional development are demonstrated. In some cases (generally with out-of-area teaching situations), the IEFA indicator is assessed as a product when the opportunity for teaching the application is not available.

Teacher Work Sample (TWS)

The TWS is evaluated by MSU-trained Clinical Evaluators (CEs) who record them in the Observations and Evaluation Score Sheet in order to determine the final student teaching grade. The CEs are trained by the Director of Field Placement. Over the course of each semester, the CEs communicate frequently with each other to increase reliability. In addition, both regular and as-needed meetings occur between the CEs and the Director of Field Placement as well as with the Department Head for the Department of Education in order to maintain the validity of TWS assessment as mandated by TEP’s Guiding Principles http://www.montana.edu/fieldplacement/conceptualfw.html. The final TWS scores are submitted by the CEs to the TEP’s Assessment Coordinator and entered into the PAS database for analysis.

Teacher Candidates receive assessments of their TWS methodology during their practicum placements as well as in various teaching methods classes in order to prepare them for their final TWS created during student teaching. During student teaching, CEs provide assessment and detailed feedback for all Teacher Candidates who submit TWS rough drafts at approximately week 8 of the 14-week student teaching calendar. In addition, informal, as- needed assessment and feedback are provided to all Teacher Candidates via an on-line Q & A, staffed throughout the student teaching semester by the CEs, with forum areas for questions on each section of the TWS. Students can post questions and/or snippets of their TWS documents for guidance and feedback.

Although the TWS documents real-time performance, the TWS is primarily a written document (with one 15-minute video component), and, therefore, occurs in an analytical/reflective context—both before and after the actual teaching experience. This allows the Teacher Candidate to thoughtfully plan a differentiated, standards-based lesson sequence in advance of instruction and to reflect on effectiveness of instruction, differentiation and personal performance afterward.

Graduate Survey (GS)

The Graduate Survey was originally designed to be completed by Teacher Candidates during the Professional Issues course which follows their student teaching experience. However, due to changes in the curriculum for some teaching majors, not all Teacher Candidates are required to complete the course. Of those students who do complete the course, approximately half elect to take the course online and we have had low response rates from the online students. Thus, some majors have incomplete data. The GS scores are submitted to the TEP’s Assessment Coordinator and entered into the PAS database for analysis.

Employer Survey (ES)

The Employer Survey was originally designed to be completed by employers of TEP Completers during the first year of Completers’ teaching experience. Unfortunately, we have had a very low response rate to our Employer Survey and repeated requests for return of the surveys have gone unanswered. However, thanks to a vibrant Educational Leadership program in our Department, we have established a strong communication network with district K-12 administrators across the state and we find that principals and superintendents will not hesitate to call us directly whenever they have a concern or want to discuss suggestions to improve the program. So while we do not have formal data to analyze regarding employers’ satisfaction with our Completers, we have received excellent feedback and input from our employers and have used that information to inform our program improvement efforts. We are currently designing a method to systematically document the feedback and input from our stakeholders.

TEP Assessment Timeline

The TEP has developed a robust approach to collecting, analyzing, and utilizing data for the purposes of continuous program improvement. Our Program Assessment System (PAS) is an electronic database composed of a set of assessments maintained by our Assessment Coordinator through the use of BANNER software, Microsoft Office ExcelTM and AccessTM. The PAS serves as the basis for our annual cycle of continuous improvement by providing sound data for decision-making regarding areas of program development. Over the course of the academic year, the PAS is used to systematically collect, aggregate, and analyze data regarding the qualifications, knowledge, and performance of our Pre-Education Students and Teacher Candidates as well as program outcomes. Members of the TEP faculty and staff analyze the data and prepare a full annual report for stakeholders. The findings are discussed at several venues and used to guide decisions about program improvement.

Our PAS is utilized in our annual cycle of continuous improvement (Figure 3.1) was developed and refined in collaboration with members of our professional community. For example, during Summer and Fall 2010 we held 36 meetings with stakeholders including faculty, cooperating teachers, K-12 administrators, and field supervisors to discuss our program requirements, examine our existing data, and identify ways in which we could strengthen our system of assessment. We completed our first cycle of continuous program assessment and improvement during 2009-2010, and since that time we have continued to implement and refine the PAS to meet our data needs for program improvement.

Figure 3.1
TEP Assessment Timeline

In past reporting cycles (2010-2013), our annual TEAC report was due in September; therefore, we structured the PAS for data collection and analysis using data from the preceding Summer, Fall, and Spring terms, rather than the academic year. This time frame provided the most complete data set as well as adequate time to analyze the most recent year’s data for the TEAC Annual Report and our fall meeting with stakeholders. It was during this period that we began to establish the reliability and validity of our instruments. In an effort to remain consistent in terms of reporting the reliability and validity of our instruments, the data in this self-study is based on our TEAC reporting cycle. However, with our recent shift to the CAEP annual reporting cycle, our annual reports now use a September 1 to August 31 timeline. Therefore, we transitioned our program report data to the CAEP timeline and this is the program data used in our current self-study. As we complete the transition to the CAEP reporting structure, we plan to modify our PAS to fully align with the CAEP reporting timeline.

Question 2 – What data did you collect?

Signature Assignments (SA)

Scoring: Instructors use a common rubric for each Signature Assignment and have been trained for consistent use of the scoring rubrics. The SA scores are collected once a semester and entered into the PAS and are used for formative assessment purposes, which help us assess Pre-Ed Students’ and Teacher Candidates’ development relative to the TEP Claims 2-5.
Expected Performance: SAs are considered an early assessment in the TEP where meeting the criteria of the rubric, which are aligned with both the Claims and State Standards, would be interpreted as an indicator the MSU student is ready to continue to move forward in his/her program. We expect at least 80% of our students to demonstrate that they can meet the SA expectations. For those students who do not meet SA expectations, instructors across the TEP provide various forms of remediation to support student growth and learning.

Teacher Work Sample (TWS)

The Teacher Work Sample is a four-section document that demonstrates Teacher Candidates’ ability to plan, deliver, assess, and reflect on a standards-based instructional sequence that facilitates the learning of K- 12 students. Teacher Candidates apply their understanding of the teaching discipline and subject area content knowledge through thoughtful design of a unit outline based on standards, assessments (pre-, formative, and summative) and content topic. They develop and deliver standards-based lesson plans and reflect on student performance in all areas of instruction, using specific data from the work sample.

Scoring: The TWS is scored on a ranked scale of four possible responses: Not Observed (N/S), 1 = Below Expectation, 2 = Meets Expectation, or 3 = Exceeds Expectation for each item. The rubric designed for the TWS is aligned with the FEPA, Claims, and State Standards.
Expected Performance: We expect at least 95% of Teacher Candidates will receive performance scores that meet expectations.

Field Experience Performance Assessment (FEPA)

The Field Experience Performance Assessment (FEPA) evaluates teaching performance in a variety of genuine clinical placement contexts through a series of observations in both Practicum and Student Teaching experience. The instrument consists of 27 items aligned with the five TEP claims: Content, Diversity, Pedagogy, Assessment, and Professionalism.

Scoring: Teaching performance is scored on a ranked scale of four possible responses: N/S = Not Scored; 1 = Below Expectations, 2 = Meets Expectations, or 3 = Exceeds Expectations.
Expected Performance:
- Practicum – We expect at least 80% of Practicum Teacher Candidates will reach
  “Meets Expectations” or above for each item on the FEPA. Data collected prior to 2011 suggested that 80% meets/exceeds expectation was a reasonable threshold for Practicum Teacher Candidates because the data indicated that a number of candidates were mid-stream in their development needed the opportunity to grow in instructional competence. This reflects the developmental framework of our program as a whole. For those candidates who do not reach “Meets Expectations” on an individual item, Field Supervisors provide coaching, support and/or opportunities for remediation.
- Student Teaching – We expect the threshold for the Student Teaching FEPA scores to be higher, given further development and practice. Thus we expect at least 95% of our Student Teaching Teacher Candidates will reach “Meets Expectations” or above for each item on the FEPA. We have placed periodic performance indicators throughout the TEP program, including gates (minimum GPA and background checks, for example) and assessments (Signature Assessments and previous FEPA), such that a 95% threshold for meeting or exceeding expectation reflects our belief that the vast majority of Teacher Candidates will meet our performance expectations, while factoring for the inevitable program reality that over time, a few Teacher Candidates will fail to reach this standard for various reasons. Teacher Candidates must receive a grade of “C” or better to be recommended for licensure.

Praxis II

The Praxis II Subject Assessments are a standardized, nationally-normed examination of content knowledge. We believe that the Praxis II Subject Assessments provide our TEP with one source of evidence regarding our Completers’ mastery of the content knowledge needed to effectively teach specific K-12 subjects.

Scoring: Montana’s passing scores have been determined by a team of experts from across our state for most content areas. For those teaching majors where a state-level passing score has not yet been set, the TEP faculty examined our recent students’ scores as well as passing scores from states across the nation, and set an appropriate passing score for our students http://www.montana.edu/fieldplacement/praxis/Praxis_Test_Scores.html.
Expected Performance: The state of Montana does not use Praxis II scores as a single determinant for licensure decisions. Rather, Montana’s Office of Public Instruction uses a composite score approach in which Content Knowledge Verification is established through the utilization of multiple measures that includes a Praxis II score (http://www.montana.edu/fieldplacement/licensure/index.html). A team of experts from across our state established Praxis passing scores as one indicator in a tripartite metric that also includes subject matter GPA and assessment by the cooperating teacher during student teaching. Candidates in the TEP are required to complete the Praxis II test prior to student teaching. We then are able compare our median test score to the state’s median scores and national median scores. We expect 100% of our Completers to meet the state- or faculty-designated passing score.

Graduate Survey (GS)

In collaboration with our stakeholders, the faculty created a 10-question Likert scale survey aligned with our Program Claims and State Standards. This survey was designed to provide data regarding Completers’ perspectives on their satisfaction with the TEP and their preparedness for the classroom.

Employer Survey (ES)

In collaboration with our stakeholders, the faculty created a 10-question Likert scale survey aligned with our TEP Claims and State Standards. This survey was designed to provide independent assessment from K-12 administrators regarding the degree to which Completer performance meets employer expectations in the areas related to TEP claims and to provide information regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the program and its Completers.

Data were analyzed for program Completers for the past three years (2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-15). Results were reported by cohort based on year of completion. To measure programmatic success we examined the percentage of Completers meeting expectations as indicated by the pass rate as detailed above in Section 2.

The goal of our analysis was to investigate the following research questions:

Does the evidence support the Program Claims regarding Completers of the MSU Teacher Education Program?
- This question was investigated by examining the percentage of students who met the desired pass rate for each claim as measured by the Praxis, Signature Assignments, FEPA, TWS, and Graduate Survey.
What are strengths of the MSU Teacher Education Program?
- This question was investigated by examining our instruments as well as areas where Completers exceeded expectations (as indicated by pass rate).
What are the opportunities for growth in the MSU Teacher Education Program?
- This question was investigated by examining our instruments as well as areas where Completers failed to meet expectations (as indicated by pass rate).

Question 3 – What did your review of the data indicate for you?

We used the data to answer three research questions. First we examined TEP completer data, then investigated strengths of the TEP program along with areas for growth. Highlights of findings are included below.

RESEARCH QUESTION 1: Does the evidence support the Program Claims regarding Completers of the MSU Teacher Education Program?

This research question was investigated by examining the percentage of TEP Completers who met the desired pass rate for each TEP claim as measured by the Praxis, SAs, FEPA, TWS, and GS.

Claim 1: Content Mastery

The results of the Praxis II exams reveal that 11 of 127 TEP Completers in 2014-15 earned ETS Recognition of Excellence (scoring in the top 15% nationally). Moreover 88% of the TEP Completers earned 100% of the Montana passing score and 100% of the MSU TEP Completers earned 90% of the Montana passing score. Thus, MSU TEP Completers have a solid foundation of content knowledge. Aggregated data from Teaching Practicum FEPA Items 1-4 and Student Teaching FEPA Items 1-4, reveal a high level of success with pass rates in excess of 99%, which suggests that overall, our program Completers demonstrate strength in content knowledge. All teaching majors met their goals on the FEPA. Aggregated data from our TWS Section 2 initially suggests that we have fallen short of our goals by a small margin (88%, being 7% below our ambitious goal of 95% or above meeting expectations) in the most recent year of reported data. However, the standard deviation is high (1.28), which indicates a large variation somewhere within the group and suggests the possibility of a few outliers with dramatically different scores - scores that may have masked individual program success, may not meet the needs of every teaching major equally. Six of the sixteen teaching majors (Elementary Education, English teaching, Family and Consumer Sciences teaching, Physics Teaching, Health Enhancement, and School Music Broadfield), failed to meet expectations on the content section of the TWS. Finally, Graduate Survey Items 1-2 reveal that of the Completers who provided feedback, all (100%) perceive their content preparation as consistently strong. All teaching majors with data met expectations on the content section of the graduate survey (Table 1).

Table 1
Content Mastery Claim: Summary of the Evidence

Content Goal Met	Praxis II	Practicum Performance Assessment	Student Teaching Performance Assessment	Teacher Work Sample	Graduate Survey
Teacher Education Program All Majors	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Elementary Education K-8	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Agricultural Education Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
Biological Sciences Teaching 5-12	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Chemistry Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
English Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Family and Consumer Sciences 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	NA
General Science Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
History Teaching 5-12	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mathematics Teaching 5-12	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Physics Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	NA
Social Studies Broadfield 5-12	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Technology Education Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
Art Education Broadfield K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Health Enhancement K-12	Yes	NA	Yes	No
French Teaching K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
German Teaching K-12	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Spanish Teaching K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
School Music Broadfield K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	NA

Claim 2: Understanding Development and Diversity of Learners

The results of our analyses indicated that our TEP Completers exceeded our expectations on all assessments of diversity and development. That notwithstanding, it would be beneficial to
review the entire set of assessments for Claim 2 together and consider their alignment as well as how well the set provides a developmental progression for teacher candidates. On their Signature Assignments, the most recent cohort of TEP Completers consistently exceeded pass rates, with the exception of English teaching Completers. These Signature Assignments are completed in a course taken early in the program and requires Pre-Ed Students to demonstrate their understanding of developmental concepts by recognizing and implementing them in practice. It is encouraging that when teacher candidates reach later stages of their program where the FEPA and TWS assess their ability to respond appropriately to students’ levels of development in their own teaching, they meet a higher standard of using these concepts in practice. For Teaching Practicum FEPA Items 5-9 and Student Teaching FEPA Items 5-9 the results are consistently positive (pass rates ranging from 98%-100%) in that our candidates exceed our program expectations. The Technology Education failed to meet expectations on the Practicum FEPA but met expectations on the Student Teaching FEPA. We believe the low FEPA scores represent a case of students needing increased support in this area from both the TEP and their cooperating teachers. A high pass rate of 99% in TWS Section 1 indicates that most Completers can demonstrate their understanding of the development and diversity of learners, but a high standard deviation of 1.57 indicates a need to examine individual teaching majors in order to fully understand the variance. Only one of our teaching majors (Family and Consumer Sciences teaching) failed to meet expectations on the diversity section of the TWS. Finally, among the teaching majors, only three (History Teaching, Social Studies Broadfield, and Health Enhancement) failed to meet expectations on Graduate Survey Items 3-4. In examining these lower than expected scores, it should be noted that all three programs had low response rates on the survey. For example, only two Social Studies Completers took the graduate survey and there was a high standard deviation, 1.41 on one of the items. Overall, these results suggest that our Completers feel able to recognize and respond to diversity of learners and different developmental levels. Completers demonstrate their preparedness to plan for differentiation and culturally sustaining education as evidenced by several assignments in their methods course and within their field experiences. It furthermore validates assessments of this skill through the SAs, FEPA, and TWS.

Table 2
Development & Diversity Claim: Summary of the Evidence

Content Goal Met	Praxis II	Practicum Performance Assessment	Student Teaching Performance Assessment	Teacher Work Sample	Graduate Survey
Teacher Education Program All Majors	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Elementary Education K-8	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Agricultural Education Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
Biological Sciences Teaching 5-12	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Chemistry Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
English Teaching 5-12	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Family and Consumer Sciences 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	NA
General Science Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
History Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Mathematics Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Physics Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
Social Studies Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Technology Education Broadfield 5-12	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	NA
Art Education Broadfield K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Health Enhancement K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
French Teaching K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
German Teaching K-12	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Spanish Teaching K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
School Music Broadfield K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA

Claim 3: Pedagogical and Technological Proficiency

The results of our analyses indicated that our TEP Completers exceeded the desired pass rate on all assessments related to this claim in 2014-15, with the exception of two sections of the TWS (the aligned unit/lesson planning section and the instructional planning/student achievement), which had 88% and 89% pass rates respectively. On their Signature Assignments, the most recent cohort of TEP Completers consistently exceeded the desired pass rate on this assessment, with pass rates of 99% and 98% respectively. However, given that students complete this assessment prior to the TWS, it could be aligned to better prepare and assess students in the “deficient” TWS areas, as these courses address aligned unit/lesson planning and instructional planning/student achievement. For Teaching Practicum FEPA Items 10-16 and Student Teaching FEPA Items 10-16, candidates show a consistently high rate of achievement in pedagogical and technological practices with pass rates ranging from 96% to 99%. Only two teaching majors failed to meet expectations on the Practicum FEPA (Chemistry Teaching and French Teaching). Two teaching majors (History Teaching and Health Enhancement) did not meet expectations on the Student Teaching FEPA. However, out of all of the assessments in the PAS, candidates struggled the most to meet expectations on the Pedagogy sections of the TWS. Table 3 reveals that eight of the sixteen teaching majors (Elementary Education, English Teaching, Family and Consumer Sciences teaching, General Science Broadfield, History Teaching, and Physics Teaching, Health Enhancement, and School Music Broadfield) failed to meet expectations on the pedagogy sections of the TWS. It is possible that the relatively large standard deviations on the TWS Section 3 suggest that, again, our scores may be influenced by a minority of distant outliers within the group that effectively pull an otherwise acceptable mean below our stated goals. Finally, Graduate Survey Items 5-7 consistently exceed program goals and suggest our graduates feel well prepared to meet the technological and pedagogical demands of their disciplines in the classroom. Among teaching majors with Completers submitting a graduate survey, all majors met expectations.

^*Table 3
Pedagogical and Technological Proficiency Claim: Summary of the Evidence

Pedagogy Goal Met	Praxis II	Practicum Performance Assessment	Student Teaching Performance Assessment	Teacher Work Sample	Graduate Survey
Teacher Education Program All Majors	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Elementary Education K-8	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Agricultural Education Broadfield 5-12	Yes / NA	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
Biological Sciences Teaching 5-12	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Chemistry Teaching 5-12	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	NA
English Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Family and Consumer Sciences 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	NA
General Science Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
History Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
Mathematics Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Physics Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	NA
Social Studies Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Technology Education Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
Art Education Broadfield K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Health Enhancement K-12	Yes	NA	No	No	Yes
French Teaching K-12	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	NA
German Teaching K-12	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Spanish Teaching K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
School Music Broadfield K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	NA

*The PDF on which this web page is based incorrectly displayed the Assessment Goal Met table in this location. The correct Pedagogy Goal Met table is now presented here.

Claim 4: Excellence in Instructional Design and Assessment

The results of our analyses indicated that our TEP Completers exceeded the desired pass rate on all assessments related to this claim in 2014-15, with the exception of one section of the TWS (instructional planning/student achievement), where the pass rate was 89%. On their Signature Assignments, results indicate candidates successfully grasp the concepts of instructional planning. All teaching majors with the exception of mathematics teaching met expectations on the signature assignments for the instructional design and assessment claim. Similar results indicate candidates successfully grasp the concepts of assessment for improved instructional design. For Teaching Practicum FEPA Items 17-20 and Student Teaching FEPA Items 17-20, reveal promising results from candidates’ performance evaluations; however we are still aware that even within high scores, there are potential areas of concern within specific teaching majors such as French teaching and History teaching. History teaching Completers failed to meet expectations on both the Practicum and Student Teaching FEPA. It should be noted that although History teaching majors only met expectations on 1 of the 4 items on the Practicum FEPA, they improved to meet expectations on 3 of the 4 items on the Student Teaching FEPA. Scores on the TWS Section 3 in instructional design and assessment reveal an aggregate of 84% passing scores and a notably high standard deviation (1.77). Six teaching majors (Elementary Education, Family and Consumer Sciences Teaching, General Science Broadfield, History teaching, Health Enhancement, and School Music Broadfield) failed to meet expectations on section 3 of the TWS (Table 4). In light of the fact that this specific assessment conflicts with the results of all other program assessments for this claim, we will explore potential explanations for this finding both at a measurement level and a program level and develop approaches to strengthen Completers’ data literacy. Finally, Graduate Survey Items 8- 9 reveal that our program Completers’ perceptions of their instructional design and assessment is positive and commensurate with the majority of assessments used for this claim.

Table 4
Excellence in Instructional Design and Assessment Claim: Summary of the Evidence

Asessment Goal Met	Praxis II	Practicum Performance Assessment	Student Teaching Performance Assessment	Teacher Work Sample	Graduate Survey
Teacher Education Program All Majors	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Elementary Education K-8	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Agricultural Education Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
Biological Sciences Teaching 5-12	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Chemistry Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
English Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Family and Consumer Sciences 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	NA
General Science Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
History Teaching 5-12	Yes	No	No	No	Yes
Mathematics Teaching 5-12	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Physics Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
Social Studies Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Technology Education Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
Art Education Broadfield K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Health Enhancement K-12	NA / Yes	NA	Yes	No	Yes
French Teaching K-12	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	NA
German Teaching K-12	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Spanish Teaching K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
School Music Broadfield K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	NA

Claim 5: Professionalism

The results of our analyses indicated that in 2014-15, TEP Completers met the desired pass rate on all assessments of this claim with the exception of the TWS (self-assessment and reflection) where only 85% of the Completers achieved the desired pass rate. In 2013-14 and 2012-13 the pass rates were 85% and 97% respectively. On their Signature Assignments, 99% of our Completers earned passing scores with low standard deviations. Only School Music Broadfield, failed to meet expectations on the Professionalism Signature Assignment. Perhaps the most consistent result in our dataset, the high pass rate shows candidates’ awareness of the importance of fostering community and classroom relationships. The SA-Reflection shows candidates’ systematic reflection on effective planning and teaching contexts to improve student performance. For Teaching Practicum FEPA Items 21-27 and Student Teaching FEPA Items 21-27 the results support a high degree of candidate reflective praxis over each of our program claims across all years examined, with only one teaching major, History, failing to meet expectations on the Student Teaching FEPA. The results of the Practicum and Student Teaching FEPAs are further corroborated by a majority of the instruments used to evaluate this Claim. Scores on the TWS Section 4 showed a high pass rate for academic years 2011-2013 in excess of 97% but fell below the pass rate at 85% in 2013-14 and 2014-2015. Eight of the sixteen teaching majors (Elementary Education, Agricultural Education Broadfield, English Teaching, Family and Consumer Sciences Teaching, General Science Broadfield, Mathematics Teaching, Social Studies Broadfield, and Health Enhancement) failed to meet expectations on section 4 of the TWS (Table 5). This is an area of concern for our TEP. Furthermore, there is a high standard deviation in all three data years. Given that throughout their education coursework and field experiences, Completers are expected to interact with others professionally, reflect on their practice, and identify areas and plans for improvement, we will explore potential explanations for this finding both at a measurement level and a program level. Finally, Graduate Survey Item 10 reveals that our program graduates’ perceptions of their reflective ability is positive and commensurate with the majority of assessments used for this claim. All of the teaching majors with program Completers met expectations on the professionalism item of the graduate survey.

Table 5
Professionalism Claim: Summary of the Evidence

Professionalism Goal Met	Praxis II	Practicum Performance Assessment	Student Teaching Performance Assessment	Teacher Work Sample	Graduate Survey
Teacher Education Program All Majors	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Elementary Education K-8	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Agricultural Education Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	NA
Biological Sciences Teaching 5-12	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Chemistry Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
English Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Family and Consumer Sciences 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	NA
General Science Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
History Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Mathematics Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Physics Teaching 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
Social Studies Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Technology Education Broadfield 5-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
Art Education Broadfield K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Health Enhancement K-12	Yes / NA	NA	Yes	No	Yes
French Teaching K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA
German Teaching K-12	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Spanish Teaching K-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
School Music Broadfield K-12	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA

RESEARCH QUESTION 2: What are strengths of the MSU Teacher Education Program?

This research question was investigated by examining our instruments as well as areas where Completers exceeded expectations (as indicated by pass rate). As an EPP focusing on continuous improvement, the MSU PAS allows us to examine our program’s strengths as well as areas for growth. Our second research question focused on identifying the strengths of the MSU Teacher Education Program. Results suggest several strengths including:

Academic ability of TEP Completers
Clinical evaluators’ rigorous assessment of TWS
Measurement strengths of the FEPA, TWS, and GS
Absence of measurement bias for all instruments except for the Student Teaching FEPA

Academic Ability of TEP Completers

We are proud of the academic ability and achievement of students in the MSU TEP. Over the past four years, average ACT scores of incoming TEP Completers ranged from 23.0-23.5 whereas, average SAT scores ranged from 521-564 (Verbal) and 538-564 (Math) (Table 6). CAEP Standard 3.2 suggests that ACT and SAT scores must be in the top 50 percent from 2016-2017, the top 40 percent of the distribution from 2018-2019; and the top 33 percent of the distribution by 2020 (CAEP Standard 3.2). In 2014-2015, the TEP ACT composite was 23.5 (68-74 percentile rank) with an average ACT Math score of 23.1 (approximately 67 percentile rank) and an average ACT English score of 23.3 (approximately 69 percentile rank) (ACT, 2015). Furthermore, the average TEP SAT verbal score (564) was approximately the 70th percentile rank and the SAT mathematics score (564) was approximately the 64th percentile rank (College Board, 2014). Average ACT and SAT scores suggest that MSU TEP Completers are demonstrate high levels academic potential entering college.

Table 6
ACT and SAT Scores of TEP Completers

Academic Year of Completion	Completers N	ACT N	Mean ACT COMP	Mean ACT ENGLISH	Mean ACT MATH	SAT N	Mean SAT VERBAL	Mean SAT MATH
2011-2012	128	76	23.0	22.8	22.6	30	521	541
2012-2013	170	110	23.5	23.5	23.0	52	529	538
2013-2014	192	125	23.1	22.7	23.0	63	557	559
2014-2015 (to June 30)	170	111	23.5	23.3	23.1	47	564	564

In 2014-2015, when compared to the average scores of MSU Completers, the average ACT scores earned by TEP Completers were 1.5 points lower on the ACT Composite, 1.2 points lower on the ACT English, and 1.9 points lower on ACT Math (Table 7). When comparing SAT scores, average scores of TEP Completers were 2 points higher on the SAT Verbal Test and 14 points lower than MSU Completers on the SAT Math Test. Please note, TEP Completers are included in the MSU completer numbers.

Table 7
ACT and SAT Scores of MSU Completers

Academic Year of Completion	MSU UG Completers N	ACT N	Mean ACT COMP	Mean ACT ENGLISH	Mean ACT MATH	SAT N	Mean SAT VERBAL	Mean SAT MATH
2011-2012	1291	343	24.2	23.6	24.4	619	554	570
2012-2013	1909	334	24.5	24.0	24.6	647	561	580
2013-2014	2226	318	24.9	24.3	24.9	767	564	579
2014-2015 (to July 1)	1962	377	25.0	24.5	25.0	681	562	578

Although the minimum GPA requirement for the TEP is 2.75, MSU TEP cohort of Completers average GPA at admission to the program ranged from 3.28 in 2011-2012 to 3.39 in 2014-2015 (Table 8). High GPAs upon admission to the program suggest that MSU TEP’s Completers demonstrate a high level of academic ability. The following table provides the ACT and SAT scores for all the MSU undergraduate Completers.

Table 8
Average GPA at Admission for TEP Completers

Academic Year Sept 1 to August 31	N	Mean GPA at Admission	SD	Data Unavailable in Banner
2011-2012	174	3.28	0.41	5
2012-2013	261	3.31	0.41	10
2013-2014	185	3.31	0.42	8
2014-2015 (to June 29)	169	3.39	0.42	2

When comparing average GPA at graduation, MSU TEP undergraduate Completers GPAs are .16 points higher than MSU undergraduate Completers (Tables 9 and 10). It should be noted that TEP completer data is included in the overall MSU completer data. Therefore, it is difficult to infer any practical difference in average GPAs between the two groups.

Table 9
Average GPA at Graduation for TEP Completers

Academic Year of Completion	TEP Completers N	Mean GPA	SD
2011-2012	128	3.47	0.32
2012-2013	170	3.42	0.31
2013-2014	192	3.47	0.30
2014-2015 (to July 1)	170	3.46	0.33

Table 10
Average GPA at Graduation for MSU Completers

Academic Year of Completion	MSU UG Completers N	Mean GPA	SD
2011-2012	1291	3.25	0.42
2012-2013	1909	3.29	0.41
2013-2014	2226	3.31	0.42
2014-2015 (to July 1)	1962	3.29	0.41

In 2014-2015, all Completers in 12 teaching majors (75%) earned 100% of the MT Praxis II passing score and all Completers from four licensure areas (25%) earned 90% of the MT passing score. As a Research University/Very High activity – RU/VH institution, these results indicate that MSU provides students with a strong foundation of content knowledge. This is supported by the data represented in Table 11, which demonstrates that in 2013-14, the median score for TEP Completers was above the national median score for all areas, except Spanish. Furthermore, TEP Completers’ mean Praxis scores surpass the Montana passing score in all teaching majors that have Praxis data (Table 12). The evidence indicates that MSU TEP Completers demonstrate strength in content knowledge both at admission and program completion.

Table 11
Comparison of 2013-14 Praxis II MSU Median vs. US Median

Table 12
MSU 2013-14 Praxis II Mean Scores

Role of Clinical Evaluators

We acknowledge that the pass rates on the TWS have experienced a decrease in the past two years. Rather than seeing this as a weakness, we view this as a strength resulting from adjustments to our assessment system. In 2013-2014, we changed how the TWS’s were evaluated by having two Clinical Evaluators who had been trained to provide consistent evaluation of our candidate’s TWS. In 2014, a Pearson correlation was conducted to explore the inter-rater reliability between clinical evaluator’s scoring of the TWS. All TWS’s submitted were coded; then, using randomly generated numbers, a total of 20 documents were graded by both of the evaluators independently, and the scores were compared. A paired samples t-test was run to compare mean scores by section and no significant differences were found between groups. In order to test the degree to which the Evaluators agreed on the overall scores for the TWS, a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated. There was a strong, positive correlation between the overall scores generated by the Evaluators (r=0.9, n=20, p.=0.001). We are confident that variance in scores represents difference in student ability rather than rater disparities.

Measurement Strengths of the FEPA, TWS, and GS

A careful examination of reliability and validity of the instruments in our PAS highlights additional strengths in MSU’s TEP. The overall reliability of the FEPA, TWS, and GS (r=0.949 0.766, and 0.836) suggest modest to high levels of internal consistency. Moreover, the reliability of the GS has continued to improve over the past three years. In examining validity, an analysis of the FEPA suggests that scores from field supervisors and cooperating teachers are significantly higher in student teaching than practicum thus demonstrating discriminant validity.

Reduction of Bias in PAS Instruments

Another noteworthy strength of the MSU TEP PAS is our effort to eliminate bias from our assessment instruments. As part of our PAS, we assess the bias in assessment instruments by both gender and licensure area. In 2013-2014, 24 analyses were conducted with 7 (29%) demonstrating significant differences. In 2014-2015, only two (8%) of the 24 tests indicate bias by gender and licensure both in the student teaching FEPA. In the future, we look to incorporate additional training with the goal of illuminating bias from our assessment practices.

RESEARCH QUESTION 3: What are the opportunities for growth in the MSU Teacher Education Program?

This question was investigated by examining our instruments as well as areas where Completers failed to meet expectations (as indicated by pass rate). In addition to highlighting strengths, MSU’s PAS allows for the careful exploration of areas for growth. Results suggest several areas for improvement within the PAS including:

Signature Assignment scoring
Signature Assignment alignment with TWS
FEPA inter-rater reliability for practicum
Structure of the TWS
Graduate Survey response rate

Signature Assignment Scoring

The examination of reliability and validity of MSU TEP’s assessment instruments suggest several areas for growth. Analysis suggests significant differences in signature assignment by instructor. Differences in signature assignment scores by instructor were prevalent in several signature assignments but represent a sizeable challenge in the pedagogy signature assignment where there are often 30+ instructors across various subject areas. In the future, we will look for ways to strengthen both the signature assignment rubrics and scoring with the aim of eliminating some of the instructor differences in score.

Signature Assignment Alignment with the TWS

The correlations between the SAs and the TWS provide another opportunity for program improvement. Acknowledging that the SAs have face validity, the correlations between the signature assignments and the TWS were lower than we deem acceptable. A possible explanation for these lower than expected correlations is a problem with the alignment between the content of signature assignments and the sections of the TWS. The TWS does not have a discrete score for each claim and therefore, it is not surprising that we have weak alignment between the Signature Assignments and TWS. On a similar note, the correlations between the Graduate Survey and the TWS were lower than anticipated and this too, could be related to the global TWS score for the claims compared to the specific scores on the graduate survey. Therefore, prior to our site visit, we will have a team of faculty review, revise, and align the content and rubrics for the Signature Assignments, TWS and the Graduate Survey.

Practicum FEPA Inter-rater Reliability

In addition to improving our SAs, there is room for improvement with the FEPA, particularly in the Teaching Practicum. Although inter-rater reliability among student teaching cooperating teachers and field supervisors were all statistically significant, ranging from (.236 to .598), we would like to see these correlations improved to the .80 level. Moreover, the inter-rater reliability for practicum cooperating teachers and field supervisor ranged from 188 to .404. In an effort to improve the assessment of our TEP candidates in the field, we have begun to develop a performance assessment that will be fully aligned with the Danielson Framework. This framework has already been adapted for use in Montana and as such will be more familiar to our CTs and FSs as they work with, and assess, our candidates’ performance. This familiarity has the potential to strengthen the inter-rater reliability between field supervisors and cooperating teachers.

Structure of the TWS

As previously mentioned, performance on sections 2, 3, and 4 of the TWS has decreased over the past two years. Although we view the evaluation of the TWS by clinical evaluators as a strength, providing increased reliability in the assessment of completer performance, we still need to address the percentage of Completers not meeting desired pass rates on these TWS sections. Furthermore, there is great variation in performance on the TWS by licensure area. Thus, we need to form a TWS Working Group that will review, revise, and align the design of the TWS to accurately meet the assessment needs of each of the 18 teaching majors.

Graduate & Employer Survey Response Rate

Finally, the low response rate on the Graduate and Employer Surveys is an area for improvement in the MSU TEP. This past year we had 36 of 155 Completers submit a graduate survey for a response rate of 23%. We believe that our plan to meet CAEP Standard 4 will increase the response rate on both the Graduate and Employer Survey.

CONCLUSION

As we designed this Inquiry Brief Self-Study research project, we set out to investigate if evidence supported our Program Claims regarding Completers of the MSU Teacher Education Program. We also wanted to identify the areas of strength and opportunities for improvement throughout our program. We believe the preponderance of the evidence presented in this Inquiry Brief supports the claims that MSU makes about Completers of the TEP. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that we have met each of the components of CAEP Standard 1, Standard 2, and the cross-cutting themes, as well as a majority of the components of Standards 3 and Standard 5. Finally, the evidence presented in this study clearly demonstrates that MSU TEP Completers are skilled and knowledgeable regarding the cross-cutting themes of diversity and technology (Appendix 7). It is our conclusion that, based on the evidence, MSU TEP Completers are well-prepared to enter the classroom, equipped with the requisite knowledge and skills to work effectively with diverse students by engaging them in creative and technologically sophisticated learning experiences.

In the following section, we present our plans for evidence-based continuous improvement in Standards 1-3, and 5, as well as our plan to meet Standard 4.

Question 4 – As a result of your review of the data, what did you do?

In order to ensure that MSU’s TEP Teacher Candidates develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their discipline and, by completion, are able to use discipline- specific practices flexibly to advance the learning of all students toward attainment of college- and career-readiness standards, we plan to engage in the following ongoing program improvement efforts:

Align the FEPA with the Danielson Framework

We have begun the process to adapt our FEPA to align with the Danielson Framework for teacher evaluation. This will allow us to align with practices in our partner schools and across our state.

The Clinical Evaluation Working Group (n=10; 3 faculty, 2 professionals from the Field Placement office, 3 FS and 2 CT) met on June 19, 2015 to create an evaluative tool aligned to Domains 2&3 of the Danielson Framework (DF) that could be used during planned observations in both the practica and student teaching internship. This instrument was designed and will be ready for implementation in Fall 15.

The Clinical Evaluation Working Group agreed to the following next steps:

Work with Department of Education and other appropriate faculty across campus to vertically and horizontally map existing curriculum and consider appropriate changes to closely integrate coursework and field experiences with the DF as the unifying structure (beginning in Fall 2015).
Revise practicum (elementary and secondary) syllabi to address the incorporation of all four domains of the DF for Fall 2015.
Consider how assignment of grades will be addressed in practica (Fall 2015) and student teaching internships (Spring 2016).
Examine the TWS component of practica and the student teaching internship for alignment with Domains 1&4 of the DF and considering adjustments to the assignments in the practicum courses to fill in any gaps that are not attended to by the new observational tool and the TWS.
Pilot observational tool in practica in the Fall of 2015, with adjustments to be made to the tool prior to full implementation in student teaching in Spring 2016.
Investigate the implementation of LiveText, Lessoncast or some other mechanism to capture evidence (video recordings, student work, etc.) submitted by all parties (including FS and CT who often do not have access to D2L) of teacher candidate progress.
Train FS in the use of evidence based observational feedback and DF (Summer 2015), with ongoing training and training opportunities for CT to follow.

Refinement of the Signature Assignments

Guided by the principles of Danielson Framework and using the results of the curriculum mapping work above, faculty in the Department of Education will form a Signature Assignment Working Group to refine the SAs so they are more fully aligned with the TEP Claims and other PAS assessment instruments. We will engage representatives from each teaching major (e.g., UTEC faculty) in an effort to recalibrate the scoring rubric for the Signature Assessment- Pedagogy as well as strengthening the rubrics for the rest of the SAs in order to provide a wider range of variance in the scores. Our goal is to increase the validity and reliability of the instrument and strengthen the data we collect across the TEP.

Refinement, Alignment & Scoring of the TWS

Guided by the principles of Danielson Framework and using the results of the curriculum mapping work above, we will increase the alignment between the TWS and our Claims. We also need to revise the TWS to more clearly outline criteria for content-specific pedagogy and adapt the TWS to appropriately meet the assessment needs of all teaching majors.

When considering the results of the TWS data analyses, we recognize that as currently structured, individual sections of the TWS do not directly correspond to each of our TEP Claims. Instead, each section aligns with one or more claims. For example, Section 2 (Aligned Unit and

Lesson Planning) supports both the Content Mastery and the Pedagogical & Technological Proficiency claims, and Section 3 (Instructional Planning & Student Achievement) supports both the Pedagogical & Technological Proficiency and the Excellence in Instructional Design & Assessment claims. Therefore, teacher candidates are being assessed in terms of multiple claims using a single TWS section score.

Furthermore, the current TWS scoring protocol results in a low number of points for each section: Total possible points for Section 1 are 15, 9 (Section 2), 12 (Section 3), and 9 (Section 4). Completers must earn a perfect score (100%) on each section of the TWS in order to meet the pass rate expectations when the scores are disaggregated to align with individual claims.

Missing one point on any of the TWS sections results in a score that does not meet the 95% pass rate expectation.

A change in Clinical Evaluators resulted in lower TWS scores across many majors. It is possible that Completers’ performance has stayed relatively constant, and that the evaluation of the TWS has been more rigorous across all majors. However, previous TWS Clinical Evaluators have not necessarily had a background that is specific to the TWS content area under review so we plan to ask our CTs to evaluate the TWS lesson plans, thus serve as the role of content experts supporting the work of the Clinical Evaluators.

Increase Teacher Candidates’ Assessment Literacy

All Pre-Ed Students complete a course in Assessment, Curriculum, & Instruction (general to all education majors) and Secondary Teacher Candidates complete a course in Methods, both of which include opportunities for candidates to develop content-specific assessments. Given that neither course is directly tied to a field experience where assessment is used to inform decision-making regarding teaching, Teacher Candidates will be required to complete the SA – Assessment, where they will create a professional screen-cast that captures the story of key elements in the SA – Assessment (Understanding by Design, alignment/development of pre, formative, and summative assessments, how to differentiate for learner differences in the classroom, data driven decision making (fictitious data) of entire class, small group and individuals, and the planned changes for instruction). The intended outcome is for preservice teachers to share what they know and can do regarding instructional design and assessment to stakeholders.

Strengthen Secondary Candidates’ Classroom Management Skills

We will seek to secure resources to add a section of EDU 342 – Managing the Learning Environment, specifically designed to address the needs of Teacher Candidates in K-12 and 5-12 endorsement levels.

TEP Plan Aligned with CAEP Standard 2

In a focused effort to strengthen and improve our partnerships for clinical preparation, the MSU TEP has developed a plan to work with our partners to co-construct mutually beneficial P- 12 school and community arrangements by engaging in the following program improvement efforts:

Development of Partnership MOUs

We have signed MOUs for our After School Initiative partners as well as draft MOUs for our partner schools and districts that have been approved by MSU Legal Counsel and will be implemented during Fall 2015. which clarify expectations of all parties involved in the clinical field experiences.
We are developing partnership agreements to use as needed for out-of-area placement of teacher candidates during student teaching internships.
We are working with CTs and K-12 administrators to develop unique and innovative clinical opportunities which align with the TEP needs.
We need to work with our stakeholders to develop a set of more clearly defined characteristics of CTs for placements.
We need to develop an evaluative tool that can be used by our FS and Teacher Candidates to assess the effectiveness of our CTs.

Improved Communication and Professional Development with Partners

We have created a Student Teaching Orientation Meeting with panel participation by administrators, CTs, FSs and former teacher candidates.
We are developing a method to provide weekly emails reviewing recommended strategies and guidance for FSs and CTs.
We will increase the frequency of our check-in emails with CTs and FSs.
We will expand our online videocast offerings in a number of topics to address specific needs of CTs and FSs related to the expectations of the TEP.
We plan to develop a handbook for Practicum experiences based on CT feedback and expectations of the TEP with clearly defined purpose and expectations for what the Teacher Candidate should do during, and be able to do by the end of, each clinical field experience.
We plan to develop a system in which FSs are assigned to specific schools with office hours at the school to build relationships and institutional knowledge of the partner schools and provide a way for CTs to easily connect with a representative of the TEP in person.
We are planning to provide professional development for CTs before and during field experiences with ongoing development based on formative assessment.
We are also considering increasing instructional and field supervision consistency by providing additional training related to content-specific pedagogy and/or limiting the number of field supervisors working with each cohort.

TEP Curriculum Adjustments

We will structure the K-8 Practicum experiences for stronger alignment with the methods courses and structure the 5-12 and K-12 Practicum experiences to provide more depth and breadth with consistency in scheduling to experience more consistent time in the classroom.
If issues with specific items of expectations are consistently not met by our pre-service teachers, coursework and field experiences are examined for corrective action.

TEP Plan Aligned with CAEP Standard 3

The MSU TEP recognizes the importance of maintaining and increasing Pre-Ed Student and Teacher Candidate quality, while paying particular attention to underserved communities and underrepresented students. We will address student quality at multiple stages throughout the TEP by implementing the following efforts to improve recruitment and retention of quality educator candidates:

Recruitment Plans

We are developing a plan with specific goals to increase recruitment and support for diverse, high-quality candidates. We will also address hiring patterns within shortage areas by seeking to place Pre-Ed Students and Teacher Candidates in field experiences aligned with those shortage areas. Specifically, we will partner with established organizations/departments and leverage existing networks:

Our ILEAD program will help us to identify rising university freshmen to recruit from underrepresented populations into the Teacher Education program;
We will sponsor the establishment and support of Future Educators of America (FEA) chapters in high schools in Montana to increase our outreach network for both field experience placement and recruitment;
Our dual enrollment course EDU 101 (a course available to any student in any major) has been successful in our local school district. From it, we can continue to recruit potential applicants. We will attempt to increase dual enrollment offerings within the state, with particular emphasis on underserved communities;
We have a Letter of Commitment from the Troops To Teachers program supporting our efforts to recruit and support high-quality teacher candidates through identifying post-service men and women interested in transitioning into the teaching field;
MSU’s Cooperative Extension affords the TEP an opportunity to cost-share outreach initiatives and connect MSU Education department teaching faculty and advising staff with rural and reservation communities for the purpose of recruiting potential Education majors;
The TEP will join MSU representatives at Rockin' the Rez events to promote Teacher Education and recruit underrepresented populations into the TEP;
We will partner and sponsor student, faculty, and community involvement with the Native American Student Success Initiative on MSU’s campus;
The TEP will continue its sponsorship of the Native Education major student association, Wanji Oyate (One Tribe) seeking and providing mentoring and support for Native American students in Education.

Admission Standards

The Teacher Education Program will continue to uphold robust admission standards as demonstrated in Table 6 and Table 7. We will not admit students into the TEP with any course grade lower than a C. Students with a 2.75-2.99 GPA who are admitted will participate in a mentoring group (staffed by doctoral students) designed to provide appropriate academic support to them as they begin the process of induction into the profession. We plan to monitor applicants’ progress through the program by tracking Pre-Ed Students’ successful completion of three early field experiences and ask applicants seeking admission to Teacher Candidate status to complete a self-assessment at the end of the three early field experiences to determine strengths and weaknesses accompanied by a plan for continued professional growth.

Admissions Standards Research

We will research admission standards that accurately correlate with predictors of success in the teaching profession. For example, we will correlate the Montana Content Knowledge Assessment with Completer GPA and new Danielson FEPA to identify predictors of professional success.

Non-Academic Attributes Research

We will investigate the efficacy of several instruments for the purpose of monitoring applicants’ and candidates’ non-academic attributes that contribute to teacher success (Kalsbeek, Sandlin, & Sedlacek, 2013):

Pre-Education Students will complete The Short Grit Scale (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009) and the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) during EDU 101 to establish a baseline.
Teacher Candidates will again complete the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale during student teaching.
Induction teachers will again complete the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale at the beginning of their second year of teaching.
The results of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale will be analyzed longitudinally and correlatively with the Short Grit Scale.

Progress Toward Degree

We will document candidate content knowledge and understanding of expectations for the profession through examining the data collected in our Program Assessment System. We will analyze trends in our completer’s Praxis scores, document GPA at admission and completion, and add student scores on the Montana Content Knowledge Assessment to our Program Assessment System. We will also build in a specific component into the Teacher Work Sample to demonstrate expectations for the profession (that aligns with the Danielson component on professional practices) and add this to the Program Assessment System.

TEP Plan Aligned with CAEP Standard 4

The TEP at MSU will seek to demonstrate the impact of its Completers on P-12 student learning and development, classroom instruction, and schools, and the satisfaction of its Completers with the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation. Recognizing that CAEP expects us to document that our Completers contribute to an expected level of student-learning growth, we remain mindful of the Constitution of the State of Montana which clearly delineates citizens’ right of privacy, “The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest” (Section 10). Furthermore, in alignment with our Constitution, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction has established through Montana policy that direct access to teacher performance data and Completer’s K-12 student achievement data will not be a possibility for the foreseeable future.

Given the likelihood that neither K-12 teacher evaluation scores nor children’s achievement scores will be available to EPPs in the state of Montana, we propose the following plan by which we can demonstrate TEP completer impact and thereby, meet the expectations delineated in CAEP Standard 4.

Case Study

We will design a 3 year pilot project in which we will create a MSU TEP Professional Learning Community (PLC) for recent Completers. Participants in this PLC will be referred to as Teaching Fellows (see Figure 5.1). We will study the outcomes of this pilot project using Case Study methodology (Yin, 2014).

The TEP PLC is well-aligned with MSU’s Mission as a Land Grant University as it will allow us to more fully serve the citizens of our state through strengthening relationships with our stakeholders as well as providing mentoring, support, and increased likelihood of success for our Completers. Furthermore, the TEP PLC will allow us to collect data which will be used evaluate the effectiveness of our program, the impact of our TEP Completers, and guide our ongoing program improvement efforts.

Figure 5.1
Steps to Becoming a MSU Teaching Fellow

Professional Learning Community (PLC) Launch

The steps we will take to develop and launch this PLC include:

Conduct a needs assessment focus group with recent grads to identify areas where professional development and coaching would be most beneficial and what types of incentives would be most meaningful.
Investigate the best model for TEP PLC leadership. Options which will be studied for effectiveness and sustainability include:
1. Collaboration with our Regional Educational Service Agencies (RESAs) to coordinate the PLC;
2. Department of Education hire a professional staff member to coordinate the PLC;
3. Collaboration with the Educational Leadership program to have their graduate students enrolled in EDLD 508--Supervision of Instruction lead the PLC as part of their coursework and leadership preparation;
4. Adjust specific TEP faculty members’ workload to include assignment as PLC coordinator. This option could be structured to have one faculty member released from all teaching in order to oversee the PLC or multiple faculty could be released from teaching one class in order to lead a portion of the PLC. In either format, the work of the PLC would be embedded in faculty work and faculty would be actively engaged in the process of supporting our recent Completers.
Invite a stratified sample of our TEP Completers to become Teaching Fellows and participate in the TEP PLC.

Evidence to Be Collected

Montana’s Office of Public Instruction (OPI) is in the process of developing a State Educator Identification (SEID) number for each licensed K-12 professional in the state of Montana. When this project is operational, we will be able to collaborate with OPI to expand our PAS to include OPI’s data regarding MSU TEP Completers’:

Hiring rates
Job placement rates
Career retention rates

The data we plan to collect in order to study the effectiveness of the TEP PLC and our Completers’ impact include:

Completer Satisfaction Survey
Completer self-report of:
1. Accomplishments
2. Professional advanced study
3. Leadership roles
4. Professional service activities
Completer Teacher Efficacy Scale
Completer Teacher Mindset Scale
Completer Teacher Resilience Scale
Completer Measure of Academic Press
Completer Academic Optimism Scale
Teaching Observation guided by the Danielson framework and focused on student learning and development
Personal interview regarding teacher knowledge, skills, and dispositions
Submission of an Effect Size Snapshot of Student Learning gains – Teaching Fellows submit data from a unit they designed and delivered during their first year of teaching; corroborate with observations
Employer Satisfaction Survey

Furthermore, on May 28, 2015 the Montana Council of Deans of Education (MCDE) agreed to form an Ad Hoc Group to write a State Response to CAEP Standard 4. MSU TEP looks forward to contributing to this important working group as we develop reliable and valid measures of completer impact that can be administered state-wide to support all institutions’ efforts to meet CAEP Standard 4.

TEP Plan Aligned with CAEP Standard 5

Our Quality Assurance System is presented in Appendix 1. It is comprised of a multi-faceted set of policies, procedures, checks, and balances that serve to maintain, support, and strengthen the integrity and quality of the entire Teacher Education Program. The heart of our Quality Assurance efforts is the Program Assessment System (PAS) which has been constructed by our faculty and stakeholders and is coordinated by our Department of Education Assessment Coordinator in an annual cycle of program assessment. The PAS is comprised of valid data from multiple measures and is used to support our efforts toward evidence-based continuous improvement. We use the results of the inquiry to establish our priorities and improve all program elements and capacity.

In order to improve our alignment with Standard 5.1, we will be refining some existing instruments, introducing a new instrument based on the Danielson framework, and adding new components to our dataset from the TEP PLC pilot study. We will also develop a Scoring Guide for the Danielson-based FEPA and TWS. We believe these adjustments will provide conclusive evidence that the MSU TEP satisfies all CAEP standards.
We will continue to annually evaluate the measures in our PAS to ensure they remain relevant, verifiable, representative, cumulative and actionable and continue to produce empirical evidence for valid and consistent interpretations of our data.
We will continue to employ our annual cycle of program assessment in order to systematically assess our program and Completers against our claims and the CAEP standards. We will regularly assess our innovations and use the findings to make adjustments and improve our TEP.
Through the development, launch, and study of our pilot project, the MSU PLC, we will work to collect meaningful evidence to demonstrate our Completers’ impact in the classroom. Our analyzed findings will be shared widely and used to support ongoing program improvement.
We will continue to hold our regularly scheduled stakeholders meetings for the purposes of program evaluation, continuous improvement, and identification of models of excellence.

In conclusion, the Inquiry Brief Self-Study conducted by the Teacher Education Program at Montana State University has provided clear and conclusive evidence to support all program claims about its Completers and has met or addressed every CAEP standard and the cross- cutting themes in a thorough, precise, and rigorous manner.

EHHD_ED_UG_BS_TEP_CAEP_REPORT_2017_2015-16

2017 EPP Annual Report

CAEP ID:	10318	AACTE SID:	3210
Institution:	Montana State University - Bozeman
EPP:	Teacher Education

Section 1. AIMS Profile

After reviewing and/or updating the Educator Preparation Provider's (EPP's) profile in AIMS, check the box to indicate that the information available is accurate.

1.1 In AIMS, the following information is current and accurate...

	Agree	Disagree
1.1.1 Contact person
1.1.2 EPP characteristics
1.1.3 Program listings

Section 2. Program Completers

2.1 How many candidates completed programs that prepared them to work in preschool through grade 12 settings during Academic Year 2015-2016 ?

Enter a numeric value for each textbox.

	2.1.1 Number of completers in programs leading to initial teacher certification or licensure		246

	2.1.2 Number of completers in advanced programs or programs leading to a degree, endorsement, or some other credential that prepares the holder to serve in P-12 schools (Do not include those completers counted above.)
			52

	Total number of program completers		298

Section 3. Substantive Changes

Have any of the following substantive changes occurred at your educator preparation provider or institution/organization during the 2015-2016 academic year?

3.1 Changes in the published mission or objectives of the institution/organization or the EPP

No Change / Not Applicable

3.2 The addition of programs of study at a degree or credential level different from those that were offered when most recently accredited

No Change / Not Applicable

3.3 The addition of courses or programs that represent a significant departure, in terms of either content or delivery, from those that were offered when most recently accredited

No Change / Not Applicable

3.4 A contract with other providers for direct instructional services, including any teach-out agreements

No Change / Not Applicable

Any change that means the EPP no longer satisfies accreditation standards or requirements:

3.5 Change in regional accreditation status

No Change / Not Applicable

3.6 Change in state program approval

No Change / Not Applicable

Section 4. Display of candidate performance data.

Provide a link that demonstrates candidate performance data are public-friendly and prominently displayed on the school, college, or department of education homepage.
Annual accreditation reports including assessment data tables with mean data for key assessments by academic year and licensure area.:
http://www.montana.edu/education/accreditation/

Section 6. Areas for Improvement, Weaknesses, and/or Stipulations

Summarize EPP activities and the outcomes of those activities as they relate to correcting the areas cited in the last Accreditation Action/Decision Report.

Section 7. Accreditation Pathway

Inquiry Brief.Update Appendix E to confirm the categories of evidence the faculty members rely on and have available to support their claims that candidates know their subjects, know pedagogy, and can teach in an effective and caring manner. The update should also note any new categories of evidence the faculty plans to collect.

A. Items under each category of Appendix E are examples. Programs may have more or different evidence.

Type of Evidence	Available and in the Brief ¹		Not available and not in the Brief		Reason
	Relied on	Not Relied on	For future use	Not for future use	for your selection

Grades

Candidate grades and grade point averages		This data is available in the brief and we are using it for program improvement.

Scores on standardized tests

Candidate scores on standardized license or board examinations		This data is available in the brief and we are using it for program improvement.

Candidate scores on undergraduate and/or graduate admission tests of subject matter knowledge and aptitude		We have not collected this data and do not intend to collect or use for program improvement.

Standardized scores and gains of the completers' own students		We use the PRAXIS II and evaluate our program based on pass rates in each teaching major.

Ratings

Ratings of portfolios of academic and clinical accomplishments		We currently do not use a portfolio system and do not intend to implement one in the future.

Third-party rating of program’s students		We do not use a third-party rating of students for program improvement.

Ratings of in-service, clinical, and PDS teaching		We use the Field Experience Performance Assessment (FEPA) for program improvement.

Ratings, by cooperating teacher and college / university supervisors, of practice teachers' work samples		We use evaluations of Teacher Work Samples for program improvement.

Rates

Rates of completion of courses and program		This data is available in the brief and we are using it for program improvement.

Completers' career retention rates		We are currently designing a system to gather this data with the assistance of the Montana Office of Public Instruction.

Completers' job placement rates		We are currently designing a system to gather this data with the assistance of the Montana Office of Public Instruction.

Rates of completers' professional advanced study		We have not collected this data and do not intend to collect or use for program improvement.

Rates of completers' leadership roles		We have not collected this data and do not intend to collect or use for program improvement.

Rates of graduates' professional service activities		We have not collected this data and do not intend to collect or use for program improvement.

Case studies and alumni competence

Evaluations of completers by their own pupils		We have not collected this data and do not intend to collect or use for program improvement.

Completer self-assessment of their accomplishments		We have not collected this data and do not intend to collect or use for program improvement.

Third-party professional recognition of completers (e.g., NBPTS)		We have not collected this data and do not intend to collect or use for program improvement.

Employers' evaluations of the program's completers		We are currently designing a system to gather this data with the assistance of the Montana Office of Public Instruction.

Completers' authoring of textbooks, curriculum materials, etc.		We have not collected this data and do not intend to collect or use for program improvement.

Case studies of completers' own students' learning and accomplishment		We are currently designing a protocol for case study and intend to pilot in 17-18.

¹: Assessment results related to TEAC Quality Principle I that the program faculty uses elsewhere must be included in the Brief. Evidence that is reported to the institution or state licensing authorities, or alluded to in publications, Web sites, catalogs, and the like must be included in the Brief. Therefore, Title II, results, grades (if they are used for graduation, transfer, and admission), admission test results (if they are used), and hiring rates (if they are reported elsewhere) would all be included in the Brief.

B. Provide an update of the program's data spreadsheet(s) or data tables related to the program's claims.

MSU-Bozeman Assessment Data Formatted for CAEP Annual Report 2017

Section 8: Preparer's Authorization

Preparer's authorization.By checking the box below, I indicate that I am authorized by the EPP to complete the 2017 EPP Annual Report.

I am authorized to complete this report.

Report Preparer's Information

Name:		Bill Freese
Position		Assessment Coordinator
Phone:		406-994-3072
E-mail:		iedbf@montana.edu

I understand that all the information that is provided to CAEP from EPPs seeking initial accreditation, going forward accreditation or having completed the accreditation process is considered the property of CAEP and may be used for training, research and data review. CAEP reserves the right to compile and issue data derided from accreditation documents.

EHHD_ED_UG_BS_TEP_Title_II_REPORT_2017_2015-16

VIEW TITLE II REPORTS

SUBMIT REPORTS

^{About Title II| Contacts}

Webinars

Technical Assistance

User Manuals

Montana State University-Bozeman
Traditional Program

2017|

Title II
Reports

Complete Report Card

AY 2015-16

Institution Information

Name of Institution:

Institution/Program Type:

Academic Year:

State:

Address:

Contact Name:

Phone:

Email:

Montana State University-Bozeman

Traditional

2015-16

Montana

250 Reid Hall

PO Box 172940

Bozeman, MT, 59717

Dr. Alison Harmon

406 994 4133

ehhddean@montana.edu

Is your institution a member of an HEA Title II Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Education?
(http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/tqp/index.html)

If yes, provide the following:

Award year:

Grantee name:

Project name:

Grant number:

List partner districts/LEAs:

List other partners:

Project Type:

Section I.a Program Information

List each teacher preparation program included in your alternative, ihe-based route. Indicate if your program or programs participate in a Teacher Quality Partnership Grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Education as described at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/tqp/index.html.

Teacher Preparation Programs	Teacher Quality Partnership Grant Member?
Agricultural Education: Broadfield Teaching	No
Art: Art Education K-12 Broadfield	No
Biological Sciences: Teaching	No
Chemistry: Teaching	No
Elementary Education: K-8	No
English: Teaching	No
Family & Consumer Sciences: Teaching	No
Health and Human Development: Health Enhancement K-12	No
History: Teaching	No
Mathematics: Teaching	No
Modern Languages & Literatures: French Teaching	No
Modern Languages & Literatures: German Teaching	No
Modern Languages & Literatures: Spanish Teaching	No
Music Education: School Music K-12 Broadfield	No
Physics: Teaching	No
Secondary Education: General Science Broadfield	No
Secondary Education: Social Studies Broadfield	No
Technology Education: Broadfield Teaching	No
Total number of teacher preparation programs: 18

Section I.b Admissions

Indicate when students are formally admitted into your initial teacher certification program:
Junior year Junior year in teaching major

Does your initial teacher certification program conditionally admit students?
Yes

Provide a link to your website where additional information about admissions requirements can be found:
http://www.montana.edu/education/advising/index.html

Please provide any additional comments about or exceptions to the admissions information provided above:

Under conditional admission, all requirements must be met before student teaching.

Overall MSU requirements at http://www.montana.edu/admissions/apply.shtml#ugrad.

Section I.b Undergraduate Requirements

Please provide the following information about your teacher preparation program's entry and exit requirements. (§205(a)(1)(C)(i))
Are there initial teacher certification programs at the undergraduate level?
Yes
If yes, for each element listed below, indicate if it is required for admission into or exit from any of your teacher preparation program(s) at the Undergraduate level.

Element	Required for Entry	Required for Exit
Transcript	Yes	Yes
Fingerprint check	Yes	Yes
Background check	Yes	Yes
Minimum number of courses/credits/semester hours completed	Yes	Yes
Minimum GPA	Yes	Yes
Minimum GPA in content area coursework	Yes	Yes
Minimum GPA in professional education coursework	Yes	Yes
Minimum ACT score	No	No
Minimum SAT score	No	No
Minimum basic skills test score	No	No
Subject area/academic content test or other subject matter verification	No	Yes
Recommendation(s)	No	No
Essay or personal statement	No	Yes
Interview	No	Yes
Other	No	No

What is the minimum GPA required for admission into the program?

2.75

What was the median GPA of individuals accepted into the program in academic year 2015-16

3.38

What is the minimum GPA required for completing the program?

2.75

What was the median GPA of individuals completing the program in academic year 2015-16

3.51

Please provide any additional comments about the information provided above:

Fingerprint check, background check, and interview are required for student teaching.

University first-time undergraduate admission ACT and SAT requirements are complex, and can be found at http://catalog.montana.edu/undergraduate- admissions/#admit_as_ug .

Section I.b Postgraduate Requirements

Please provide the following information about your teacher preparation program's entry and exit requirements. (§205(a)(1)(C)(i))

Are there initial teacher certification programs at the postgraduate level?

Yes

If yes, for each element listed below, indicate if it is required for admission into or exit from any of your teacher preparation program(s) at the Postgraduate level.

Element	Required for Entry	Required for Exit
Transcript	Yes	Yes
Fingerprint check	Yes	No
Background check	Yes	No
Minimum number of courses/credits/semester hours completed	Yes	Yes
Minimum GPA	Yes	Yes
Minimum GPA in content area coursework	Yes	Yes
Minimum GPA in professional education coursework	Yes	Yes
Minimum ACT score	No	No
Minimum SAT score	No	No
Minimum basic skills test score	No	No
Subject area/academic content test or other subject matter verification	No	Yes
Recommendation(s)	No	No
Essay or personal statement	No	Yes
Interview	No	No
Other Must meet state content area requirements	No	No

What is the minimum GPA required for admission into the program?

2.75

What was the median GPA of individuals accepted into the program in academic year 2015-16

2.9

What is the minimum GPA required for completing the program?

2.75
What was the median GPA of individuals completing the program in academic year 2015-16

3.66

Please provide any additional comments about the information provided above:

Postgraduate degree requirement must be in a teachable major.

Section I.c Enrollment

Provide the number of students in the teacher preparation program in the following categories. Note that you must report on the number of students by ethnicity and race separately. Individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino will be reported in one of the race categories. Also note that individuals can belong to one or more racial groups, so the sum of the members of each racial category may not necessarily add up to the total number of students enrolled.

For the purpose of Title II reporting, an enrolled student is defined as a student who has been admitted to a teacher preparation program, but who has not completed the program during the academic year being reported. An individual who completed the program during the academic year being reported is counted as a program completer and not an enrolled student.

Additional guidance on reporting race and ethnicity data.

Total number of students enrolled in 2015-16:	325
Unduplicated number of males enrolled in 2015-16:	81
Unduplicated number of females enrolled in 2015-16:	243

2015-16	Number enrolled
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino of any race:	6
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native:	3
Asian:	1
Black or African American:	0
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander:	2
White:	306
Two or more races:	1

Section I.d Supervised Clinical Experience

Provide the following information about supervised clinical experience in 2015-16.

Average number of clock hours of supervised clinical experience required prior to student teaching	123.25
Average number of clock hours required for student teaching	560
Average number of clock hours required for mentoring/induction support	0
Number of full-time equivalent faculty supervising clinical experience during this academic year	9
Number of adjunct faculty supervising clinical experience during this academic year (IHE and PreK-12 staff)	391
Number of students in supervised clinical experience during this academic year	328

Please provide any additional information about or descriptions of the supervised clinical experiences:

Prior to student teaching hours: Elementary = 188, Secondary = 58.5

Number of students reported here is unduplicated headcount of students enrolled in primarily clinical courses, i.e., practicum and student teaching. Supervising faculty includes cooperating teachers and field supervisors, excluding those counted above in FTE faculty.

Section I.e Teachers Prepared by Subject Area

Please provide the number of teachers prepared by subject area for academic year 2015-16. For the purposes of this section, number prepared means the number of program completers. "Subject area" refers to the subject area(s) an individual has been prepared to teach. An individual can be counted in more than one subject area If no individuals were prepared in a particular subject area, please leave that cell blank. (§205(b)(1)(H))

Subject Area	Number Prepared
Education - General
Teacher Education - Special Education
Teacher Education - Early Childhood Education
Teacher Education - Elementary Education	93
Teacher Education - Junior High/Intermediate/Middle School Education
Teacher Education - Secondary Education	103
Teacher Education - Multiple Levels	27
Teacher Education - Agriculture	6
Teacher Education - Art	7
Teacher Education - Business
Teacher Education - English/Language Arts	21
Teacher Education - Foreign Language	5
Teacher Education - Health	8
Teacher Education - Family and Consumer Sciences/Home Economics	4
Teacher Education - Technology Teacher Education/Industrial Arts	4
Teacher Education - Mathematics	9
Teacher Education - Music	7
Teacher Education - Physical Education and Coaching	8
Teacher Education - Reading	18
Teacher Education - Science Teacher Education/General Science	5
Teacher Education - Social Science	14
Teacher Education - Social Studies	14
Teacher Education - Technical Education	4
Teacher Education - Computer Science
Teacher Education - Biology	6
Teacher Education - Chemistry	1
Teacher Education - Drama and Dance
Teacher Education - French	1
Teacher Education - German	1
Teacher Education - History	20
Teacher Education - Physics
Teacher Education - Spanish	3
Teacher Education - Speech
Teacher Education - Geography
Teacher Education - Latin
Teacher Education - Psychology
Teacher Education - Earth Science
Teacher Education - English as a Second Language
Teacher Education - Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education
Education - Other Specify: Government	13

Section I.e Teachers Prepared by Academic Major

Please provide the number of teachers prepared by academic major for academic year 2015-16. For the purposes of this section, number prepared means the number of program completers. "Academic major" refers to the actual major(s) declared by the program completer. An individual can be counted in more than one academic major. If no individuals were prepared in a particular academic major, please leave that cell blank. (§205(b)(1)(H))

Academic Major	Number Prepared
Education - General
Teacher Education - Special Education
Teacher Education - Early Childhood Education
Teacher Education - Elementary Education	93
Teacher Education - Junior High/Intermediate/Middle School Education
Teacher Education - Secondary Education
Teacher Education - Agriculture	6
Teacher Education - Art	7
Teacher Education - Business
Teacher Education - English/Language Arts	19
Teacher Education - Foreign Language
Teacher Education - Health	8
Teacher Education - Family and Consumer Sciences/Home Economics	4
Teacher Education - Technology Teacher Education/Industrial Arts	4
Teacher Education - Mathematics	9
Teacher Education - Music	7
Teacher Education - Physical Education and Coaching
Teacher Education - Reading
Teacher Education - Science	5
Teacher Education - Social Science
Teacher Education - Social Studies	14
Teacher Education - Technical Education
Teacher Education - Computer Science
Teacher Education - Biology	2
Teacher Education - Chemistry	1
Teacher Education - Drama and Dance
Teacher Education - French	1
Teacher Education - German
Teacher Education - History	6
Teacher Education - Physics
Teacher Education - Spanish	2
Teacher Education - Speech
Teacher Education - Geography
Teacher Education - Latin
Teacher Education - Psychology
Teacher Education - Earth Science
Teacher Education - English as a Second Language
Teacher Education - Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education
Education - Curriculum and Instruction
Education - Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education
Liberal Arts/Humanities
Psychology
Social Sciences
Anthropology
Economics
Geography and Cartography
Political Science and Government
Sociology
Visual and Performing Arts
History
Foreign Languages
Family and Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences
English Language/Literature
Philosophy and Religious Studies
Agriculture
Communication or Journalism
Engineering
Biology
Mathematics and Statistics
Physical Sciences
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology
Chemistry
Geological and Earth Sciences/Geosciences
Physics
Business/Business Administration/Accounting
Computer and Information Sciences
Other Specify:

Section I.f Program Completers

Provide the total number of teacher preparation program completers in each of the following academic years:

2015-16: 185

2014-15: 180

2013-14: 197

Section II Annual Goals - Mathematics

Each institution of higher education (IHE) that conducts a traditional teacher preparation program (including programs that offer any ongoing professional development programs) or alternative route to state credential program, and that enrolls students receiving Federal assistance under this Act, shall set annual quantifiable goals for increasing the number of prospective teachers trained in teacher shortage areas designated by the Secretary or by the state educational agency including mathematics, science, special education, and instruction of limited English proficient students. (§205(a)(1)(A)(ii), §206(a))

Information about teacher shortage areas can be found at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.html.

Please provide the information below about your program's goals to increase the number of prospective teachers in mathematics in each of three academic years.

Academic year 2015-16

Did your program prepare teachers in mathematics in 2015-16?

Yes

How many prospective teachers did your program plan to add in mathematics in 2015-16?

Did your program meet the goal for prospective teachers set in mathematics in 2015-16?

Yes

Description of strategies used to achieve goal, if applicable:

Description of steps to improve performance in meeting goal or lessons learned in meeting goal, if applicable:

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

We reported nine mathematics teaching majors who had taken or enrolled for a practicum or methods course and could complete in 2015-16. We had three mathematics teaching majors graduate in the fall, and six in the spring. We met the goal as anticipated.

Academic year 2016-17

Is your program preparing teachers in mathematics in 2016-17?

Yes

How many prospective teachers did your program plan to add in mathematics in 2016-17?

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

We had ten mathematics teaching majors who had taken or enrolled for a practicum or methods course and were on track to complete in 2016-17. One graduated in the fall. Seven are currently on track to graduate in spring, leaving us two short of the goal. We now anticipate eight graduates.

Academic year 2017-18

Will your program prepare teachers in mathematics in 2017-18?

Yes

How many prospective teachers does your program plan to add in mathematics in 2017-18?

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

We have ten mathematics teaching majors who have taken or are enrolled for a practicum or methods course and are on track to complete in 2017-18. There are two additional mathematics teaching majors who may possibly complete.

Section II Annual Goals - Science

Information about teacher shortage areas can be found at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.html.

Please provide the information below about your program's goals to increase the number of prospective teachers in science in each of three academic years.

Academic year 2015-16

Did your program prepare teachers in science in 2015-16?

Yes

How many prospective teachers did your program plan to add in science in 2015-16?

Did your program meet the goal for prospective teachers set in science in 2015-16?

Yes

Description of strategies used to achieve goal, if applicable:

Description of steps to improve performance in meeting goal or lessons learned in meeting goal, if applicable:

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

We had five general science broadfield teaching majors who had taken or enrolled for a practicum or methods course and could complete in 2015-16. We had two general science broadfield teaching majors graduate in the fall and three in the spring. We met the goal as anticipated.

Academic year 2016-17

Is your program preparing teachers in science in 2016-17?

Yes

How many prospective teachers did your program plan to add in science in 2016-17?

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

We had six general science teaching majors who had taken or enrolled for a practicum or methods course and were on track to complete in 2016-17. Two graduated i the fall, and four are on track to graduate in spring, so we anticipate meeting this goal.

Academic year 2017-18

Will your program prepare teachers in science in 2017-18?

Yes

How many prospective teachers does your program plan to add in science in 2017-18?

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

We have six general science teaching majors who have taken or enrolled for a practicum or methods course and are on track to complete in 2017-18.

Section II Annual Goals - Special Education

Information about teacher shortage areas can be found at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.html.

Please provide the information below about your program's goals to increase the number of prospective teachers in special education in each of three academic years.

Academic year 2015-16

Did your program prepare teachers in special education in 2015-16?

How many prospective teachers did your program plan to add in special education in 2015-16?

Did your program meet the goal for prospective teachers set in special education in 2015-16?

Data not reported

Description of strategies used to achieve goal, if applicable:

Description of steps to improve performance in meeting goal or lessons learned in meeting goal, if applicable:

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

Our students can complete this endorsement through our sister institution MSU Billings. Academic advising informs our students of the Special Education endorsement and helps students plan programs of study to complete the endorsement there.

Academic year 2016-17

Is your program preparing teachers in special education in 2016-17?

How many prospective teachers did your program plan to add in special education in 2016-17?

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

Academic year 2017-18

Will your program prepare teachers in special education in 2017-18?

How many prospective teachers does your program plan to add in special education in 2017-18?

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

Section II Annual Goals - Instruction of Limited English Proficient Students

Information about teacher shortage areas can be found at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.html.

Please provide the information below about your program's goals to increase the number of prospective teachers in instruction of limited English proficient students in each of three academic years.

Academic year 2015-16

Did your program prepare teachers in instruction of limited English proficient students in 2015-16?

How many prospective teachers did your program plan to add in instruction of limited English proficient students in 2015-16?

Did your program meet the goal for prospective teachers set in instruction of limited English proficient students in 2015-16?

Data not reported

Description of strategies used to achieve goal, if applicable:

Description of steps to improve performance in meeting goal or lessons learned in meeting goal, if applicable:

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

Our first course in teaching limited English proficient students was taught Fall 2014. The course is an elective. In Spring 2015, enrollment increased.

Academic year 2016-17

Is your program preparing teachers in instruction of limited English proficient students in 2016-17?

How many prospective teachers did your program plan to add in instruction of limited English proficient students in 2016-17?

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

In Spring 2016, enrollment increased again. We will continue to offer our elective course in teaching Limited English Proficient students in 2016-17.

Academic year 2017-18

Will your program prepare teachers in instruction of limited English proficient students in 2017-18?

How many prospective teachers does your program plan to add in instruction of limited English proficient students in 2017-18?

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

In 2016-17, enrollment increased again. We will continue to offer our elective course in teaching Limited English Proficient students in 2017-18.

Section II Assurances

Please certify that your institution is in compliance with the following assurances. (§205(a)(1)(A)(iii), §206(b)) Note: Be prepared to provide documentation and evidence for your responses, when requested, to support the following assurances.

Preparation responds to the identified needs of the local educational agencies or States where the program completers are likely to teach, based on past hiring and recruitment trends.

Yes

Preparation is closely linked with the needs of schools and the instructional decisions new teachers face in the classroom.

Yes

Prospective special education teachers are prepared in core academic subjects and to instruct in core academic subjects.

Prospective general education teachers are prepared to provide instruction to students with disabilities.

Yes

Prospective general education teachers are prepared to provide instruction to limited English proficient students.

Prospective general education teachers are prepared to provide instruction to students from low-income families.

Yes

Prospective teachers are prepared to effectively teach in urban and rural schools, as applicable.

Yes

Describe your institution’s most successful strategies in meeting the assurances listed above:

We have created ongoing partnerships with key stakeholders in our community – schools, districts, and community organizations – to provide our students with multiple opportunities to develop a deep understanding of the needs of families, children, schools, and communities as well as their roles and responsibilities in instructional decision-making for all students.
We provide instruction across the curriculum (Foundations and Methods courses) regarding practices and curricular concepts most relevant to our local schools' instructional needs such as Montana Common Core State Standards, Understanding By Design (UBD), and the Danielson Framework for Teaching.
We include a signature assignment dealing with Indian Education for All, in compliance with the requirement of the Montana State Constitution.
We provide instruction across the curriculum (Foundations and Methods courses) regarding differentiation techniques in areas of readiness, learning preferences, cultural differences, and student interests.
Placements of students in a variety of field experiences to develop understanding of LEAs in both Montana’s urban and rural educational settings. Students develo instructional sequences that are customized to specific needs of their placements.
We have developed a capstone assignment called the Teacher Work Sample in which students demonstrate their competence in planning, assessing, and reflecting on addressing multiple aspects of student learning.

Section III Assessment Pass Rates

No assessment pass rates have been reported.

**Please note that pass rates will be provided to Westat by the state or the testing company or companies (or entities). You do not need to upload or submit any files for this section.

You will be notified via email once pass rates have been uploaded. Please be sure to review the pass rates for accuracy once they are uploaded. Westat expects to receive and upload pass rate files for most programs by mid-April.**

Section III Summary Pass Rates

No summary pass rates have been reported.

**Please note that pass rates will be provided to Westat by the state or the testing company or companies (or entities). You do not need to upload or submit any files for this section.

Section IV Low-Performing

Provide the following information about the approval or accreditation of your teacher preparation program.

Is your teacher preparation program currently approved or accredited?

Yes

If yes, please specify the organization(s) that approved or accredited your program:

State

TEAC

CAEP as of May 3, 2016

Is your teacher preparation program currently under a designation as "low-performing" by the state (as per section 207(a) of the HEA of 2008)?

Section V Use of Technology

Provide the following information about the use of technology in your teacher preparation program. Please note that choosing 'yes' indicates that your teacher preparation program would be able to provide evidence upon request.

Does your program prepare teachers to:

integrate technology effectively into curricula and instruction

Yes

use technology effectively to collect data to improve teaching and learning

Yes

use technology effectively to manage data to improve teaching and learning

Yes

use technology effectively to analyze data to improve teaching and learning

Yes

Provide a description of the evidence that your program uses to show that it prepares teachers to integrate technology effectively into curricula and instruction, and to use technology effectively to collect, manage, and analyze data in order to improve teaching and learning for the purpose of increasing student academic achievement. Include a description of the evidence your program uses to show that it prepares teachers to use the principles of universal design for learning, as applicable. Include planning activities and a timeline if any of the four elements listed above are not currently in place.

EDU 370 is a course based in best-practice design and rooted in the ideas of technological pedagogical reasoning and careful and deliberate technology integration. Additionally, EDU 370 students are required to partake in a field experience component in which they practically apply the digital learning ideas. The course provides pre-service teachers with a foundation for the skills needed to effectively integrate technology into teaching in order to enhance student achievement. This course focuses on the skills and understandings needed for objective-driven technology integration, as well as using technology to support classroom assessment and data-driven decisions. The course also includes instruction on combining the use of technology with writing concrete learning objectives, and unit and lesson planning, an integration of Montana and Common Core Content Standards. EDU 370 also addresses the principles of universal design for learning (UDL), and students leave the course with a new awareness of UDL and how technology can be leveraged to design instruction that addresses the concepts. In particular, students learn how technology can be used to provide learners multiple means of representation, multiple means of expression, and multiple means of engagement. Innovative instructional tools are closely examined over the course of the semester, including communication and collaboration tools, multimedia tools, and other digital learning tools such as blogs, wikis, mobile computing devices, and interactive whiteboards. Topics related to technology integration in the classroom include copyright and fair use, technology in rural settings, information and media literacy, Internet safety, and digital citizenship.

Section VI Teacher Training

Provide the following information about your teacher preparation program. Please note that choosing 'yes' indicates that your teacher preparation program would be able to provide evidence upon request.

Does your program prepare general education teachers to:

teach students with disabilities effectively

Yes

participate as a member of individualized education program teams

Yes

teach students who are limited English proficient effectively

Provide a description of the evidence your program uses to show that it prepares general education teachers to teach students with disabilities effectively, including training related to participation as a member of individualized education program teams, as defined in section 614(d)(1)(B) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and to effectively teach students who are limited English proficient. Include planning activities and a timeline if any of the three elements listed above are not currently in place.

General education students are required to take a 3 credit course, EDSP 306 Exceptional Learners, which includes content regarding how to be an effective teacher fo students with disabilities, including training related to participation in IEP teams. Additionally, this content is embedded in the objectives of other 3 credit courses required in the curriculum, specifically EDU 222IS Educational Psychology and Child Development or EDU 223IS Educational Psychology and Adolescent Development. We launched our first course in teaching limited English proficient students in Fall 2014.

Does your program prepare special education teachers to:

teach students with disabilities effectively

participate as a member of individualized education program teams

teach students who are limited English proficient effectively

Provide a description of the evidence your program uses to show that it prepares special education teachers to teach students with disabilities effectively, including training related to participation as a member of individualized education program teams, as defined in section 614(d)(1)(B) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and to effectively teach students who are limited English proficient. Include planning activities and a timeline if any of the three elements listed above are not currently in place.

Section VII Contextual Information

Please use this space to provide any additional information that describes your teacher preparation program(s). You may also attach information to this report card. The U.S. Department of Education is especially interested in any evaluation plans or interim or final reports that may be available.

Section I.c. We have included non-degree initial teacher certification candidates.

Supporting Files

Complete Report Card	^{AY 2015-16}
_{This is a United States Department of Education computer system.}	_{About Title II\| Technical Assistance\| Privacy Policy\| Contacts}

OPI_MSU_TEP_Accreditation_Confirmation_2016

Office of Public Instruction
P.O. Box 202501
Helena, MT 59620-2501
406.444.3095
888.231.9393
406.444.0169 (TTY)
opi.mt.gov

October 17, 2016

Dr. Alison Harmon, Dean
College of Education, Health, and Human Development Montana State University
PO Box 172940
Bozeman, MT 59717-2940

Dear Dr. Harmon:

This letter officially confirms the action taken by the Montana Board of Public Education (BPE) on May 11, 2016, granting approval and Regular Accreditation Status through 2022 of the Teacher Education Program (TEP) in the College of Education, Health, and Human Development (EHHD) at Montana State University (MSU).

The BPE sets policy for the approval of Montana professional educator preparation providers (EPPs) and all endorsement programs offered by each EPP. The purpose of the joint Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) and Montana site visit was verification of the MSU EHHD Institutional Report meeting the Montana Professional Educator Preparation Program Standards, accordingly, ensuring compliance with the Administrative Rules of Montana, Chapter 10.58.

On behalf of the BPE Chair Carroll and State Superintendent Juneau, I wish to commend you, Dr. Harmon and Dr. Downey, for your leadership and robust vision of excellence. Along with the MSU collaborative team, you demonstrate an abiding commitment and drive to improve educator preparation at MSU, in Montana, and the nation. The TEP is to be commended for fostering ongoing partnerships on campus with other programs that prepare educators for content areas and off campus with area districts, schools, and educators. Congratulations for a job well done.

For further information, please contact me by telephone at 406-444-5726, or by email at Ivpeterson@mt.gov.

Respectfully,

Linda Vrooman Peterson, Ph.D.

cc:

Dr. Jayne Downey, Former Head, Department of Education, MSU
D.r Tricia Seifert, Head, Department of Education, MSU
Nancy Coopersmith, Assistant Superintendent, Office of Public Instruction

The Montana Office of Public Instruction provides vision, advocacy, support, and leadership for schools and communities to ensure thatallstudents meet today'schallenges and tomorrow's opportunities.

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_NPTT_Title_II_REPORT_2017_2015-16

VIEW TITLE II REPORTS

SUBMIT REPORTS

^{About Title II| Contacts}

Webinars

Technical Assistance

User Manuals

Montana State University-Bozeman
Alternative, IHE-based Program

2017|

Title II
Reports

Complete Report Card

AY 2015-16

Institution Information

Name of Institution:

Institution/Program Type:

Academic Year:

State:

Address:

Contact Name:

Phone:

Email:

Montana State University-Bozeman

Alternative, IHE-based

2015-16

Montana

PO Box 172940

Bozeman, MT, 59717

Dr. Robert Carson

406-994-5662

rcarson@montana.edu

Is your institution a member of an HEA Title II Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Education?
(http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/tqp/index.html)

If yes, provide the following:

Award year:

Grantee name:

Project name:

Grant number:

List partner districts/LEAs:

List other partners:

Project Type:

Section I.a Program Information

Teacher Preparation Programs	Teacher Quality Partnership Grant Member?
Northern Plains Transition to Teaching	No
Total number of teacher preparation programs: 1

Section I.b Admissions

Indicate when students are formally admitted into your initial teacher certification program:
Postgraduate

Does your initial teacher certification program conditionally admit students?
Yes

Provide a link to your website where additional information about admissions requirements can be found:
http://www.montana.edu/nptt/apply/index.shtml

Please provide any additional comments about or exceptions to the admissions information provided above:

Section I.b Undergraduate Requirements

Please provide the following information about your teacher preparation program's entry and exit requirements. (§205(a)(1)(C)(i))
Are there initial teacher certification programs at the undergraduate level?
No
If yes, for each element listed below, indicate if it is required for admission into or exit from any of your teacher preparation program(s) at the Undergraduate level.

Element	Required for Entry	Required for Exit
Transcript	Data not reported	Data not reported
Fingerprint check	Data not reported	Data not reported
Background check	Data not reported	Data not reported
Minimum number of courses/credits/semester hours completed	Data not reported	Data not reported
Minimum GPA	Data not reported	Data not reported
Minimum GPA in content area coursework	Data not reported	Data not reported
Minimum GPA in professional education coursework	Data not reported	Data not reported
Minimum ACT score	Data not reported	Data not reported
Minimum SAT score	Data not reported	Data not reported
Minimum basic skills test score	Data not reported	Data not reported
Subject area/academic content test or other subject matter verification	Data not reported	Data not reported
Recommendation(s)	Data not reported	Data not reported
Essay or personal statement	Data not reported	Data not reported
Interview	Data not reported	Data not reported
Other	Data not reported	Data not reported

What is the minimum GPA required for admission into the program?

What was the median GPA of individuals accepted into the program in academic year 2015-16

What is the minimum GPA required for completing the program?

What was the median GPA of individuals completing the program in academic year 2015-16

Please provide any additional comments about the information provided above:

Section I.b Postgraduate Requirements

Please provide the following information about your teacher preparation program's entry and exit requirements. (§205(a)(1)(C)(i))

Are there initial teacher certification programs at the postgraduate level?

Yes

If yes, for each element listed below, indicate if it is required for admission into or exit from any of your teacher preparation program(s) at the Postgraduate level.

Element	Required for Entry	Required for Exit
Transcript	Yes	No
Fingerprint check	No	No
Background check	No	No
Minimum number of courses/credits/semester hours completed	Yes	Yes
Minimum GPA	Yes	Yes
Minimum GPA in content area coursework	Yes	Yes
Minimum GPA in professional education coursework	No	Yes
Minimum ACT score	No	No
Minimum SAT score	No	No
Minimum basic skills test score	No	No
Subject area/academic content test or other subject matter verification	No	Yes
Recommendation(s)	Yes	Yes
Essay or personal statement	Yes	No
Interview	No	No
Other Must meet state content area requirements	Yes	Yes

What is the minimum GPA required for admission into the program?

2.75

What was the median GPA of individuals accepted into the program in academic year 2015-16

3.43

What is the minimum GPA required for completing the program?

3
What was the median GPA of individuals completing the program in academic year 2015-16

3.94

Please provide any additional comments about the information provided above:

Section I.c Enrollment

Additional guidance on reporting race and ethnicity data.

Total number of students enrolled in 2015-16:	122
Unduplicated number of males enrolled in 2015-16:	51
Unduplicated number of females enrolled in 2015-16:	71

2015-16	Number enrolled
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino of any race:	14
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native:	4
Asian:	5
Black or African American:	2
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander:	0
White:	79
Two or more races:	0

Section I.d Supervised Clinical Experience

Provide the following information about supervised clinical experience in 2015-16.

Average number of clock hours of supervised clinical experience required prior to student teaching	0
Average number of clock hours required for student teaching	400
Average number of clock hours required for mentoring/induction support	0
Number of full-time equivalent faculty supervising clinical experience during this academic year	1
Number of adjunct faculty supervising clinical experience during this academic year (IHE and PreK-12 staff)	0
Number of students in supervised clinical experience during this academic year	60

Please provide any additional information about or descriptions of the supervised clinical experiences:

20 candidates were in a standard student teaching practicum at 14 weeks. Another 40 candidates were in year-long paid internships as teacher of record (at least half time), as defined by the original Transition to Teaching grant under U.S. Dept of Ed. The building principal serves as field supervisor for all Interns, and either serves as or recommends an on site supervisor for student teaches. Most candidates are not within driving distance of the university.

Section I.e Teachers Prepared by Subject Area

Subject Area	Number Prepared
Education - General
Teacher Education - Special Education
Teacher Education - Early Childhood Education
Teacher Education - Elementary Education
Teacher Education - Junior High/Intermediate/Middle School Education
Teacher Education - Secondary Education
Teacher Education - Multiple Levels
Teacher Education - Agriculture
Teacher Education - Art	3
Teacher Education - Business
Teacher Education - English/Language Arts	16
Teacher Education - Foreign Language	9
Teacher Education - Health	1
Teacher Education - Family and Consumer Sciences/Home Economics	2
Teacher Education - Technology Teacher Education/Industrial Arts
Teacher Education - Mathematics	8
Teacher Education - Music	1
Teacher Education - Physical Education and Coaching
Teacher Education - Reading
Teacher Education - Science Teacher Education/General Science	4
Teacher Education - Social Science
Teacher Education - Social Studies	9
Teacher Education - Technical Education
Teacher Education - Computer Science
Teacher Education - Biology	10
Teacher Education - Chemistry	2
Teacher Education - Drama and Dance
Teacher Education - French	3
Teacher Education - German
Teacher Education - History	7
Teacher Education - Physics	2
Teacher Education - Spanish	6
Teacher Education - Speech
Teacher Education - Geography
Teacher Education - Latin
Teacher Education - Psychology
Teacher Education - Earth Science
Teacher Education - English as a Second Language
Teacher Education - Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education
Education - Other Specify:

Section I.e Teachers Prepared by Academic Major

Academic Major	Number Prepared
Education - General
Teacher Education - Special Education
Teacher Education - Early Childhood Education
Teacher Education - Elementary Education
Teacher Education - Junior High/Intermediate/Middle School Education
Teacher Education - Secondary Education	63
Teacher Education - Agriculture
Teacher Education - Art
Teacher Education - Business
Teacher Education - English/Language Arts
Teacher Education - Foreign Language
Teacher Education - Health
Teacher Education - Family and Consumer Sciences/Home Economics
Teacher Education - Technology Teacher Education/Industrial Arts
Teacher Education - Mathematics
Teacher Education - Music
Teacher Education - Physical Education and Coaching
Teacher Education - Reading
Teacher Education - Science
Teacher Education - Social Science
Teacher Education - Social Studies
Teacher Education - Technical Education
Teacher Education - Computer Science
Teacher Education - Biology
Teacher Education - Chemistry
Teacher Education - Drama and Dance
Teacher Education - French
Teacher Education - German
Teacher Education - History
Teacher Education - Physics
Teacher Education - Spanish
Teacher Education - Speech
Teacher Education - Geography
Teacher Education - Latin
Teacher Education - Psychology
Teacher Education - Earth Science
Teacher Education - English as a Second Language
Teacher Education - Bilingual, Multilingual, and Multicultural Education
Education - Curriculum and Instruction
Education - Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education
Liberal Arts/Humanities
Psychology
Social Sciences
Anthropology
Economics
Geography and Cartography
Political Science and Government
Sociology
Visual and Performing Arts
History
Foreign Languages
Family and Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences
English Language/Literature
Philosophy and Religious Studies
Agriculture
Communication or Journalism
Engineering
Biology
Mathematics and Statistics
Physical Sciences
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology
Chemistry
Geological and Earth Sciences/Geosciences
Physics
Business/Business Administration/Accounting
Computer and Information Sciences
Other Specify:

Section I.f Program Completers

Provide the total number of teacher preparation program completers in each of the following academic years:

2015-16: 63

2014-15: 40

2013-14: 42

Section II Annual Goals - Mathematics

Information about teacher shortage areas can be found at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.html.

Please provide the information below about your program's goals to increase the number of prospective teachers in mathematics in each of three academic years.

Academic year 2015-16

Did your program prepare teachers in mathematics in 2015-16?

Yes

How many prospective teachers did your program plan to add in mathematics in 2015-16?

Did your program meet the goal for prospective teachers set in mathematics in 2015-16?

Yes

Description of strategies used to achieve goal, if applicable:

Same as last year

Description of steps to improve performance in meeting goal or lessons learned in meeting goal, if applicable:

Same as last year

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

After an exceptional fifteen year run, the decision has been made to close the NPTT program. The program was designed to serve the needs of Montana and surrounding states in the era of No Child Left Behind. We anticipate a new program being designed in the future, but our goals for the upcoming year are to serve every student currently in the pipeline, and to affect program closure in an orderly manner. The program will officially come to a close on July 30, 2018.

Academic year 2016-17

Is your program preparing teachers in mathematics in 2016-17?

Yes

How many prospective teachers did your program plan to add in mathematics in 2016-17?

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

Academic year 2017-18

Will your program prepare teachers in mathematics in 2017-18?

How many prospective teachers does your program plan to add in mathematics in 2017-18?

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

Section II Annual Goals - Science

Information about teacher shortage areas can be found at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.html.

Please provide the information below about your program's goals to increase the number of prospective teachers in science in each of three academic years.

Academic year 2015-16

Did your program prepare teachers in science in 2015-16?

Yes

How many prospective teachers did your program plan to add in science in 2015-16?

Did your program meet the goal for prospective teachers set in science in 2015-16?

Description of strategies used to achieve goal, if applicable:

Same as last year

Description of steps to improve performance in meeting goal or lessons learned in meeting goal, if applicable:

same as last year

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

Academic year 2016-17

Is your program preparing teachers in science in 2016-17?

Yes

How many prospective teachers did your program plan to add in science in 2016-17?

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

Academic year 2017-18

Will your program prepare teachers in science in 2017-18?

How many prospective teachers does your program plan to add in science in 2017-18?

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

Section II Annual Goals - Special Education

Information about teacher shortage areas can be found at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.html.

Please provide the information below about your program's goals to increase the number of prospective teachers in special education in each of three academic years.

Academic year 2015-16

Did your program prepare teachers in special education in 2015-16?

How many prospective teachers did your program plan to add in special education in 2015-16?

Did your program meet the goal for prospective teachers set in special education in 2015-16?

Description of strategies used to achieve goal, if applicable:

Description of steps to improve performance in meeting goal or lessons learned in meeting goal, if applicable:

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

Academic year 2016-17

Is your program preparing teachers in special education in 2016-17?

How many prospective teachers did your program plan to add in special education in 2016-17?

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

Academic year 2017-18

Will your program prepare teachers in special education in 2017-18?

How many prospective teachers does your program plan to add in special education in 2017-18?

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

Section II Annual Goals - Instruction of Limited English Proficient Students

Information about teacher shortage areas can be found at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.html.

Please provide the information below about your program's goals to increase the number of prospective teachers in instruction of limited English proficient students in each of three academic years.

Academic year 2015-16

Did your program prepare teachers in instruction of limited English proficient students in 2015-16?

How many prospective teachers did your program plan to add in instruction of limited English proficient students in 2015-16?

Did your program meet the goal for prospective teachers set in instruction of limited English proficient students in 2015-16?

Data not reported

Description of strategies used to achieve goal, if applicable:

Description of steps to improve performance in meeting goal or lessons learned in meeting goal, if applicable:

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

Academic year 2016-17

Is your program preparing teachers in instruction of limited English proficient students in 2016-17?

How many prospective teachers did your program plan to add in instruction of limited English proficient students in 2016-17?

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

Academic year 2017-18

Will your program prepare teachers in instruction of limited English proficient students in 2017-18?

How many prospective teachers does your program plan to add in instruction of limited English proficient students in 2017-18?

Provide any additional comments, exceptions and explanations below:

Section II Assurances

Preparation responds to the identified needs of the local educational agencies or States where the program completers are likely to teach, based on past hiring and recruitment trends.

Yes

Preparation is closely linked with the needs of schools and the instructional decisions new teachers face in the classroom.

Yes

Prospective special education teachers are prepared in core academic subjects and to instruct in core academic subjects.

Prospective general education teachers are prepared to provide instruction to students with disabilities.

Yes

Prospective general education teachers are prepared to provide instruction to limited English proficient students.

Yes

Prospective general education teachers are prepared to provide instruction to students from low-income families.

Yes

Prospective teachers are prepared to effectively teach in urban and rural schools, as applicable.

Yes

Describe your institution’s most successful strategies in meeting the assurances listed above:

Communication with constituents is critically important. We work on a close professional and personal basis with the licensure offices in Montana and Wyoming and have current knowledge of their hiring trends, vacancy rates, and areas of particular need. Schools also know that we work with them when they wish to "grow their own." And schools familiar with the program frequently call NPTT first when they know they have or are likely to have a vacancy.

Section III Assessment Pass Rates

No assessment pass rates have been reported.

**Please note that pass rates will be provided to Westat by the state or the testing company or companies (or entities). You do not need to upload or submit any files for this section.

Section III Summary Pass Rates

No summary pass rates have been reported.

**Please note that pass rates will be provided to Westat by the state or the testing company or companies (or entities). You do not need to upload or submit any files for this section.

Section IV Low-Performing

Provide the following information about the approval or accreditation of your teacher preparation program.

Is your teacher preparation program currently approved or accredited?

Yes

If yes, please specify the organization(s) that approved or accredited your program:

State

TEAC

Is your teacher preparation program currently under a designation as "low-performing" by the state (as per section 207(a) of the HEA of 2008)?

Section V Use of Technology

Does your program prepare teachers to:

integrate technology effectively into curricula and instruction

Yes

use technology effectively to collect data to improve teaching and learning

Yes

use technology effectively to manage data to improve teaching and learning

Yes

use technology effectively to analyze data to improve teaching and learning

Yes

Familiarity with standard and common data management software used by schools is addressed in EDCI 555, the program's instructional technology course. Data collection and analysis strategies are included in EDCI 554, the curriculum design and classroom assessment course. Because the program is built around well designed in-school experiences and practica, candidates are guided by the schools in which they are fulfilling their practica to manage data according to the school's specific policies. Evaluation of data management and adaptation of instruction based on results is assessed in the midterm and final performance evaluations.

Section VI Teacher Training

Does your program prepare general education teachers to:

teach students with disabilities effectively

Yes

participate as a member of individualized education program teams

Yes

teach students who are limited English proficient effectively

Introductory content for special education is provided through EDCI 553. The primary course for special education is EDCI 558, the second course that parallels the internship. Assignments in the Internship or Student Teaching require participation in IEP meetings as well as a Special Needs project candidates are required to fulfil LEP instruction is minimal in the pre-Internship courses, and is then handled as a function of the sponsoring school's responsibility as per the needs of the school.

Does your program prepare special education teachers to:

teach students with disabilities effectively

participate as a member of individualized education program teams

teach students who are limited English proficient effectively

Program does not prepare special education teachers but it is featured throughout the program as a major theme for all teachers.

Section VII Contextual Information

The NPTT program is scheduled for closure at the end of the 2017-2018 Academic Year. No new applicants are being accepted, so all students currently enrolled will be given adequate time to complete their programs of study.

Supporting Files

Complete Report Card	^{AY 2015-16}
_{This is a United States Department of Education computer system.}	_{About Title II\| Technical Assistance\| Privacy Policy\| Contacts}

Graduate

Adult & Higher Education - Master of Education (MEd)

Program Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.
Develop meaningful solutions to complex problems of practice from a position of equity and social justice.
Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic and systematic inquiry.
Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

EHHD_ED_GR_MED_AHE_REPORT_YEAR_0

Graduate Annual Program Assessment Report

Program Information: Adult and Higher Education
Degree/s Assessed	MEd

College or Administrative Division	EHHD
Department/School	Education
Report Submitted By	Sweeney Windchief & Sarah Pennington
Date Submitted	10/15/2022
Assessment Period:	AY 23-24

Graduate assessment reports are to be submitted biennially. The report deadline is September 15th. (Extension Via Dept Head Pennington

MEd Graduate Assessment Process

Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) one and two will be assessed during this reporting cycle for the MEd

Demonstrated disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.
Develop meaningful evidence-based solutions to complex problems of practice from a position of equity and social justice.
Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic and systematic inquiry.
Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner

1. Assessment Methods

a. List the courses or instruments used to assess each outcome.

Performance Table (Modify table as needed)		Learning Outcomes
Masters Students		1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Data Source
Course #	EDLD 616 Organization and Administration of Higher Education	X	X
Course #	EDLD 628 - College Students	X	X
Other	Comprehensive Exams	X	X

2. What Data Were Collected

a. What was collected to assess learning outcomes listed above?
MEd

EDLD 616: The final paper for EDLD 616 will be assessed for evidence of the program learning outcomes. This paper synthesizes students’ work over the semester on a problem faced in administration, resulting in implications for practice in higher education or student affairs. The paper is between 6-8 pages in length and prompts students to analyze and evaluate research evidence to propose a solution to their problem of focus.

EDU 628: Ethical Considerations, Validity, and Reflection: There are four areas to cover as part of the ethical considerations. One, describe any ethical considerations such as power differences, sensitive populations, anonymity, and how you will address them in the study. Two, explain how you will adhere to ethical standards for practice and any potential concerns. Three, discuss any limitations to the evaluation based on the methodology. Four, after the evaluation you will provide a reflexivity of your experiences such as pressures, bias, or problems associated with the evaluation and how you managed or mitigated them. Problems may include but are not limited to financial or resource constraint, political pressures, responsiveness of participants or leadership, other.

Comprehensive Exams (Master’s): three-part comprehensive exam: foundation, specialization, research.
Near the end of completing course work, MEd students will complete a written comprehensive exam or a master’s thesis. Students are expected to demonstrate mastery of the program of study and the ability to interact with the research in that area. The substantive content of the written exam questions will be determined by the chair in consultation with the committee. Students may be required to meet with the committee to provide oral clarification of their written responses.

b. How sample will be collected?

All final papers from the course were collected, and those completed by students in the M.Ed. program will be assessed for the learning outcomes. Samples will be collected through the D2L Course Home Page typically in the Assignment Drop Box: This is where students submit formal assignments. In the Drop Box Forum, students see the titles for each formal assignment. Students click on the tile of the corresponding assignment you want to submit and add the document as a file and submit. A census sample will be collected for the comprehensive exams for both Fall and Spring semesters.

3. Data Analysis

a. Who participated in the process, the nature of the rubric utilized (or other norming methods), and the threshold outcome desired.

For EDLD 616, the rubric developed to assess the final papers was informed by both the specific course learning objectives and the broader program learning outcomes as stated above. Three outcomes, reflective of the two program learning outcomes being assessed, were assessed for the paper along a 10-point scale:

Criterion	Exemplary (10 points)	Proficient (8 or 9 points)	Developing (7 points)	Unacceptable (6 or fewer)
Discussion of problem	Work shows evidence of synthesis, summary, and critique of empirical findings and professional experience to articulate understanding of problem; demonstrates use of at least 10 empirical articles in support	Work shows evidence of selection and explanation of empirical findings, and some professional experience, to articulate understanding of problem; demonstrates use of at least 7 empirical articles in support	Work shows some evidence of reliance on empirical findings to articulate understanding of problem, but leans heavily on experience; demonstrates use of at least 5 empirical articles in support	Work shows little evidence of reliance on empirical findings to articulate understanding of problem and tends to solely situate conclusions in personal experience; does not include at least 5 empirical sources
Appropriateness of proposed solution	Work demonstrates ability to infer potential solutions from understanding of problem; work fully evaluates proposed solution and one alternative (particularly in relation to empirical support)	Work demonstrates ability to identify potential solutions from understanding of problem, but may fail to fully justify connection; work comprehensively but not fully evaluates proposed solution and/or one alternative	Work outlines major elements of proposed solution but fails to fully connect these elements to problem; evaluation of proposed solution not fully developed, alternative omitted	Work fails to connect solution to problem and fails to fully explain solution and to provide an alternative
Feasibility of implementation plan	Work demonstrates evidence of application of frames and conceptual knowledge of the higher education system to problem in a manner that depicts a thorough, feasible, multi-faceted approach to influence change toward the proposed solution to the identified problem; work also pays heed to potential weaknesses and limitations of implementation plan	Work demonstrates evidence of application of frames and conceptual understanding of the system that supports implementation plan feasibility, but fails to assess potential program weaknesses or limitations	Work demonstrates explanation of feasibility and depth of proposed implementation plan, but fails to explicitly connect to identified problem and/or conceptual understanding of higher education; also fails to attend to potential weaknesses or limitations	Work fails to fully demonstrate feasibility and thoroughness of implementation plan, particularly in relation to frames and conceptual understanding of the system; fails to attend to weaknesses and/or limitations

EDLD 614:

	Developing	Emerging	Sophisticated
Poster Elements	The element is overly generalized, lacks precision, with little evidence of support and synthesis	The element is more general, yet with reasonable support and adequate synthesis	The element is original, creative, specific, substantiated, defendable, and complex
Title
Positionality
Evaluation questions & evaluand context
Critique of related literature
Theory driven
Methodological cohesion and soundness
Analysis of data
Conclusions and recommendations to important stakeholders
Clear, well organized, and visually aesthetic representation to all important stakeholders

EDU 628:

Learning Outcomes 1 and 2

The AHE program faculty formalized their comprehensive exam, these efforts were intended to (1) make the process and expectations clear to students and faculty, (2) ensure consistency, and (3) systemize the execution of the procedures and assessment. The processes for the procedures are in Appendix A. We expect every student to pass the important milestones associated with degree completion. The committee chair will assess the students’ readiness for their exams. This proactive strategy uses a developmental approach to ensure a successful outcome for the student. If the committee chair thinks that the student may need further development in a content or research area, the chair will provide the students with additional resources and recommendations for preparation for the exam. Therefore, our program strives for a 100% success rate for comprehensive exams based on the use of these proactive and developmental procedures.

The program does not currently use a common rubric for assessing students’ work. The faculty are working on a common rubric that can be used for all five learning outcomes above. Here is a draft of the rubric that should be implemented in future reviews. It is expected that MEd students would meet the “developing” or “mastering” criteria.

AHE Rubric for Assessing Learning Outcomes
Introductory		Developing		Mastery
Remembering: Student is able to recall information. Key words for assessment include: define, list, recall, and reproduce.	Understanding: Student is able to explain ideas and concepts. Key words for assessment include: classify, described, discuss, explain, translate, and paraphrase.	Applying: Student is able to use information in a new way. Key words for assessment include: choose, demonstrate, illustrate, interpret, solve, and write.	Analyzing: Student is able to distinguish between different concepts/parts to recognize relationships and patterns. Key words for assessment include: compare, contrast, examine, experiment, question, test, criticize, and differentiate.	Evaluating: Student is able to justify a position or decision. Key words for assessment include: argue, defend, judge, support, value, and appraise.	Creating: Student is able to create a new product or point of view. Key words for assessment include: assemble, construct, create, design, develop, and formulate.
1	2	3	4	5	6
This rubric was created using Bloom’s Taxonomy

4. Results

a. What was revealed from analyzing learning outcome data regarding student learning? Describe any result, pattern, or trends that you identify as meaningful.

In general, our master’s students appear to be reaching the desired program learning outcomes as a result of participation in EDLD 616 which is then reflected in the integration of their practical knowledge with course material.

EDU 628:
Students will be assessed on the overall contributions they make to the class as a whole including class meetings and online engagement as well as on the attributes of their written/oral submissions.

Comprehensive Exams
Pass rates will be used to assess learning outcomes one and two listed above. All XX MEd students who took their comprehensive exams passed, resulting in a XX% pass rate.

AHE Rubric Evaluating Comprehensive Exams
Introductory		Developing		Mastery
Remembering: Student is able to recall information. Key words for assessment include: define, list, recall, and reproduce.	Understanding: Student is able to explain ideas and concepts. Key words for assessment include: classify, described, discuss, explain, translate, and paraphrase.	Applying: Student is able to use information in a new way. Key words for assessment include: choose, demonstrate, illustrate, interpret, solve, and write.	Analyzing: Student is able to distinguish between different concepts/parts to recognize relationships and patterns. Key words for assessment include: compare, contrast, examine, experiment, question, test, criticize, and differentiate.	Evaluating: Student is able to justify a position or decision. Key words for assessment include: argue, defend, judge, support, value, and appraise.	Creating: Student is able to create a new product or point of view. Key words for assessment include: assemble, construct, create, design, develop, and formulate.
1	2	3	4	5	6
This rubric was created using Bloom’s Taxonomy

b. Describe how the above results were communicated to the department and used to develop plans for improvement.

The AHE faculty meet on a bi-weekly basis. The faculty have conducted “in-program” assessments for the past ten years. The university's decision to formalize program assessment is allowing our faculty to make the assessment process continuous, systematic, and well documented for program improvement. Per department leadership direction, faculty will revise our assessment plans to standardize the procedures and to make them a routine part of our program.

5. Assessment and Subsequent Action

a. Based on assessment, we will describe any changes (content, pedagogical, structural, etc.) that are an outgrowth of the assessment to include timelines and number of graduates

Sample
EDLD 616
No major changes are planned for this fall based on the assessment results, although the course assignments will be more tightly coupled to program and course learning outcomes to aid in assessment of the student’s learning and of the course itself. However, the next time EDLD 616 is assessed, scores on the final paper this semester will be compared to scores presented in this report to evaluate the need for changes to better facilitate student learning toward these outcomes.

EDLD 614: Two new evaluation frameworks were added to this course including an Indigenous evaluation framework and a International sustainable development framework of the United Nations. Both frameworks expand the scope of evaluation to address pressing needs in Indigenous and international communities.

EDU 628:

Comprehensive Exams

We will continue to assess each learning outcome on an annual basis to evaluate overtime progress. In preparation for the biennial report, we will take a random sample of the material collected in between reporting cycles to prepare a meta-assessment of the program. We will also revise our current assessment plans to reflect the biennial reporting cycle.

We have begun to maintain records on student outcomes including research presentations, publications, and grant activity at the program level. Previously, each faculty member maintained their own records in the Faculty Activity Database, which didn’t allow us to readily track student productivity. Creating a database for student productivity will allow us to ensure students are gaining valuable experiences outside of the classroom, networking, and engaging with national scholars. These scholarly products and experiences address learning outcomes 1-5.

Learning Outcome Assessment Schedule
	Year
Outcomes	2023-2024	2024-2025	2025-2026	2026-2027	2027-2028	2029-2030
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X

6. Closing the Loop

a. If there have been changes in program/curriculum to reflect concerns from previous assessments, what impact have the changes had (if any) on achieving the desired level of student learning outcomes?

We made two important programmatic changes from the last reporting cycle. First, we changed our continuous admission cycle to Fall only. This has enabled us to create a cohort model for incoming students and a consistent schedule of classes. This change has resulted in two important outcomes. One, the annual enrollment has helped us better plan for our schedule of classes by knowing which courses we need to offer, how often, and when. Second, the graduate students have created a grassroots organization—Department of Education Graduate Students (DEGS). The DEGS provides a social and academic network for students to support their integration and involvement in the department and university.

To align with the national recruitment trends, we adapted an early applicant submission of February 1 for fall admission. All additional fall applicants are due by the secondary application date, April 1. The early admission deadline is to recruit competitive students in and out of the state and to give them priority access to graduate assistantships. We currently have xx students with assistantships in areas such as athletics, Office of Student Engagement, Office of Inclusion and Diversity, Gallatin College, and residence life to name a few. These GA positions provide a valuable resource to the university in the way of human capital. In turn, students gain a valuable applied learning context to experience first-hand the blending of theory and practice. This latter point goes far to meet Learning Outcome 1 and 2.

Appendix A

Comprehensive Exams
The Master’s comprehensive exam has three parts—comprised of three, multi-part questions including foundations, specialization, and a research article critique. The page length for each question ranges from 12-15 pages excluding references. The written exam should be in APA 7th Ed. format and returned to the committee. The chair of the committee will work with the student to develop appropriate and relevant exam questions.

The student will receive the exam questions from the chair on a Friday and have seventeen days to complete the written portion. The student should acknowledge the receipt of the exams when they receive the initial email from the chair. The student should contact the chair if they have any questions during the exam process. Upon completion of the written work, the student should return the written responses to the chair. The chair will send a reply email acknowledging she received the exams. The chair will then send the exam responses to the entire committee for review, lasting no more than two weeks, and subsequent communication to students of the result and graduate school forms completed.

Committee Procedures
The chair should notify the committee and let them know the proposed timeline for the student’s exam period prior sending the exam questions to the student. The chair will send the committee the completed exams and ask the committee to respond with their evaluation of the written work within two weeks. If the committee agrees that the student’s written work warrants a “pass,”

If the committee views the comprehensive exam and does not warrant a pass on any one of the three responses, the committee will prepare questions for the candidate to present an oral presentation. The committee’s questions may address only the part of the written exam in question. The scope of the questions should probe the student to (1) expand on what is written, (2) clarify any ideas or analysis of the work, and (3) anything else that would absolve the non-Pass.

Upon completion of the responses, the student will be excused from the room while the committee deliberates on the evaluation of the student’s oral responses. The committee will decide on whether the student “passed” or “did not pass” the exam. If the student passes the exam, then the committee is not expected provide the candidate with any formal written feedback. If the committee decides that the student did not pass the exam, the committee chair will prepare recommendations for remediation. The department will follow the graduate student guidelines for retaking any part of the written and oral exams.

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_AHE_PLAN_2017-20

Assessment Plan: Department of Education

M.Ed. in Adult & Higher Education
2017‐2020

Program Learning Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.
Develop meaningful solutions to complex problems of practice from a position of equity and social justice.
Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic and systematic inquiry.
Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

Curriculum Map - required

		Outcomes
	Cr	1	2	3	4	5	6
EDLD 616 Org & Admin in Higher Ed	3	D	D	D	D
EDU 614 Planning Program Assessment	3	D	D	D	D	D
EDU 637 Institutional Research & Assessment	3	D	D	D	D	D
EDCI 501 Educational Statistics	3	I		I		I
EDCI 506 Applied Educational Research	3			D		I

Student Performance: Data Sources

		Outcomes
	Cr	1	2	3	4	5	6
EDLD 616 Org & Admin in Higher Ed	3	X	X
EDU 614 Planning Program Assessment	3		X		X
EDU 637 Institutional Research & Assessment	3		X		X
EDCI 501 Educational Statistics	3			X		X
EDCI 506 Applied Educational Research	3			X		X

Response Threshold

We will spend the AY 2017‐18 developing the rubric and response threshold.

Schedules

Outcomes

	Year
Outcome	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
1		X			X
2		X			X
3	X			X
4			X			X
5	X			X

Assessment Plan Elements

	Year
Outcome	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
1		X			X
2		X			X
3	X			X
4			X			X
5	X			X

Course Review

	Review Year
Course	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
EDLD 616			X			X
EDU 614			X			X
EDU 637		X			X
EDCI 501				X
EDCI 506		X			X

Process for Assessing the Data

Annual Assessment Process

Data is collected from identified courses.
Random samples of collected assignments are scored by two faculty members using
prepared scoring rubrics.
The assessment coordinator tabulates the scores. Areas where the acceptable performance threshold has not been met are highlighted.
The scores are presented to the faculty for assessment.
The faculty reviews the assessment results, and makes decisions on how to respond.
- If an acceptable performance threshold has not been met, a faculty response is required. Possible responses:
  - Gather additional data next year to verify or refute the result.
  - Change something in the curriculum to try to fix the problem.
  - Change the acceptable performance threshold.
  - Choose a different assignment to assess the outcome.
- Faculty can respond to assessment results even if the acceptable performance threshold has been met.
- It is OK to determine that changes are not needed when students are demonstrating proficiency with each learning outcome.
A summary of the year’s assessment activities and faculty decisions is reported to the Provost’s Office in your Department’s Annual Assessment Activities report.

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_AHE_REPORT_2016-17

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year: 2016-17
Department: Education
Program(s): Adult and Higher Education, Masters of Education (M.Ed.)

1. What Was Done

Master’s comprehensive examinations were administered to five master’s students successfully defended their comprehensive exams and graduated during the AY16-17. We currently have 14 active master’s students.

2. What Data Were Collected

All five master’s students passed their comprehensive examinations (100% pass rate). Of these five students, one student has moved forward to pursue a PhD in education.

3. What Was Learned

Master’s committee chairs meet with master’s students prior to taking their comprehensive examinations to discuss the format and expectations for the comprehensive examinations. As a result of faculty transparency regarding comprehensive examination expectations, students pass the comprehensive examinations solely based on their mastery of the core program knowledge.

Increasingly, we have more Master’s students who finish and want to transition into the doctoral program. As a result, the AHE faculty are working on how to differentiate the Master’s comprehensive exams from the doctoral comprehensive exams, especially in the foundations area of higher education.

Faculty observation and student anecdotal evidence have pointed to a potential concern that spring- admitted master’s students do not cohere into the program as well as fall-admitted master’s students.

Anecdotally, students are interested in graduate assistantships. These assistantships provide them with authentic learning in bridging theory with practice and financial support for their education.

4. How We Responded

Program faculty were pleased to see the results of the master’s comprehensive examination process and plan to continue meeting with students at the point when they are ready to schedule their comprehensive examinations.

The program faculty are in the process of revising the comprehensive exam process to provide those students with a strong higher education background with a unique and authentic exam experience when they move into the doctorate. The faculty are in the early stages of this potential revision and will seek graduate student input in the exam process.

To alleviate concerns about cohort cohesion and to facilitate the hiring of graduate students into a growing number of program graduate teaching assistantships, the program has moved to an annual admissions cycle in order to start all new graduate students together in the same semester rather than allowing for admission in both fall and spring. Additionally, program faculty included a message in admissions letters to all graduate students to reach out to their assigned advisor in order to enroll in prescribed coursework for the first semester.

The current deadline for enrollment into the Med program is April 1. To address growing interest in graduate assistantships, the AHE program has initiated an early preferred deadline (Feb. 1) for those students who want to be considered for a graduate assistantship on campus.

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_AHE_REPORT_2015-16

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year: 2015-16
Department: Education
Program(s): Adult and Higher Education, Masters of Education (M.Ed.)

1. What Was Done

Master’s comprehensive examinations were administered to 7 master’s students: 2 in fall 2014, 2 in spring 2015, 1 in summer 2015, and 2 in fall 2015.

2. What Data Were Collected

All 7 master’s students passed comprehensive examinations (100% pass rate).

3. What Was Learned

Faculty observation and student anecdotal evidence have pointed to a potential concern that spring- admitted masters students do not cohere into the program as well as fall-admitted masters students.

4. How We Responded

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_AHE_REPORT_2013-14

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year: 2013‐14
Department: Education
Program(s): Adult and Higher Education, Masters of Education (M.Ed.)

1. What Was Done?

2 students sat and completed their written comprehensive exams.

2. What Data Were Collected?

Pass rates were collected to assess the program. Both students who sat for comprehensive examinations passed the written comprehensive exam, leading to a 100% pass rate.

3. What Was Learned?

The final requirement to complete a Master’s in Education (Adult & Higher Education) is the student’s comprehensive exam. Students take their comprehensive exams during their last semester in the program. The exam is comprised of a foundation, specialization, and research questions. The foundation questions covers the fundamental knowledge to understand student development, organizational structure, history and philosophy of higher education, and institutional research. The specialization question focuses on the student’s cognate area such as service learning, online education, residence life. The research question asks students to conduct a research study article critique. One goal of the research article critique is to help students become savvy consumers of the extant literature. Students are exposed to research throughout their graduate program and do a good work in critiquing the studies. We are interested in learning more about how students can learn to apply research to their respective professional positions in higher education.

Students often enter the program with experience and interest in a specific facet of higher education such as residence life, student services, student athletes, marketing and recruitment, and financial aid. As a result, students often maintain that focus throughout their program. Our faculty are excited to have students show their enthusiasm for a specific area of higher education. However, we also believe that at the Master’s Level there is an opportunity to explore different areas of higher education that may be less familiar to them.

4. How We Responded?

During this reporting year we added two important additions to the program with the goal of building and developing a scholarly practitioner model for Master’s students. First, we included an additional goal to the research question that asked students to apply what they learned from the article critique to higher education. Specifically, the students were asked to provide recommendations to a division of higher education based on the article’s findings. This new focus on the application of knowledge was an important addition to demonstrate the student’s ability to merge research and practice. Second, we have encouraged and supported students to attend professional conferences in an effort to network with other professionals, learn more about their field of study, and to present their research projects. These scholarly activities reinforce the students’ roles as scholarly practitioners.

In an effort to diversify and expand students’ interest in higher education, students have been encouraged to include independent studies and internships to their Program of Study. These less formal educational opportunities have three important functions. First, they allow students to immerse themselves in an authentic learning experience by joining a division on campus and working 150 hours along side professional higher education administrators and directors. Second, the academic components of the internships and independent studies allow students to develop a current “state of understanding” of the pressing issues and trends in higher education. Third, students develop a portfolio to showcase the range of activities and duties they performed as part of their independent studies and internships.

Adult & Higher Education - Doctor of Education (EdD)

Program Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.
Develop meaningful evidence‐based solutions to complex problems of practice from a position of equity and social justice.
Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic and systematic inquiry.
Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

EHHD_ED_GR_EDD_AHE_REPORT_YEAR_0

Assessment Plan – Year 0 Report

College: Education, Health, & Human Development
Department: Education
Submitted by: Sarah Pennington

_{Year 0 Assessment Plan Report is due September 15th .}

Indicate all majors, minors, certificates and/or options that are included in this new assessment Plan

Majors/Minors/Certificate	Options
Doctor of Education - Education (Ed.D.)	Adult & Higher Ed: Higher Education Academics
	Adults & Higher Ed: Higher Education Administration

Part 1: Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)

PLOs should be written as specific, measurable statements describing what students will be able to do upon completion of the program. The assessment of PLOs provide feedback on the expected knowledge, skills, and attitudes that students develop as they progress through their program.
List the program learning outcomes:

PLO#	PLO Description
1.	Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.
2.	Develop meaningful solutions to complex problems of practice from a position of equity and social justice.
3.	Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic and systematic inquiry.
4.	Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
5.	Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

Part 2: Development of Assessment Plan

Each plan will require the following information:
Threshold Values: Along with PLOs, plans should include threshold values; minimums against which to assess student achievement for learning outcomes. Threshold values are defined as an established criteria for which outcome achievement is defined as met or not met.
Methods of Assessment & Data Source: Assessment plans require evidence to demonstrate student learning at the program level. This evidence can be in the form of a direct or indirect measure of student learning. Both direct and indirect assessment data must be associated with the program’s learning outcomes. An assessment rubric will also need to be included that demonstrates how evaluation of the data was used to assess student achievement.
Timeframe for Collecting and Analyzing Data: Develop a multi-year assessment schedule that will show when all program learning outcomes will be assessed. As graduate assessment reports are biennial, faculty review of assessment results may only occur every other year, however, annual faculty meeting to review these data and discuss student progress may be beneficial.

2a. Curriculum Map

ASSESSMENT PLANNING CHART
Program Learning Outcomes	Course Alignments: Include rubric, number and course title	Identification of Assessment Artifact
1, 5	EDU 600 – Doctoral Seminar	Literature Review
1, 4, 5	EDU 690 – Doctoral Thesis	Doctoral Dissertation
1, 2	EDLD 605 – Higher Education History & Philosophy	Paper 3 (American Indian HE); Final Paper
3	EDLD 616 – Organization & Administration of Higher Education	Final Position Paper
3, 4	EDLD 628 – College Students	Research proposal & Presentation
	EDU 637 – Institutional Research & Assessment
3	EDU 614 – Program Evaluation	Executive Summary of Final Evaluation Report
3, 5	EDU 610 – Qualitative Research	Research Proposal/Project/IRB app
3, 5	EDU 607 – Quantitative Educational Research	Research Proposal/Project/IRB app
3, 4	Program Benchmark: Comprehensive Exams	Written comprehensive exams with oral defense
ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
		Year to be assessed
PLO	Course	2022-2023	2023-2024	2024-2025	2025-2026	2026-2027
1	EDU 600 – Doctoral Seminar		X			X
1	EDU 690 – Doctoral Thesis		X		X
1	EDLD 605 – Higher Education History & Philosophy	X
2	EDLD 605 – Higher Education History & Philosophy	X
3	EDLD 616 – Organization & Administration of Higher Education	X
3	EDLD 628 – College Students		X
3	EDU 614 – Program Evaluation			X
3	EDU 610 – Qualitative Research	X			X
3	EDU 607 – Quantitative Educational Research			X
3	Program Benchmark: Comprehensive Exams			X
4	EDU 690 – Doctoral Thesis		X
4	EDLD 628 – College Students	X			X
4	Program Benchmark: Comprehensive Exams			X
5	EDU 690 – Doctoral Thesis		X
5	EDU 610 – Qualitative Research	X			X
5	EDU 607 – Quantitative Educational Research			X

Part 3: Program Assessment

The assessment plan will need to include: 1. how assessment will be conducted; 2. who receives the analyzed assessment data, and 3. how it will be used by program faculty for program improvement(s).

1) How will assessment artifacts be identified?

The adult and higher education program faculty in collaboration with the Director of Accreditation and Department Head. Identification of artifacts will consider how effectively each artifact provides evidence of the appropriate PLO.

The EdD Higher Education Academics specialization is intended for individuals who will teach and/or provide academic leadership and support in the area of college teaching and learning within a diverse range of post-secondary settings. Individuals pursuing this option may hold a Master's degree within higher education or another discipline in which they will teach or provide academic leadership. The EdD in Higher Education Administration specialization is intended for individuals who will contribute to the administrative leadership and support within a range of diverse post-secondary settings. The primary objective of the degree is to produce informed scholarly practitioners for mid- to upper-level management or administrative positions. These individuals typically manage or direct either academic or student affairs operational functions.

Comprehensive Exams/Dissertation

2) How will they be collected (and by whom)?

Data will be collected by the Graduate Programs Coordinator, course instructors, and committee chairs as appropriate. Data may include course and project-specific grades as well as results of comprehensive exams and dissertation defenses.

b. How sample will be collected?
All final papers from the course were collected, and those completed by students in the M.Ed. program will be assessed for the learning outcomes. Samples will be collected through the D2L Course Home Page typically in the Assignment Drop Box: This is where students submit formal assignments. In the Drop Box Forum, students see the titles for each formal assignment. Students click on the tile of the corresponding assignment you want to submit and add the document as a file and submit. A census sample will be collected for the comprehensive exams for both Fall and Spring semesters.

3. Data Analysis
a. Who participated in the process, the nature of the rubric utilized (or other norming methods), and the threshold outcome desired.

Criterion	Exemplary (10 points)	Proficient (8 or 9 points)	Developing (7 points)	Unacceptable (6 or fewer)
Discussion of problem	Work shows evidence of synthesis, summary, and critique of empirical findings and professional experience to articulate understanding of problem; demonstrates use of at least 10 empirical articles in support	Work shows evidence of selection and explanation of empirical findings, and some professional experience, to articulate understanding of problem; demonstrates use of at least 7 empirical articles in support	Work shows some evidence of reliance on empirical findings to articulate understanding of problem, but leans heavily on experience; demonstrates use of at least 5 empirical articles in support	Work shows little evidence of reliance on empirical findings to articulate understanding of problem and tends to solely situate conclusions in personal experience; does not include at least 5 empirical sources
Appropriateness of proposed solution	Work demonstrates ability to infer potential solutions from understanding of problem; work fully evaluates proposed solution and one alternative (particularly in relation to empirical support)	Work demonstrates ability to identify potential solutions from understanding of problem, but may fail to fully justify connection; work comprehensively but not fully evaluates proposed solution and/or one alternative	Work outlines major elements of proposed solution but fails to fully connect these elements to problem; evaluation of proposed solution not fully developed, alternative omitted	Work fails to connect solution to problem and fails to fully explain solution and to provide an alternative
Feasibility of implementation plan	Work demonstrates evidence of application of frames and conceptual knowledge of the higher education system to problem in a manner that depicts a thorough, feasible, multi-faceted approach to influence change toward the proposed solution to the identified problem; work also pays heed to potential weaknesses and limitations of implementation plan	Work demonstrates evidence of application of frames and conceptual understanding of the system that supports implementation plan feasibility, but fails to assess potential program weaknesses or limitations	Work demonstrates explanation of feasibility and depth of proposed implementation plan, but fails to explicitly connect to identified problem and/or conceptual understanding of higher education; also fails to attend to potential weaknesses or limitations	Work fails to fully demonstrate feasibility and thoroughness of implementation plan, particularly in relation to frames and conceptual understanding of the system; fails to attend to weaknesses and/or limitations

EDLD 614:

	Developing	Emerging	Sophisticated
Poster Elements	The element is overly generalized, lacks precision, with little evidence of support and synthesis	The element is more general, yet with reasonable support and adequate synthesis	The element is original, creative, specific, substantiated, defendable, and complex
Title
Positionality
Evaluation questions & evaluand context
Critique of related literature
Theory driven
Methodological cohesion and soundness
Analysis of data
Conclusions and recommendations to important stakeholders
Clear, well organized, and visually aesthetic representation to all important stakeholders

EDU 628:

Learning Outcomes 1 and 2
The AHE program faculty formalized their comprehensive exam, these efforts were intended to (1) make the process and expectations clear to students and faculty, (2) ensure consistency, and (3) systemize the execution of the procedures and assessment. The processes for the procedures are in Appendix A. We expect every student to pass the important milestones associated with degree completion. The committee chair will assess the students’ readiness for their exams. This proactive strategy uses a developmental approach to ensure a successful outcome for the student. If the committee chair thinks that the student may need further development in a content or research area, the chair will provide the students with additional resources and recommendations for preparation for the exam. Therefore, our program strives for a 100% success rate for comprehensive exams based on the use of these proactive and developmental procedures.

AHE Rubric for Assessing Learning Outcomes
Introductory		Developing		Mastery
Remembering: Student is able to recall information. Key words for assessment include: define, list, recall, and reproduce.	Understanding: Student is able to explain ideas and concepts. Key words for assessment include: classify, described, discuss, explain, translate, and paraphrase.	Applying: Students is able to use information in a new way. Key words for assessment include: choose, demonstrate, illustrate, interpret, solve, and write.	Analyzing: Students is able to distinguish between different concepts/parts to recognize relationships and patterns. Key words for assessment include: compare, contrast, examine, experiment, question, test, criticize, and differentiate.	Evaluating: Student is able to justify a position or decision. Key words for assessment include: argue, defend, judge, support, value, and appraise.	Creating: Student is able to create a new product or point of view. Key words for assessment include: assemble, construct, create, design, develop, and formulate.
1	2	3	4	5	6
This rubric was created using Bloom’s Taxonomy

Dissertation/Comprehensive Exams
Pass rates will be used to assess learning outcomes one and two listed above. All XX EdD students who took their comprehensive exams passed, resulting in a XX% pass rate.

Dissertation
Pass rates will be used to assess learning outcomes one and two listed above. All XX EdD students who took their comprehensive exams passed, resulting in a XX% pass rate.

4. Results
a. What was revealed from analyzing learning outcome data regarding student learning? Describe any result, pattern, or trends that you identify as meaningful.

EDLD 616
On average, M.Ed. students scored xxx on discussion of the problem, reflecting mastery of content; and xx each on appropriateness and feasibility of proposed solution, reflecting proficiency (but not mastery) of developing potential solutions—around x-x on the proposed six-point scale below. In general, our master’s students appear to be reaching the desired program learning outcomes as a result of participation in EDLD 616 which is then reflected in the integration of their practical knowledge with course material.
EDU 628:
Students will be assessed on the overall contributions they make to the class as a whole including class meetings and online engagement as well as on the attributes of their written/oral submissions.

Comprehensive Exam/Dissertation

3) Who will be assessing the artifacts?

Program faculty, in collaboration with the Graduate Programs Coordinator, Director of Accreditation, and Department Head, will be assessing data on an annual basis to identify areas for program improvement. Additionally, program learning outcome assessment scores for the specific artifact assignment
will not influence the student’s earned grade in the course.

Part 4: Program Assessment Plan

All plans must include assessment rubrics (the methodology of how student artifacts are to be assessed, and a threshold for student success attainment. (The chart below is an example of the information requested…you can configure your rubrics in different ways)

PLO #1 Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.					Threshold Values
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Identification of problems	Provides multiple perspectives on a problem relevant to their field of study	Describes the complexity of a problem relevant to their field of study	Identifies a problem relevant to their field of study	Partially identifies a problem OR identifies a problem that is not clearly relevant to their field of study
Contextualized analysis of problem(s)	Applies disciplinary skills and knowledge to thoroughly analyze a problem relevant to their field of study resulting in a nuanced discussion of perspectives	Applies disciplinary skills and knowledge to thoroughly analyze a problem relevant to their field of study	Logical analysis of a problem relevant to their field of study is guided by elements of disciplinary skills & knowledge	Analysis of a problem relevant to their field of study is incomplete and may include assumptions and statements not supported by disciplinary knowledge.
PLO #2 Develop meaningful evidence‐based solutions to complex problems of practice from a position of equity and social justice.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Meaningful evidence-based solutions	Designs a study utilizing appropriate, evidence-based methods firmly grounded in theory and previous literature (or gaps therein) to study a complex problem of practice relevant to their field	Designs a study utilizing appropriate, evidence-based methods grounded in theory and/or previous literature (or gaps therein) to study a complex problem of practice relevant to their field	Designs a study utilizing minimally appropriate, evidence-based methods which may or may not be grounded in theory and/or previous literature (or gaps therein) to study a problem of practice relevant to their field	Designs a study that does not utilize appropriate, evidence-based methods grounded in theory and/or previous literature (or gaps therein) to study a problem of practice relevant to their field
Social Justice & Equity	Integrate understanding of social justice and equity into investigation of solutions related to a complex problem relevant to their field, resulting in solutions that support the vitality and self-determination of diverse stakeholders.	Integrate understanding of social justice and equity into investigation of solutions related to a complex problem relevant to their field	Apply minimal understanding of social justice and equity into investigation of solutions related to a complex problem relevant to their field	Does not apply understanding of social justice and equity into investigation of solutions related to a complex problem relevant to their field
PLO #3 Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic and systematic inquiry.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Synthesis	Synthesizes personal knowledge, as well as practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge from the literature to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Synthesizes personal knowledge, as well as two of the following: practical, theoretical, or empirical knowledge from the literature to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Synthesizes personal knowledge, as well as one of the following: practical, theoretical, or empirical knowledge from the literature to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Does not synthesize personal knowledge, as well as practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge from the literature to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.
Critical Analysis	Critically analyzes sources identified for synthesis to identify biases and gaps and utilizes these to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Critically analyzes sources identified for synthesis to identify biases or gaps and utilizes these to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Conducts surface analysis of sources identified for synthesis to identify biases or gaps and utilizes these to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Conducts surface analysis of sources identified for synthesis that does not identify biases or gaps and/or utilizes these to minimally inform systemic and systematic inquiry.
PLO #4 Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Effective Communication	Consistently and successfully utilizes strategies for effective communication, including awareness of the intended audience, purpose of the communication, and clear organization and support to enhance the message.	Frequently and successfully utilizes strategies for effective communication, including awareness of the intended audience, purpose of the communication, and clear organization and support to enhance the message.	Inconsistently utilizes strategies for effective communication, including awareness of the intended audience, purpose of the communication, and clear organization and support.	Rarely utilizes strategies for effective communication, including awareness of the intended audience, purpose of the communication, and clear organization and support.
Communication in Multiple Modes	Consistently and successfully demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively in multiple modes, including a variety of written/visual products, oral presentations, and interpersonal communications.	Demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively in multiple modes, including a variety of written/visual products, oral presentations, and interpersonal communications.	Demonstrates basic ability to communicate effectively in multiple modes, including a variety of written/visual products, oral presentations, and interpersonal communications.	Does not demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively in multiple modes, including a variety of written/visual products, oral presentations, and interpersonal communications.
PLO #5 Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Ethical Scholarship	Adhere to guidelines for ethical scholarship, including those for the protection of human subjects, as well as principles of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion within all scholarly activities.	Adhere to guidelines for ethical scholarship, including those for the protection of human subjects within all scholarly activities.	N/A	N/A
Professionalism	Consistently and successfully adhere to guidelines for professional conduct, including respectful interactions with others, collegiality, and collaboration.	Frequently and successfully adhere to guidelines for professional conduct, including respectful interactions with others, collegiality, and collaboration.	Inconsistently adhere to guidelines for professional conduct, including respectful interactions with others, collegiality, and collaboration.	Infrequently adhere to guidelines for professional conduct, including respectful interactions with others, collegiality, and collaboration.

Part 5: Program Assessment Plan:

1) How will annual assessment be communicated to faculty within the department? How will faculty participating in the collecting of assessment data (student work/artifacts) be notified?

Faculty, staff, and graduate students in the program meet bi-weekly to discuss programmatic matters. The assessment reports will be communicated in a Fall department meeting each year. This will be communicated ahead of time through the weekly Monday Minutes communication that is sent out to the department community.

2) When will the data be collected and reviewed, and by whom?

Data will be collected each semester and reviewed on an annual basis by program faculty and the Assessment & Alignment Committee within the department. This committee consists of faculty and staff within the department.

3) Who will be responsible for the writing of the report?

The report will be written by program leadership with input and feedback from the faculty.

4) How, when, and by whom, will the report be shared?

The report will be shared by program leadership with the faculty at a fall department meeting. It will be sent to faculty ahead of the meeting in order to provide time for them to preview and prepare to provide feedback at the faculty meeting.

5) How will past assessments be used to inform changes and improvements? (How will Closing the Loop be documented)?

As part of each cycle’s assessment, we will set goals for continuous program improvement. These goals will be revisited throughout the cycle to determine what progress is being made toward the goals and what additional adjustments need to be made to continue progress.

6) Other Comments:

Submit report to programassessment@montana.edu

EHHD_ED_GR_EdD_AHE_PLAN_2017-20

Assessment Plan: Department of Education

EdD in Adult and Higher Education 2017‐2020

5/15/17

Program Learning Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.
Develop meaningful evidence‐based solutions to complex problems of practice
from a position of equity and social justice.
Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic
and systematic inquiry.
Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

Curriculum Map

		Outcomes
Course	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDU 600‐Doctoral Seminar	3	I	I	I	I	I
EDU 650‐Dissertation Seminar	3		D	D	D	D
EDU 602‐Ed Stats II	3	D		D		I
EDU 607‐Quantitative Ed Research	3	D	D	D	D	D
EDU 610‐Qualitative Ed Research	3	D		D	M	M
EDLD 605‐ Higher Ed History	3	D		D	D
EDLD 616‐ Org & Admin	3	D		D	D
EDLD 628‐ College Students	3	D		D	D
EDU 637‐ Inst Rsrch & Assess	3	D	D	D	D	D
EDU 614‐ Plng Prog Assess	3	D	D	D	D	D
EDU 690‐Doctoral Thesis	18	M	M	M	M	M

Student Performance: Data Sources

		Outcomes
Required Courses	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDU 600‐Doctoral Seminar	3	X	X	X	X	X
EDU 650‐Dissertation Seminar	3		X	X	X	X
EDU 602‐Ed Stats II	3	X		X		X
EDU 607‐Quantitative Ed Research	3	X	X	X	X	X
EDU 610‐Qualitative Ed Research	3	X		X	X	X
EDLD 605‐ Higher Ed History	3	X		X	X
EDLD 616‐ Org & Admin	3	X		X	X
EDLD 628‐ College Students	3	X		X	X
EDU 637‐ Inst Rsrch & Assess	3	X	X	X	X	X
EDU 614‐ Plng Prog Assess	3	X	X	X	X	X
EDU 690‐Doctoral Thesis	18	X	X	X	X	X

Response Threshold

During the 2017‐18 AY we will finalize our rubrics and determine response threshold.

Schedules

Outcomes Review

	Year
Outcome	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X

Assessment Plan Elements Review

	Year
Outcome	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X

Course Review

	Review Year
Course	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
EDU 600	X					X
EDU 650	X					X
EDU 602		X
EDU 607		X
EDU 610			X
EDLD 605			X
EDLD 616				X
EDLD 628				X
EDLD 637					X
EDU 614					X
EDLD 690						X

Process for Assessing the Data

Annual Assessment Process

Data is collected from identified courses.
Random samples of collected assignments are scored by two faculty members using
prepared scoring rubrics.
The assessment coordinator tabulates the scores. Areas where the acceptable performance threshold has not been met are highlighted.
The scores are presented to the faculty for assessment.
The faculty reviews the assessment results, and makes decisions on how to respond.
- If an acceptable performance threshold has not been met, a faculty response is required. Possible responses:
  - Gather additional data next year to verify or refute the result.
  - Change something in the curriculum to try to fix the problem.
  - Change the acceptable performance threshold.
  - Choose a different assignment to assess the outcome.
- Faculty can respond to assessment results even if the acceptable performance threshold has been met.
- It is OK to determine that changes are not needed when students are demonstrating proficiency with each learning outcome.
A summary of the year’s assessment activities and faculty decisions is reported to the Provost’s Office in your Department’s Annual Assessment Activities report.

EHHD_ED_GR_EdD_AHE_REPORT_2016-17

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year: 2016-17
Department: Education
Program(s): Adult and Higher Education, Doctorate of Education

1. What Was Done

5 doctoral students sat for written and oral comprehensive examinations, 4 students defended dissertation proposals, and 1 students defended final dissertations. We also had 3 PhD students defend their dissertations.

2. What Data Were Collected

Pass rates were collected to assess the program: All 5 students who sat for comprehensive examinations passed both the written and oral exams, leading to a 100% pass rate. 4 defended proposals, 100% pass rate. One student who defended their final dissertations passed, leading to a 100% pass rate.

3. What Was Learned

Primarily, our decision to not allow students to take their comprehensive exam, schedule a dissertation proposal defense, or schedule a final dissertation defense until the chair feels the student is ready has continued to be validated, and serves as a successful strategy for helping students complete. However, this strategy can increase time to degree with students who require more intensive support in finishing their writing. In the Summer 2017, we implemented a new policy in which students in EDLD 690 Dissertation Credits can earn an “N” rather than a “Pass” or “No Pass.” The “N” represents that the student is working on their dissertation, but may not meet the stated goals agreed upon between the student and faculty advisor. To date, no students have earned an “N.”

The AHE program has hired a new Tenure Track faculty member. We now have four full-time faculty: two who are tenured and two pre-tenured. We have 30 active doctoral students, this is a substantial advising and mentoring load, particularly for the two tenured faculty members. The new tenure track faculty member will contribute to chairing dissertations, thereby reducing the number of advisees for each faculty member.

We have learned that supporting students at a distance requires a combination of high tech and high touch support. Distance students tend to be more engaged through the use of a cohort model as reflected by the success of students who are in the Great Falls cohort. Two members of the Great Falls cohort will defend their dissertation Fall 2017.

The program has had a large uptick in the number of students interested in coming to MSU from outside of Montana. Many of these students are searching for graduate school in highly respected higher education programs. These students are seeking graduate assistantships to support their education financially but also substantively through research and assistantship experiences.

4. How We Responded

To decrease time-to-degree for students who need additional writing support, in 2015-16 we restructured the EDLD 690 Doctoral Thesis course into a structured writing group meeting on a similar weekly schedule to our departmental graduate courses. One program faculty member leads this session to provide time for intensive writing sessions as well as one-on-one feedback on students’ writing. We have maintained this structure for 2016-17. To support our students who are at the dissertation writing phase, we have used virtual classroom technology through WebEx so that students can see and hear their classmates as they discuss progress on their dissertation research.

Second, as a department we changed our admissions calendar for our Ed.D. programs to only review and admit students once per year. Our concern was that students admitted in the spring were less integrated into their programs, and were not succeeding similarly to their classmates who began fall semester. The intent of a single application deadline is to establish a cohort style model that helps students build community among the group that entered their respective doctoral programs together, much like we have experienced with the Great Falls cohort.

In support of this goal, EDU 691 has been implemented this 2016 fall semester to introduce and socialize doctoral students into graduate study. Two sections are offered, one for new Ph.D. students and the other for new Ed.D. students.

To streamline students’ progression toward the dissertation, the program faculty developed a two-year rotation of core Adult and Higher Education courses to ensure that the four core courses are offered frequently enough to allow for students to complete coursework within two years. As well, the department faculty developed a methods course rotation schedule to ensure doctoral students start methods courses upon matriculation, complete courses in a prescribed order, and have access to the methods courses needed in order to facilitate completion.

We are also re-establishing the function and role of the graduate committee. Currently, four faculty members serve on the committee for each doctoral student. This means that each faculty member in AHE either chairs or serves as a committee member for each student. The graduate school policy is that the fourth member of the committee is a nonreader, meaning they are not required to read the students’ dissertation. In the past, all four members have read and responded to the students work. Because of our high advising loads, we are re-establishing the role of the fourth member and designating her as a nonreader. This means that only in the case where there may be a disagreement between the faculty readers about the research will the fourth member read the dissertation and weigh in on the students’ work.

The current deadline for enrollment into the EdD program is April 1. To address growing interest in graduate assistantships, the AHE program has initiated an early preferred deadline (Feb. 1) for those students who want to be considered for a graduate assistantship on campus. This early deadline serves two important functions. First, it allows the AHE program to be nationally competitive for the top students in the field. Second, it allows the program to recruit students from outside of Montana, which in turn, diversifies our students in the program.

EHHD_ED_GR_EdD_AHE_REPORT_2015-16

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year: 2015-16
Department: Education
Program(s): Adult and Higher Education, Doctorate of Education

1. What Was Done

8 doctoral students sat for written and oral comprehensive examinations, 3 students defended dissertation proposals, and 3 students defended final dissertations.

2. What Data Were Collected

Pass rates were collected to assess the program: All 8 students who sat for comprehensive examinations passed both the written and oral exams, leading to a 100% pass rate. 3 defended proposals, 100% pass rate. All 3 students who defended their final dissertations passed, leading to a 100% pass rate.

3. What Was Learned

The AHE program has four full-time faculty: two who are tenured, one who is pre-tenure, and one who is non-tenure-track. With 40 active status doctoral students, this is a substantial advising and mentoring load, particularly for the two tenured faculty members.

4. How We Responded

To decrease time-to-degree for students who need additional writing support, in 2015-16 we restructured the EDLD 690 Doctoral Thesis course into a structured writing group meeting on a similar weekly schedule to our departmental graduate courses. One program faculty member leads this session to provide time for intensive writing sessions as well as one-on-one feedback on students’ writing. We have observed some success in 2015-16 in terms of student progress, with 3 students successfully defending their dissertations. We have maintained this structure for 2016-17. To support our students who are at the dissertation writing phase, we have used virtual classroom technology through WebEx so that students can see and hear their classmates as they discuss progress on their dissertation research.

These efforts are undertaken by a small and committed group of four faculty who have tried to address the advising and mentoring demands by requesting a tenure-track line. The program is strong and growing but will require additional supervisory capacity in order to support student progression and completion.

EHHD_ED_GR_EdD_AHE_REPORT_2014-15

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year: 2014‐15
Department: Education
Program(s): Adult and Higher Education, Doctorate in Education (Ed.D.)

1. What Was Done?

7 doctoral students sat for written and oral comprehensive examinations. 3 doctoral students defended final dissertations.

2. What Data Were Collected?

Comprehensive examinations are comprised of four questions. The 20‐page foundation questions covers the fundamental knowledge to understand student development, organizational structure, history and philosophy of higher education, and institutional research. The 20‐page specialization question focuses on the student’s cognate area of interest and invites them to: 1) demonstrate an understanding of the theoretical and empirical literature with respect to that cognate; and 2) apply theory and literature to a series of recommendations for improved practice. The 20‐page research design question asks students to design a research study based on their problem of interest from two methodological paradigms common in education research: quantitative and qualitative. Finally, the 15‐page article critique demonstrates the extent to which the student has become a savvy consumer of the extant literature.

Pass rates were collected to assess the program. All 7 students who sat for comprehensive examinations passed both the written and oral exams, leading to a 100% pass rate. All 3 students who defended their final dissertations passed, leading to a 100% pass rate.

3. What Was Learned?

The research question asks students to conduct a research study article critique. We learned from students after completion of their comprehensive exams that it would be valuable to develop a comprehensive exam study guide. We also learned that students may be able to demonstrate more in depth conceptual knowledge and clarify their written responses through the oral examination with some level of advanced preparation.

4. How We Responded?

As a faculty, we discussed the key concepts from each required course and how to communicate approaches for preparing for comprehensive exams, particularly with respect to the research methodology and design questions. To facilitate greater clarity in the oral examination portion of the exam, the chair wrote to the student one week prior to the defense date and provided the students with four follow‐up questions or points requiring further clarification in the oral examination. This has resulted in students being more prepared not only to defend their written work but also demonstrate deeper conceptual, theoretical, and empirical understanding of the content orally.

Adult & Higher Education - College Teaching Certificate (CTC)

Program Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Recognize disciplinary/andragogical skills and knowledge.
Investigate empirical literature and practice‐based knowledge to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions.
Understand how different lenses impact teaching and research on teaching and learning.
Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

EHHD_ED_GR_CTC_AHE_PLAN_2017-20

Assessment Plan: Department of Education

College Teaching Certificate

5/15/17

Program Learning Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Recognize disciplinary/pedagogical skills and knowledge.
Investigate empirical literature and practice‐based knowledge to analyze problems
and develop meaningful solutions.
Understand how different lenses impact teaching and research on teaching and learning.
Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

Curriculum Map

		Outcomes
Required Courses	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDLD 635‐ College Teaching	3	D	D			D
EDLD 574 Field Experience in Educational Leadership – College Teaching practicum	3	D	D	D	D	D

Student Performance: Data Sources

		Outcomes
Required Courses	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDLD 635‐ College Teaching	3	X	X
EDLD 574 Field Experience in Educational Leadership – College Teaching practicum	3			X	X	X

Response Threshold

During the 2017‐18 AY we will finalize our rubrics and determine response threshold.

Schedules

Outcomes Review

	Year
Outcome	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X

Assessment Plan Element Review

	Year
Element	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X

Course Review

	Review Year
Course	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
EDLD 635	X			X
EDLD 574		X			X

Process for Assessing the Data

Annual Assessment Process

Data is collected from identified courses.
Random samples of collected assignments are scored by two faculty members using
prepared scoring rubrics.
The assessment coordinator tabulates the scores. Areas where the acceptable performance threshold has not been met are highlighted.
The scores are presented to the faculty for assessment.
The faculty reviews the assessment results, and makes decisions on how to respond.
- If an acceptable performance threshold has not been met, a faculty response is required. Possible responses:
  - Gather additional data next year to verify or refute the result.
  - Change something in the curriculum to try to fix the problem.
  - Change the acceptable performance threshold.
  - Choose a different assignment to assess the outcome.
- Faculty can respond to assessment results even if the acceptable performance threshold has been met.
- It is OK to determine that changes are not needed when students are demonstrating proficiency with each learning outcome.
A summary of the year’s assessment activities and faculty decisions is reported to the Provost’s Office in your Department’s Annual Assessment Activities report.

EHHD_ED_GR_CTC_AHE_REPORT_2016-17

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year 2016_17
Department: Education
Program: Adult and Higher Education, College Teaching Certificate

1. What was done?

Three students completed the College Teaching Practicum, which included a formal teaching experience and an academic seminar. There was one EdD student from Art Education, one MEd student from Adult and Higher Education, and one Adjunct Faculty member in Archeology. All three students conducted a classroom research project and presented their findings at the Department of Education’s Annual Research Symposium from 10:30-12:15 on April 26 in the SUB Ballroom 235. There were 23 graduate student presenters from the Department of Education, and over 50 attendees including administrators, faculty, family, and students from across campus and the Bozeman Community.

We currently have 10 active students seeking the College Teaching Certificate. These graduate students are from a cross-section of disciplines including engineering, microbiology, architecture, agriculture, other.

2. What data was collected?

There were five forms of data collected. Each student completed a Classroom Research Project, including a research paper and a scholarly poster. Each paper was comprised of an introduction, statement of problem, classroom research question, literature review, data collection and analysis, findings, conclusions, and recommendations for future practice.

Students also completed a Teaching Philosophy Statement that outlined their beliefs about teaching, student learning, assessment for learning, how to meet the needs of diverse learners, and plans for their future development as a college teacher.

There were two classroom observations recorded for each student. A peer conducted observation, and a faculty member from the student’s discipline conducted a second observation. Rubrics were used to evaluate each assignment, and feedback was provided to students.

In another of the required courses, EDLD 635 College Teaching, students conducted a teacher observation of an exemplary college teacher in their discipline, and each student presented a one-hour teaching session on a chosen topic in College Teaching and Learning and presented the lesson to the class.

3. What was learned?

Students learned how to systematically analyze student learning in their classes. They also learned about how to teach their discipline and to help students through the bottleneck concepts. Finally, students learned more about their beliefs, values, and epistemology of college teaching.

The program learned it was difficult to identify a disciplinary mentor in the students’ field. The feedback from the disciplinary mentor was variable with some mentors providing comprehensive feedback and other mentors providing cursory feedback. Students from the sciences also had a difficult time learning how to conduct social science research in their classrooms. Some students from the sciences were challenged by the quasi-experimental nature of the classroom research and questioned its validity. Some students also felt that teaching in their departments was devalued. Finally, the extent of each students teaching experience varied from being a teaching assistant in a lab, conducting guest lectures, conducting teaching seminars in their departments for other graduate students, and having a more independent teaching assignment in a class.

Student recruiting efforts were limited this past year due to the large EdD and PhD advising load of the program leader. The AHE program has hired a new tenure-track faculty member who can serve as a graduate student chair, which will reduce the number of advisees of the CTC program leader.

4. How we responded?

Greater effort is being taken to identify faculty members in the students’ disciplines who are known to value teaching. One strategy to identify faculty mentors is relying on the faculty mentors who have demonstrated an interest in prior CTC students. To this end, one student is working with their faculty mentor and the CTC program leader to implement a large-scale classroom research project in an undergraduate introductory microbiology course. The project is grounded in cognitive learning theory and aims to help students identify personal and professional relevancy of the course material in order to motivate them, make the content relevant, and aid in long term memory. This research will be written up for publication.

We have also made greater effort to enhance the quality of the student-disciplinary mentor relationship. This has been accomplished through increased interaction. For example, students are expected to meet with their disciplinary mentor once a month to learn more about the disciplinary structure of knowledge in their field and to learn more about concepts that students struggle with most. We have also implemented two classroom observations by each disciplinary mentor--one observation at the start of the semester and a second observation at the end of the semester. We realize the commitment required buy the disciplinary mentor and as a result, we include them as co-chair on the students CTC Program of Study. Finally, students spend additional time in the academic seminar reading classroom research and assessments to help them better understand quasi- experimental research and research on college teaching and student learning in their disciplinary area.

In an effort to recruit more CTC students, the program leader partnered with former CTC students to present at the new graduate student orientation in Aug. 2017. This presentation on neuroscience of learning sparked further interest in the program and it is expected that new students will enter the program this academic year as a result of this recruitment practice. Indeed, two students have already met with the current CTC program leader about enrollment in the program.

Curriculum & Instruction - Master of Education (MEd)

Program Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Recognize disciplinary/pedagogical skills and knowledge.
Investigate empirical literature and practice‐based knowledge to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions.
Understand how ethics, equity and social justice impact teaching and research.
Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_CI_REPORT_Year_0

Assessment Plan – Year 0 Report

Year 0 Assessment Plan Report is due September 15th.

College: Education, Health, & Human Development
Department: Education
Submitted by: Gilbert Kalonde

Indicate all majors, minors, certificates and/or options that are included in this new assessment Plan.

Majors/Minors/Certificate	Options
M.Ed.	Professional Educator; Educational Researcher

Part 1. Program Learning outcomes

Outcome	Outcome Description
1	Value disciplinary/pedagogical skills and knowledge
2	Investigate empirical literature, and practice-based knowledge to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions
3	Understand equity, ethics, and social justice
4	Communicate using multiple modes
5	Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner

Program Description (from Catalog):

At the Master's level, the Curriculum and Instruction program offers two options. The Professional Educator option is fully online and the Educational Researcher option is a blended-online and onsite option.

Professional Educator Option: Students in the Professional Educator online program will share strengths, develop new instructional strategies, study theory and best practice, as well as examine current issues in education and consider implications for teaching practice. Students who complete the Professional Educator option of the Curriculum & Instruction Master’s degree are expected to demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of a master teacher. For the Professional Educator option, all courses are offered in a 100% online format.

Educational Researcher Option: Students who complete the blended-online and onsite Educational Researcher option of the Curriculum & Instruction Master’s degree are expected to demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of a professional researcher. Most courses in the Educational Researcher option can be taken online.

Assessment Planning Chart with Identified Artifacts

Learning Outcomes	Course Alignments	Identification Assessment Artifact
1, 2	EDCI 504 Assessment and Evaluation in Education or EDCI Educational Statistics I	Final report Final grade
1, 2, 3, 4, 5	EDCI 506 Applied Educational Research	Research presentation Final grade
1, 2	EDCI 514 Mentoring New Teachers or elective	Final project Final Grade
1, 2, 3, 4, 5	EDCI 531 Contemporary Issues in Education or elective	Final project Final Grade
1, 2, 3, 4, 5	EDCI 575 Professional Paper Project or EDCI 590 Master’s Thesis	Professional Paper Project Final Presentation Final Grade

	Assessment Schedule for Courses
Course	2022-2023	2023-2024	2024-2025	2025-2026	2026-2027	2027-2028
EDCI 504		X			X
EDCI 506		X			X
EDCI 514			X			X
EDCI 531			X			X
EDCI 575	X			X
	Assessment Schedule for Outcomes
Outcome	2022-2023	2023-2024	2024-2025	2025-2026	2026-2027	2027-2028
1		x			x
2		x			x
3			x			x
4			x			x
5	x			x

Part 2. Development of Assessment Plan

Threshold Values:

Outcome achievement in MEd in C & I is defined as met if students earn a final grade of B (80%) or better for the courses being assessed that academic year. This will be considered meeting the “Acceptable” threshold. Consequently, during AY 2022-2023, final grades will be collected for each course included in the original assessment plan that are to be assessed (EDCI 514 and 531). The rubric provided in the “Assessment Method” section of this report details the threshold values in more depth.

This threshold value reflects an adjustment from previous years in which outcome achievement was considered met if at least 80% of students were rated “Acceptable” or higher on every category of the scoring rubrics used in each of the courses. This previous threshold was couched in an assessment plan that included faculty collecting a random sample of the assignments from the courses being assessed, blinding them, and having those assignments scored by two faculty members using the course’s prepared scoring rubric. Ultimately, this plan was deemed too time consuming and resource intensive. As a result, the threshold values (and subsequent overall assessment plan) has been adjusted this Fall 2022. The intention is that this threshold value is less time-consuming to measure, hopefully yielding results of far more utility.

Methods of Assessment & Data Source:

Like the threshold values for meeting program outcomes, this assessment plan for the MEd in Curriculum and Instruction reflects an adjustment from previous years’ assessment plans that were deemed too time, resource intensive, and constraining. Instead of randomly selecting assignments from those courses, and having faculty collectively contribute to assessing those assignments with a rubric, this new plan focuses instead on course grades. The rationale behind this adjustment is that it required the same assignments be used every single semester, especially given validity and reliability concerns. Further, the previous approach prevented individual faculty members from having the freedom to design course assignments as they see fit (instead of being beholden to the previous semester/instructor’s assignments) while still aligning to the intended outcomes. If courses are aligned to their course outcomes, the final course grade should serve as indication of students meeting or not meeting those course outcomes.

Time for Collecting and Analyzing Data

The MEd program assessment schedule is in three parts: 1) Curriculum, policies, and procedures review; 2) Learning outcome revision; 3) Learning outcomes and course assessment.

Curriculum, Policies, and Procedures Review

During this process, faculty will convene several times a year to review the graduate student handbook, and revise any policies and procedures to best meet the needs of students.

Learning Outcome Reviews

During this process, faculty will convene once a year to review courses and their learning outcomes. Collectively, faculty will update any outcomes and/or course assignments to ensure alignment between any assessment data and the program’s learning outcomes will also take place.

Learning Outcome and Course Assessment

During this process, final course grades will be collected for each of the courses to be assessed that year. Final course grades will be blinded, and the program leader coordinator will analyze those data to determine if the threshold for program outcomes was met, and students earned a final grade of 80% for the courses being assessed that academic year.

Updating of the assessment plan will happen in three parts:

Curriculum, Policies, and Procedures Review: In advance of reviewing courses and their learning outcomes, the Curriculum and Instruction program put forth considerable effort during AY 2018-2019 focused on developing a consistent graduate course rotation and Graduate Student Handbook (Appendix A). Because of the influence each of these dimensions of graduate education have on meeting the program’s learning outcomes, the faculty agreed that effort put forth toward refining our course rotation and developing a student handbook was energy well-spent. Faculty met every other week during the Fall 2018 and Spring 2019 to develop a graduate student handbook and refine and formalizing policies for the all graduate students, including MEd and EdD. In addition, departmental leadership developed a consistent graduate course rotation (Appendix B). This will help graduate students and advisors better anticipate and plan when courses are being offered. Ultimately, we recognized that we could not collect valid assessment data without first formalizing the curriculum, including the course rotation and policies and procedures for the program. This curriculum, policy, and procedure review will be a routine element of our assessment plan moving forward. In the last program assessment of 2017, the Curriculum and Instruction program committed to reviewing policies and procedures, including curricular alignment, that influence program learning outcomes. These efforts examined alignment between the EDCI 506 and 575 capstone/professional paper courses, two distinct courses but with considerable alignment that support student success. In addition, this review include analyzing and revising current departmental polices as they relate to the EDCI 575 capstone paper project. These efforts were initially launched in the Spring 2019 and will continue throughout AY 2019-2020 and beyond.

Learning Outcomes Review: Once a year, C & I graduate program faculty will convene to review courses and their learning outcomes. This process will follow the schedule provided below in the “Timeframe for Collecting and Analyzing Data” section and will focus on confirming that courses still align with the program’s learning outcomes. At this time, any updating of those outcomes and/or course assignments to ensure alignment between any assessment data and the program’s learning outcomes will also take place. This alignment will ensure the courses, and the course grades, are indicative of student learning at the program level. The following table outlines alignment of courses to learning outcomes:

PART 3. Program Assessment

Data will be collected by from identified course instructors of record to share outcomes/anonymize data
Scores/data will be presented to entire Curriculum and Faculty for assessment.
Faculty will review the assessment results, and makes decisions on how to respond.
If acceptable performance threshold is met, a faculty response will be required. Possible Responses:

Gather additional data the following academic year to verify or refute the results.
Change something in the curriculum to try to fix the problem.
Change the acceptable performance threshold.
Choose a different assignment to assess the outcome.

Faculty can respond to assessment results even if the acceptable performance threshold has been met.
A summary of the year’s assessment activities and faculty decision is reported to the Provost’s Office in the Department’s Annual Assessment Activities report

How will assessment artifacts be identified?

Artifacts will be collected from courses like EDCI 504, 506, 514, 531 and 575. The final paper EDCI 575 is the capstone for non-research option students. The EDCI 575 is assessed to cover professional paper for evidence of professional understanding of research and profession. This professional research paper synthesizes students’ work over two semesters on a problem in the profession surrounding K-12 learning, administration and pedagogy. This paper can be from 20 to 50 pages depending on the topic and data involved and collected. This paper showcases findings and analysis of data as evidence of knowledge of professional solution to their problem of focus in K-12 schools.

How will they be collected (and by whom)?

Data for the program will be collected by the Graduate Programs Coordinator, Course Instructors, and a group of faculty who constitute the Faculty Committee to as appropriate. Data may include course and project-specific grades as well as results of final papers and presentations.

Who will be assessing the artifacts?

Program faculty, in collaboration with the Graduate Programs Coordinator, Director of Accreditation, and Department Head, will be assessing data on an annual basis to identify areas for program improvement. Additionally, program learning outcome assessment scores for the specific artifact assignment will not influence the student’s earned grade in the course.

Part 4. Program Assessment Plan

All plans must include assessment rubrics (the methodology of how student artifacts are to be assessed, and a threshold for student success attainment.

PLO # 1 Value disciplinary/pedagogical skills and knowledge					Threshold Values
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Disciplinary pedagogical skills	Consistently identifies and uses disciplinary and pedagogical strategies	Frequently applies pedagogical skills	Demonstrates awareness of levels of knowledge pedagogical skill but does not apply them	Displays little or no understanding of prerequisite pedagogical skills
Disciplinary pedagogical knowledge	Consistently applies strategies of pedagogical knowledge in the discipline	Frequently applies pedagogical knowledge	Demonstrates awareness of relevant parts of pedagogical knowledge but lacks application	Displays little or no understanding of prerequisite pedagogical knowledge in content
PLO #2 Investigate empirical literature, and practice-based knowledge to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Identify and analyze problems	Able to identify and investigate empirical data to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions	Capable to identify and investigate empirical data to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions	Some ability to identify and investigate empirical data to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions	Not able to identify and investigate empirical data to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions
PLO # 3 Understand [how] equity, ethics, and social justice [impact teaching and research]
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Equity	Consistently uses an equity lens to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions in teaching and/or research contexts.	Frequently uses an equity lens to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions in teaching and/or research contexts.	Infrequently uses an equity lens to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions in teaching and/or research contexts.	Fails to use an equity lens to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions in teaching and/or research contexts.
Ethics	Consistently uses an ethics lens to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions in teaching and/or research contexts.	Frequently uses an ethics lens to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions in teaching and/or research contexts.	Infrequently uses an ethics lens to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions in teaching and/or research contexts.	Fails to use an ethics lens to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions in teaching and/or research contexts.
Social Justice	Consistently uses a social justice lens to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions in teaching and/or research contexts.	Frequently uses a social justice lens to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions in teaching and/or research contexts.	Infrequently uses a social justice lens to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions in teaching and/or research contexts.	Fails to use a social justice lens to analyze problems and develop meaningful solutions in teaching and/or research contexts.
PLO #4 Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Effective Communication	Consistently and successfully utilizes strategies for effective communication, including awareness of the intended audience, purpose of communication.	Frequently and successfully utilizes strategies for effective communication, including awareness of the intended audience and purpose of communication.	Inconsistently utilizes strategies for effective communication, including awareness of the intended audience, purpose of communication.	Rarely utilizes strategies for effective communication, including awareness of the intended audience and purpose of communication.
Communication in Multiple Modes	Consistently and successfully demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively in multiple modes, including a variety of written/visual products, oral presentations, and interpersonal communications.	Demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively in multiple modes, including a variety of written/visual products, oral presentations, and interpersonal communications.	Demonstrates basic ability to communicate effectively in multiple modes, including a variety of written/visual products, oral presentations, and interpersonal communications.	Does not demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively in multiple modes, including a variety of written/visual products, oral presentations, and interpersonal communications.
PLO #5 Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Ethical Scholarship	Adhere to guidelines for ethical scholarship, including those for the protection of human subjects, as well as principles of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion within all scholarly activities.	Adhere to guidelines for ethical scholarship, including those for the protection of human subjects within all scholarly activities.	Inconsistently adheres to guidelines for ethical scholarship, including those for the protection of human subjects within all scholarly activities.	Infrequently adheres to guidelines for ethical scholarship, including those for the protection of human subjects within all scholarly activities.
Professionalism	Consistently and successfully adhere to guidelines for professional conduct, including respectful interactions with others, collegiality, and collaboration.	Frequently and successfully adhere to guidelines for professional conduct, including respectful interactions with others, collegiality, and collaboration.	Inconsistently adhere to guidelines for professional conduct, including respectful interactions with others, collegiality, and collaboration.	Infrequently adhere to guidelines for professional conduct, including respectful interactions with others, collegiality, and collaboration.

Part 5. Program Assessment Plan

How will annual assessment be communicated to faculty within the department? How will faculty participating in the collecting of assessment data (student work/artifacts) be notified?
- Faculty, staff, and graduate students in the program meet bi-weekly to discuss programmatic matters. The assessment reports will be communicated in a Fall department meeting each year. This will be communicated ahead of time through the weekly Monday Minutes communication that is sent out to the department community.
When will the data be collected and reviewed, and by whom?
- Data will be collected each semester and reviewed on an annual basis by program faculty and the Assessment & Alignment Committee within the department. This committee consists of faculty and staff within the department.
Who will be responsible for the writing of the report?
- The report will be written by program leadership with input and feedback from the faculty.
How, when, and by whom, will the report be shared?
- The report will be shared by program leadership with the faculty at a fall department meeting. It will be sent to faculty ahead of the meeting in order to provide time for them to preview and prepare to provide feedback at the faculty meeting.
How will past assessments be used to inform changes and improvements? (How will Closing the Loop be documented)?
- As part of each cycle’s assessment, we will set goals for continuous program improvement. These goals will be revisited throughout the cycle to determine what progress is being made toward the goals and what additional adjustments need to be made to continue progress.
Other Comments:

Final Course Grade Rubric

Measure	Room for Improvement	Acceptable	Highly Effective	Exemplary
Course grades as indicative of students meeting intended program learning outcomes.	79% or fewer of students received a final course grade of B (80%) or better.	80%-89% of students received a final course grade of B (80%) or better.	90%-94% of students received a final course grade of B (80%) or better.	95% or more of students received a final course grade of B (80%) or better.

Appendix A

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_CI_PLAN_2017-20

Assessment Plan: Department of Education
M.Ed. in Education‐ Curriculum & Instruction

2017‐2020

5/15/17

Program Learning Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Recognize disciplinary/pedagogical skills and knowledge.
Investigate empirical literature and practice‐based knowledge to analyze problems
and develop meaningful solutions.
Understand how ethics, equity and social justice impact teaching and research.
Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

Curriculum Map

		Outcomes
Required Courses	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDCI 504‐ Assessment and Evaluation	3	D	D
EDCI 506‐ Applied Educational Research	3	D	D	D	D	D
EDCI 514‐ Mentoring New Teachers	3	D	D
EDCI 531 Contemporary Issues in Education	3	I	I	I	I	I
EDCI 575‐ Professional Paper/Project	3	M	M	M	M	M

Student Performance: Data Sources

		Outcomes
Required Courses	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDCI 504‐ Assessment and Evaluation	3	X	X
EDCI 506‐ Applied Educational Research	3	X	X	X	X	X
EDCI 514‐ Mentoring New Teachers	3	X	X
EDCI 531 Contemporary Issues in Education	3	X	X	X	X	X
EDCI 575‐ Professional Paper/Project	3	X	X	X	X	X

Response Threshold

During the 2017‐18 AY we will finalize our rubrics and determine response threshold.

Schedules

Outcomes Review

	Year
Outcome	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X

Assessment Plan Element Review

	Year
Element	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X

Course Review

	Review Year
Course	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
EDCI 504	X			X
EDCI 506	X			X
EDCI 514		X			X
EDCI 531		X			X
EDCI 575			X			X

Process for Assessing the Data

Annual Assessment Process

Data is collected from identified courses.
Random samples of collected assignments are scored by two faculty members using
prepared scoring rubrics.
The assessment coordinator tabulates the scores. Areas where the acceptable performance threshold has not been met are highlighted.
The scores are presented to the faculty for assessment.
The faculty reviews the assessment results, and makes decisions on how to respond.
- If an acceptable performance threshold has not been met, a faculty response is required. Possible responses:
  - Gather additional data next year to verify or refute the result.
  - Change something in the curriculum to try to fix the problem.
  - Change the acceptable performance threshold.
  - Choose a different assignment to assess the outcome.
- Faculty can respond to assessment results even if the acceptable performance threshold has been met.
- It is OK to determine that changes are not needed when students are demonstrating proficiency with each learning outcome.
A summary of the year’s assessment activities and faculty decisions is reported to the Provost’s Office in your Department’s Annual Assessment Activities report.

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_CI_REPORT_2016-17

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year: 2016-2017 Department: Education
Program(s): Masters in Curriculum & Instruction:
Professional Educator option, Educational Researcher option, and Technology Education option.

1. What Was Done

Master’s candidates have two options regarding their final assessment. One is to complete a professional paper in EDCI 575, Professional Paper and Project. This is for the Professional Educator and Technology Education options. The other option is to complete a master’s thesis in EDCI 590, Masters Thesis. This is for the Educational Researcher option. Also, exit instructor evaluations help determine the quality of course delivery and student success.

2. What Data Were Collected

For the Professional Educator and Technology Education option, data was collected on completion of the EDCI 575 Professional Paper and Project capstone course. Completion of this course is the final requirement for successfully earning their MEd in Curriculum and Instruction. For Educational Researcher master’s candidates, successfully passing the Master’s Thesis defense serves as completion of the degree requirements. These data were collected and analyzed. Course evaluations were also considered.

3. What Was Learned

In the Fall semester 2016, three of three Professional Educator option students enrolled in the Professional Paper course, EDCI 575, completed the course with an A as their grade. In the Spring semester 2017, nine of nine students completed the course. And Summer semester 2017, two of two students enrolled in the Professional Educator option completed the EDCI 575 course with an A.
In the Fall semester 2016, one student in the Educational Research program passed the Master’s Thesis class, EDCI 590, and successful defended the master’s thesis. This was only Educational Researcher candidate from the review period.
There were no students enrolled in the Technology Education Option in academic year 2016- 2017.
The C&I program has a long history of successfully preparing our students for their master’s work. This is largely attributed to the how we work closely with them as advisors and instructors during their coursework. For Professional Educator option and Technology Education students, advisors work closely with advisees during the research process. And for Educational Researcher option candidates, faculty do not allow students to advance to thesis unless they are well- prepared.

4. How We Responded

Students enrolled in all our master’s degree options continue to be successful in their progress toward degree completion. One possible reason for this success could be that students enrolled in the EDCI Professional Paper and Project course receive considerable and targeted feedback from two faculty members. The current course is designed so that candidates receive feedback on their research studies and papers while in the course from both their advisor and the course instructor.
We have continued our efforts toward a substantive curriculum mapping process that includes a more deliberate and purposeful calendar for when our research courses are being offered. This has helped our students more effectively plan their programs of study, as they know what courses will be taught when.
Currently, candidates in the Professional Educator option take courses in any order. We continue to examine the optimal program of study design for students, which likely includes completing EDCI 506, Applied Educational Research, one or two semesters prior to EDCI 575, Professional Paper and Project. The goal with this recommendation is to best prepare students with the research understandings needed to be successful in completing the professional paper in EDCI 575, Professional Paper and Project course. Moreover, if students go into that course with having already completed EDCI 506, Applied Educational Research, they will be able to build upon their EDCI 506 research for their final professional paper in EDCI 575.
We continue to discuss as a faculty having one application date for master’s students. The goal is to implement a cohort model that would allow us to offer courses in a consistent and consecutive order so students can more effectively plan their programs of study, as they will know what courses will be taught when.

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_CI_REPORT_2015-16

NWCCU Accreditation Narrative for Curriculum and Instruction MEd Programs
(Professional Educator, Technology Education, Educational Researcher)

Question 1 – What did you do on assessment this year?

Question 2 – What data did you collect?

Master's Level Professional Paper and Project course pass rates and Master’s Thesis pass rates were collected. Course evaluations were also considered.

Question 3 – What did your review of the data indicate for you?

Students in the Professional Paper course, EDCI 575, all completed the course with an A as their grade. Fall semester 2015, four of four students completed, Spring semester 2016 three of four student completed with one taking an incomplete, and Summer semester 2016, three of three completed the course indicating they successfully completed their MEd in Curriculum and Instruction. Students in the Technology Education Option take EDCI 575 as well therefore their pass rates are included in the data previously mentioned. The student who took an incomplete is finishing the class fall semester 2016.
Two students in the Educational Research program passed their Master’s Thesis class, EDCI 590.
In our programs in C&I we have a history of successfully preparing our students because we work closely with them as advisors and instructors and typically do not allow them to move forward unless they are prepared to move forward.

Question 4 – As a result of your review of the data, what did you do?

All of our students in MEd programs are doing well. One reason could be students in the Professional Paper program receive double support at the end of their program because they get feedback during the course from both their advisor and the course instructor.
We are in the process of discussing how we can make our programs more seamless. We currently have courses for students to take but they can take them at any time during the program. To make our program more seamless we would like to “map” our curriculum so students know what courses will be taught and when they should take them.
For the MEd, Professional Educator Option in C & I, students currently take courses in any order. We are discussing having students take EDCI 506, Applied Educational Research, one or two semesters prior to EDCI 575, Professional Paper and Project, to help prepare them for their final course (EDCI 575).
We are also discussing having one application date for master’s students in order to develop cohorts and offer courses in a consecutive order that makes more sense to students.

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_CI_REPORT_2013-14

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year: 2013‐14
Department: Education
Program(s): Curriculum and Instruction, Master’s of Education (M.Ed.)
NWCCU Accreditation Narrative for Curriculum and Instruction MEd Programs
(Professional Educator, Technology Education, Educational Researcher)

Question 1 – What did you do on assessment this year?

Question 2 – What data did you collect?

Master's Level Professional Paper and Project course pass rates and Master’s Thesis pass rates were collected. Course evaluations were also considered.

Question 3 – What did your review of the data indicate for you?

Students in the Professional Paper course, EDCI 575, all completed the course with an A as their grade. Fall semester 2013, one of one student completed and Spring semester 2014 four of four students completed the course indicating they successfully completed their MEd in Curriculum and Instruction. Students in the Technology Education Option take EDCI 575 as well therefore their pass rates are included in the previously mentioned data.
In our programs in C&I we have a history of successfully preparing our students because we work closely with them as advisors and instructors and typically do not allow them to move forward unless they are prepared to move forward.

Question 4 – As a result of your review of the data, what did you do?

All of our students in MEd programs are doing well. One reason could be students in the Professional Paper program receive double support at the end of their program because they get feedback during the course from both their advisor and the course instructor.
We are in the process of discussing how we can make our programs more seamless. We currently have courses for students to take but they can take them at any time during the program. To make our program more seamless we would like to “map” our curriculum so students know what courses will be taught and a suggested date of when they should take them.

Curriculum & Instruction - Doctor of Education (EdD)

Program Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.
Develop meaningful evidence-based solutions to complex problems of practice from a position of equity and social justice.
Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic and systematic inquiry.
Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

EHHD_ED_GR_EDD_CI_REPORT_YEAR_0

Assessment Plan – Year 0 Report

College: Education, Health, & Human Development
Department: Education
Submitted by: Sarah Pennington

_{Year 0 Assessment Plan Report is due September 15th .}

Indicate all majors, minors, certificates and/or options that are included in this new assessment Plan

Majors/Minors/Certificate	Options
Doctor of Education - Education (Ed.D.)	Curriculum & Instruction

Part 1: Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)

PLO#	PLO Description
1.	Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.
2.	Develop meaningful solutions to complex problems of practice from a position of equity and social justice.
3.	Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic and systematic inquiry.
4.	Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
5.	Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

Part 2: Development of Assessment Plan

2a. Curriculum Map

ASSESSMENT PLANNING CHART
Program Learning Outcomes	Course Alignments: Include rubric, number and course title	Identification of Assessment Artifact
1, 5	EDU 600 – Doctoral Seminar	Literature Review
1, 4, 5	EDU 650 – Dissertation Seminar	Dissertation Proposal Chapter 1; Brief Chapter 2
1, 4, 5	EDU 690 – Doctoral Thesis	Doctoral Dissertation
3, 5	EDU 610 – Qualitative Research	Qualitative Research Proposal/Project; IRB app.
3, 5	EDU 607- Quantitative Educational Research	Quantitative Research proposal/Project; IRB app.
2	EDU 612 – Critical Race Theory	Final Paper/Presentation
2	EDU 643 – Leading Social Justice	Action Plan
3, 4	Program Benchmark: Comprehensive Exams	Written comprehensive exams with oral defense


ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
		Year to be assessed
PLO	Course	2022-2023	2023-2024	2024-2025	2025-2026	2026-2027
1	EDU 600 – Doctoral Seminar		X			X
1	EDU 690 – Doctoral Thesis		X		X
2	EDU 612 - Critical Race Theory	X			X
2	EDU 643 – Leading Social Justice			X
3	EDU 610 – Qualitative Research	X			X
3	EDU 607- Quantitative Educational Research			X
3	Program Benchmark: Comprehensive Exams			X
4	EDU 650 – Dissertation Seminar
4	EDU 690 – Doctoral Thesis		X		X
4	Program Benchmark: Comprehensive Exams			X
5	EDU 650 – Dissertation Seminar		X			X
5	EDU 610 – Qualitative Research	X			X
5	EDU 607- Quantitative Educational Research			X

Part 3: Program Assessment

The assessment plan will need to include: 1. how assessment will be conducted; 2. who receives the analyzed assessment data, and 3. how it will be used by program faculty for program improvement(s).

1) How will assessment artifacts be identified?

Assessment artifacts will be identified by program faculty in collaboration with the Director of Accreditation and Department Head. Identification of artifacts will consider how effectively each artifact provides evidence of the appropriate PLO.

2) How will they be collected (and by whom)?

3) Who will be assessing the artifacts?

Program faculty, in collaboration with the Graduate Programs Coordinator, Director of Accreditation, and
Department Head, will be assessing data on an annual basis to identify areas for program improvement. Additionally, program learning outcome assessment scores for the specific artifact assignment
will not influence the student’s earned grade in the course.

Part 4: Program Assessment Plan

All plans must include assessment rubrics (the methodology of how student artifacts are to be assessed, and a threshold for student success attainment. (The chart below is an example of the information requested...you can configure your rubrics in different ways)

PLO #1 Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.					Threshold Values
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Identification of problems	Provides multiple perspectives on a problem relevant to their field of study	Describes the complexity of a problem relevant to their field of study	Identifies a problem relevant to their field of study	Partially identifies a problem OR identifies a problem that is not clearly relevant to their field of study
Contextualized analysis of problem(s)	Applies disciplinary skills and knowledge to thoroughly analyze a problem relevant to their field of study resulting in a nuanced discussion of perspectives	Applies disciplinary skills and knowledge to thoroughly analyze a problem relevant to their field of study	Logical analysis of a problem relevant to their field of study is guided by elements of disciplinary skills & knowledge	Analysis of a problem relevant to their field of study is incomplete and may include assumptions and statements not supported by disciplinary knowledge.
PLO #2 Develop meaningful evidence‐based solutions to complex problems of practice from a position of equity and social justice.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Meaningful evidence-based solutions	Designs a study utilizing appropriate, evidence-based methods firmly grounded in theory and previous literature (or gaps therein) to study a complex problem of practice relevant to their field	Designs a study utilizing appropriate, evidence-based methods grounded in theory and/or previous literature (or gaps therein) to study a complex problem of practice relevant to their field	Designs a study utilizing minimally appropriate, evidence-based methods which may or may not be grounded in theory and/or previous literature (or gaps therein) to study a problem of practice relevant to their field	Designs a study that does not utilize appropriate, evidence-based methods grounded in theory and/or previous literature (or gaps therein) to study a problem of practice relevant to their field
Social Justice & Equity	Integrate understanding of social justice and equity into investigation of solutions related to a complex problem relevant to their field, resulting in solutions that support the vitality and self-determination of diverse stakeholders.	Integrate understanding of social justice and equity into investigation of solutions related to a complex problem relevant to their field	Apply minimal understanding of social justice and equity into investigation of solutions related to a complex problem relevant to their field	Does not apply understanding of social justice and equity into investigation of solutions related to a complex problem relevant to their field
PLO #3 Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic and systematic inquiry.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Synthesis	Synthesizes personal knowledge, as well as practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge from the literature to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Synthesizes personal knowledge, as well as two of the following: practical, theoretical, or empirical knowledge from the literature to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Synthesizes personal knowledge, as well as one of the following: practical, theoretical, or empirical knowledge from the literature to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Does not synthesize personal knowledge, as well as practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge from the literature to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.
Critical Analysis	Critically analyzes sources identified for synthesis to identify biases and gaps and utilizes these to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Critically analyzes sources identified for synthesis to identify biases or gaps and utilizes these to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Conducts surface analysis of sources identified for synthesis to identify biases or gaps and utilizes these to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Conducts surface analysis of sources identified for synthesis that does not identify biases or gaps and/or utilizes these to minimally inform systemic and systematic inquiry.
PLO #4 Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Effective Communication	Consistently and successfully utilizes strategies for effective communication, including awareness of the intended audience, purpose of the communication, and clear organization and support to enhance the message.	Frequently and successfully utilizes strategies for effective communication, including awareness of the intended audience, purpose of the communication, and clear organization and support to enhance the message.	Inconsistently utilizes strategies for effective communication, including awareness of the intended audience, purpose of the communication, and clear organization and support.	Rarely utilizes strategies for effective communication, including awareness of the intended audience, purpose of the communication, and clear organization and support.
Communication in Multiple Modes	Consistently and successfully demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively in multiple modes, including a variety of written/visual products, oral presentations, and interpersonal communications.	Demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively in multiple modes, including a variety of written/visual products, oral presentations, and interpersonal communications.	Demonstrates basic ability to communicate effectively in multiple modes, including a variety of written/visual products, oral presentations, and interpersonal communications.	Does not demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively in multiple modes, including a variety of written/visual products, oral presentations, and interpersonal communications.
PLO #5 Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Ethical Scholarship	Adhere to guidelines for ethical scholarship, including those for the protection of human subjects, as well as principles of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion within all scholarly activities.	Adhere to guidelines for ethical scholarship, including those for the protection of human subjects within all scholarly activities.	N/A	N/A
Professionalism	Consistently and successfully adhere to guidelines for professional conduct, including respectful interactions with others, collegiality, and collaboration.	Frequently and successfully adhere to guidelines for professional conduct, including respectful interactions with others, collegiality, and collaboration.	Inconsistently adhere to guidelines for professional conduct, including respectful interactions with others, collegiality, and collaboration.	Infrequently adhere to guidelines for professional conduct, including respectful interactions with others, collegiality, and collaboration.

Part 5: Program Assessment Plan:

1) How will annual assessment be communicated to faculty within the department? How will faculty participating in the collecting of assessment data (student work/artifacts) be notified?

2) When will the data be collected and reviewed, and by whom?

3) Who will be responsible for the writing of the report?

The report will be written by program leadership with input and feedback from the faculty.

4) How, when, and by whom, will the report be shared?

5) How will past assessments be used to inform changes and improvements? (How will Closing the Loop be documented)?

6) Other Comments:

Submit report to programassessment@montana.edu

EHHD_ED_GR_EdD_CI_PLAN_2017-20

Assessment Plan: Department of Education
EdD in Education‐ Curriculum & Instruction

2017‐2020

5/15/17

Program Learning Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.
Develop meaningful evidence based solutions to complex problems of practice from
a position of equity and social justice.
Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic
and systematic inquiry.
Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

Curriculum Map

		Outcomes
Required Courses	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDU 600‐Doctoral Seminar	3	I	I	I	I	I
EDU 602‐Ed Stats II	3	D		D		I
EDU 607‐Quantitative Ed Research	3	D	D	D	D	D
EDU 610‐Qualitative Ed Research	3	D		D	M	M
EDU 612‐ Critical Race Theory	3	D	D	D	D	D
EDLD 643‐ Leading Social Justice	3		D		D	D
EDCI 532‐ General School Curriculum	3	D			D
EDCI 541‐ History and Philosophy of Education	3	D	D	D	D
EDCI 544‐Philosophical Issues in Education	3			D	D	D
EDCI 536‐Construction of Curriculum	3	D	D	D		D
EDCI 604‐ Advanced Ed Psych	3	D	D	D
EDU 690‐Doctoral Thesis	15	M	M	M	M	M

Student Performance: Data Sources

		Outcomes
Required Courses	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDU 600‐Doctoral Seminar	3	X	X	X	X	X
EDU 602‐Ed Stats II	3	X		X		X
EDU 607‐Quantitative Ed Research	3	X	X	X	X	X
EDU 610‐Qualitative Ed Research	3	X		X	X	X
EDU 612‐ Critical Race Theory	3	X	X	X	X	X
EDLD 643‐ Leading Social Justice	3		X		X	X
EDCI 532‐ General School Curriculum	3	X			X
EDCI 541‐ History and Philosophy of Education	3	X	X	X	X
EDCI 544‐Philosophical Issues in Education	3			X	X	X
EDCI 536‐Construction of Curriculum	3	X	X	X		X
EDCI 604‐ Advanced Ed Psych	3	X	X	X
EDU 690‐Doctoral Thesis	15	X	X	X	X	X

Response Threshold

During the 2017‐18 AY we will finalize our rubrics and determine response threshold.

Schedules

Outcomes Review

	Year
Outcome	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X

Assessment Plan Element Review

	Year
Element	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X

Course Review

	Review Year
Course	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
EDU 600	X
EDU 602	X
EDU 607		X
EDU 610		X
EDU 612			X
EDLD 643			X
EDCI 604				X
EDCI 532				X
EDCI 541					X
EDCI 544					X
EDCI 531						X
EDU 690						X

Process for Assessing the Data

Annual Assessment Process

Data is collected from identified courses.
Random samples of collected assignments are scored by two faculty members using
prepared scoring rubrics.
The assessment coordinator tabulates the scores. Areas where the acceptable performance threshold has not been met are highlighted.
The scores are presented to the faculty for assessment.
The faculty reviews the assessment results, and makes decisions on how to respond.
- If an acceptable performance threshold has not been met, a faculty response is required. Possible responses:
  - Gather additional data next year to verify or refute the result.
  - Change something in the curriculum to try to fix the problem.
  - Change the acceptable performance threshold.
  - Choose a different assignment to assess the outcome.
- Faculty can respond to assessment results even if the acceptable performance threshold has been met.
- It is OK to determine that changes are not needed when students are demonstrating proficiency with each learning outcome.
A summary of the year’s assessment activities and faculty decisions is reported to the Provost’s Office in your Department’s Annual Assessment Activities report.

EHHD_ED_GR_EdD_CI_REPORT_2016-17

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year: 2016-2017
Department: Education
Program(s): Curriculum and Instruction, EdD

1. What Was Done

Curriculum and Instruction doctoral candidates must complete two key components in their efforts toward successful degree completion. The first is the comprehensive exam written and oral defense. And the second key milestone is the defense of the dissertation. Based on the Curriculum and Instruction program’s assessment plan, it is these two key milestones that we have evaluated for this report.

2. What Data Were Collected

We collected 1) doctoral level comprehensive exam written and oral pass rates; 2) and dissertation defense pass rates.

3. What Was Learned

During the 2016-2017 academic year, all students who completed their comprehensive exams passed those exams. In the Fall semester 2016, five of five students successfully completed and passed both of their oral and written comprehensive exams. And in the Spring semester 2017, twelve of twelve students successfully completed and passed both of their oral and written comprehensive exams.
Equal success was evidenced with students defending their dissertations. In the Fall semester 2016, three EdD candidates successfully defended their dissertations. In the Spring semester 2017, five students successfully defended their dissertation. And lastly, in the summer of 2017, one EdD candidate successfully defended their dissertation.
The Curriculum and Instruction program has a long history of successfully preparing our students for their doctoral work, which is largely attributed to the how we work closely with them as advisors and instructors. Additionally, faculty do not allow candidates to advance to oral and written and comprehensive exams, or defend their dissertations, unless they are well- prepared to advance to those stages in their doctoral studies.
Despite all students passing their comprehensive exam oral and written defenses, some students continue to be challenged with the precision of understanding needed for advanced educational research.

4. How We Responded

A plan is being developed to continue encouraging an active trajectory toward completion for our doctoral students. Faculty are currently engaged in policy discussions regarding specific comprehensive exam policies and how many dissertations credits students can complete prior to completion of their comprehensive exams.
We have continued our efforts toward a substantive curriculum mapping process that includes a more deliberate calendar for when our research courses are being offered. This has helped our students more effectively plan their programs of study, as they know what courses will be taught when.
For the EdD, we continue to discuss ow we can better prepare our students for the comprehensive exam written and oral defenses. As stated, students occasionally struggle with the research portion of the defense. To address this need, we have implemented a plan requiring students to take all Research Courses: EDU 602 (Educational Statistics II), EDCI 506 (Applied Educational research), EDU 610 (Qualitative Educational Research), and EDU 607 (Quantitative Educational Research).

EHHD_ED_GR_EdD_CI_REPORT_2015-16

NWCCU Accreditation Narrative for
Curriculum and Instruction EdD Programs

Question 1 – What did you do on assessment this year?

Doctoral candidates have two components of their final stretch for completion of their program. The first is the comprehensive exam written and oral defense and the second is the defense of the dissertation.

Question 2 – What data did you collect?

Doctoral level comprehensive exam written and oral pass rates and dissertation defense pass rates.

Question 3 – What did your review of the data indicate for you?

Students who completed their comprehensive exams all passed. Fall semester 2015, seven of seven students completed and Spring semester 2016, seven of seven students completed and passed both of their oral and written comprehensive exams.
Students who defended their dissertations were equally as successful. Spring semester 2016, eight of eight students successfully passed their dissertation defenses.
In our programs in C&I we have a history of successfully preparing our students because we work closely with them as advisors and instructors and typically do not allow them to move forward unless they are prepared to move forward.
Even though all students passed their comprehensive exam oral and written defenses, some students still struggle with the “research” elements.

Question 4 – As a result of your review of the data, what did you do?

All of our students in the EdD programs for Curriculum and Instruction are doing well. Professors work closely with students to prepare them for the comprehensive exam written and oral defenses and the dissertation defense.
We are in the process of discussing how we can make our programs more seamless. We currently have courses for students to take but they can take them at any time during the program. To make our program more seamless we would like to “map” our curriculum so students know what courses will be taught and when they should take them.
For the EdD, we are discussing how we can better prepare our students for the comprehensive exam written and oral defenses. As stated, students sometime struggle with the research portion of the defense. We would like to better prepare them by requiring students to take all Research Courses: EDU 602 (Educational Statistics II), EDCI 506 (Applied Educational research), EDU 610 (Qualitative Educational Research), and EDU 607 (Quantitative Educational Research). Currently students choose nine credits, not all 12 credits.

Curriculum & Instruction - Library Media Certificate (LMC)

Program Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Demonstrate the ability to design, implement, assess, and evaluate an information literacy program that prepares independent lifelong learners and includes the ability to demonstrate collaboration techniques with students and staff in the development and implementation of K‐12 curriculum.
Demonstrate the ability to manage the library facility to meet school district goals by:
1. utilizing current practices in the areas of policy development, budgeting, needs assessment, and collaboration with students and colleagues; and
2. demonstrating competency and professionalism in library program administration including budgeting, facilities, equipment, public relations, and program advocacy
Promote reading for learning and enjoyment by demonstrating the ability to:
1. manage library collections through evaluation, selection, acquisition, and organization of library materials;
2. collaborate with teachers and students in the selection of reading materials in print and digital formats; and
3. select materials which reflect knowledge of current youth literature, support a wide range of information needs and interests, and support American Indians and tribes in Montana;
Demonstrate knowledge of technical services and the policies and procedures that govern these services.
Model and facilitate the effective use of current and emerging digital information tools to locate, analyze, evaluate, and efficiently and ethically use information to support research, learning, creating, and communicating in a digital society.

EHHD_ED_GR_LMC_REPORT_YEAR_0

Assessment Plan – Year 0 Report

^{Year 0 Assessment Plan Report is due September 15th.}

College: Education, Health, & Human Development
Department: Education
Submitted by: Sarah Pennington

Indicate all majors, minors, certificates and/or options that are included in this new assessment Plan

Majors/Minors/Certificate	Options
Library Media Certificate

Part 1: Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs):

List the program learning outcomes:

PLO#	PLO Description
1	Promote cultural competence and respect for inclusiveness; integrate the National School Library Standards into instruction; and demonstrate an awareness of learner’s development in the design and delivery of instruction.
2	Collaborate with members of the learning community to plan, implement, and assess culturally responsive instruction using a variety of instructional strategies and assessments aligned to the National School Library Standards. Guide learners to reflect on their own growth; and use data to revise instruction.
3	Promote children’s and young adult literature that meets diverse developmental, cultural, social, and linguistic needs of all learners; and use evidence-based strategies to foster learner motivation to read for learning, personal growth, and enjoyment. Model, promote, and teach critical thinking, information literacy, and the inquiry process using multiple literacies. Use digital tools, resources, and emerging technologies to design and adapt learning experiences; engage learners in finding, evaluating, creating, and communicating data and information; and articulate, communicate, model, and teach digital citizenship.
4	Model, facilitate, and advocate for equitable access to and the ethical use of resources in a variety of formats. Develop, curate, organize, and manage a collection of resources that meet the diverse needs of the school community. Make effective use of data and other forms of evidence to evaluate and inform decisions about library policies, resources, and services.
5	Actively engage in leadership, collaboration, advocacy, and professional networking. Participate in and lead ongoing professional learning. Advocate for effective school libraries to benefit all learners. Conduct oneself in accordance with the ethical principles of the library and information profession.

Part 2: Development of Assessment Plan

Each plan will require the following information:

Threshold Values: Along with PLOs, plans should include threshold values; minimums against which to assess student achievement for learning outcomes. Threshold values are defined as an established criteria for which outcome achievement is defined as met or not met.

Methods of Assessment & Data Source: Assessment plans require evidence to demonstrate student learning at the program level. This evidence can be in the form of a direct or indirect measure of student learning. Both direct and indirect assessment data must be associated with the program’s learning outcomes. An assessment rubric will also need to be included that demonstrates how evaluation of the data was used to assess student achievement.

Timeframe for Collecting and Analyzing Data: Develop a multi-year assessment schedule that will show when all program learning outcomes will be assessed. As graduate assessment reports are biennial, faculty review of assessment results may only occur every other year, however, annual faculty meeting to review these data and discuss student progress may be beneficial.

2a. Curriculum Map

ASSESSMENT PLANNING CHART
Program Learning Outcomes	Course Alignments: Include rubric, number and course title OR Program Procesess/Product	Identification of Assessment Artifact
5	EDCI 550: School Library Ethics & Advocacy	Advocacy Plan
1, 4, 5	EDCI 546: Administration of the School Library	Managing the Library
2, 3	EDCI 522: Information Literacy Instruction	Information Literacy Unit Plan
1, 2	EDCI 547: Inquiry Based Learning for School Librarians	Collaborative Inquiry Unit Plan
1, 3	EDCI 549: Reading Promotion in the School Library	Motivation to Read
4	EDCI 548: Collection Development for School Libraries	Collection Budgeting
1 – 5	EDCI 598: Internship	Practicum Performance Reflection

ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
		Year to be assessed
PLO	Course or Process/Product	2022-2023	2023-2024	2024-2025	2025-2026	2026-2027
1	EDCI 546: Administration of the School Library	X	X	X	X	X
1	EDCI 547: Inquiry Based Learning for School Librarians	X	X	X	X	X
1	EDCI 549: Reading Promotion in the Library	X	X	X	X	X
1	EDCI 598: Internship	X	X	X	X	X
2	EDCI 547: Inquiry Based Learning for School Librarians	X	X	X	X	X
2	EDCI 598: Internship	X	X	X	X	X
3	EDCI 549: Reading Promotion in the School Library	X	X	X	X	X
3	EDCI 522: Information Literacy Instruction	X	X	X	X	X
3	EDCI 598: Internship	X	X	X	X	X
4	EDCI 546: Administration of the School Library	X	X	X	X	X
4	EDCI 548: Collection Development for School Libraries	X	X	X	X	X
4	EDCI 598: Internship	X	X	X	X	X
5	EDCI 550: School Library Ethics & Advocacy	X	X	X	X	X
5	EDCI 546: Administration of the School Library	X	X	X	X	X
5	EDCI 598: Internship	X	X	X	X	X

Part 4: Program Assessment Plan:

Component	Level 1 - Emerging	Level 2 - Basic	Level 3 - Proficient
PLO 1: The Learner and Learning Target Threshold: 100% of learners will meet or exceed Level 2. 70% of learners will meet Level 3.		Promote cultural competence and respect for inclusiveness; integrate the National School Library Standards into instruction; and demonstrate an awareness of learner’s development in the design and delivery of instruction.
1.1 Learner Development	Instruction does not incorporate the National School Library Standards and does not address learners’ needs and interests through the four domains of learning.	Design and implement developmentally appropriate instruction that incorporates the National School Library Standards and addresses learners’ needs and interests through the relevant domains of learning: the cognitive (think), the psychomotor (create), the affective (share), and the developmental (grow).	Design and implement a diverse array of developmentally appropriate, evidence-based instruction that incorporates the National School Library Standards and that addresses learners’ needs and interests through the four domains of learning: the cognitive (think), the psychomotor (create), the affective (share), and the developmental (grow).
1.2 Learner Diversity	Learning experiences and resources do not model cultural competence and respect for inclusiveness.	Designs learning experiences and uses resources that articulate and model cultural competence and respect for inclusiveness.	Design learning experiences and use resources that enhance individual and group perspectives and broaden learners’ access to diverse literature and resources.
1.3 Learning Differences	Learning does not address intellectual abilities, learning modalities, and physical variabilities.	Construct learning that addresses intellectual abilities, learning modalities, and physical variabilities.	Design, implement, and evaluate learning that addresses intellectual abilities, learning modalities, and physical variabilities.
1.4.a Learning Environments – Physical / Virtual	Does not create physical and virtual learner-centered environments.	Create engaging physical and virtual learner-centered environments that accommodate a variety of activities for individuals and groups.	Create physical and virtual learner-centered environments that are engaging, innovative, and equitable.
1.4.b Learning Environments – Learner Respect	Learning environments do not address mutual respect among learners.	Provide learning environments that address mutual respect among learners and facilitate the curation and creation of knowledge.	Create stimulating learning environments that provide opportunities for all learners to express varied perspectives and encourage the curation and creation of knowledge.

Component	Level 1 - Emerging	Level 2 - Basic	Level 3 - Proficient
PLO 2: Planning for Instruction Target Threshold: 100% of learners will meet or exceed Level 2. 70% of learners will meet Level 3.		Collaborate with members of the learning community to plan, implement, and assess culturally responsive instruction using a variety of instructional strategies and assessments aligned to the National School Library Standards. Guide learners to reflect on their own growth; and use data to revise instruction.
2.1 Planning for Instruction	Inquiry-based and/or resource-based instruction are not planned collaboratively.	Collaboratively plan with members of the learning community to design developmentally and culturally responsive resource-based learning experiences that integrate inquiry and provide equitable, efficient, and ethical information access.	Collaboratively plan with members of the learning community across disciplines to design developmentally and culturally responsive resource-based learning experiences that integrate inquiry and provide equitable, efficient, and ethical information access.
2.2.a Instructional Strategies – Variety	Do not use a variety of instructional strategies for learners to inquire, include, collaborate, curate, explore, and engage in their learning.	Use a variety of instructional strategies and create multiple opportunities for learners to inquire, include, collaborate, curate, explore, and engage in their learning.	Use a variety of evidence-based instructional strategies and create multiple opportunities for all learners to inquire, include, collaborate, curate, explore, and engage in their learning.
2.2.b Instructional Strategies - Technology	Make limited use of technology in the instructional setting.	Integrate technology into instructional strategies.	Integrate a variety of technologies into instructional strategies.
2.3 Integrating Ethical Use of Information into Instructional Practice	Do not teach learners to evaluate information for accuracy, bias, validity, relevance, and cultural context.	Teach learners to evaluate information for accuracy, bias, validity, relevance, and cultural context. Provide opportunities for learners to demonstrate ethical use of information and technology in the creation of new knowledge.	Teach learners, through multiple activities, to evaluate information for accuracy, bias, validity, relevance, and cultural context. Provide opportunities for all learners to demonstrate ethical use of information and technology in the creation of new knowledge.
2.4.a Assessment – Multiple Methods	Limited or no variability exists in assessment methods.	Use multiple methods of assessment to engage learners in their own growth.	Use multiple methods to assess learning; analyze, reflect, and apply results to engage all learners in their own growth.
2.4.b Assessment - Revision	Assessment data is not used to revise instruction.	Revise instructional, in collaboration with instructional partners, to address areas in which learners need to develop understanding.	Use both formative and summative assessments to revise instruction, in collaboration with instructional partners, to address areas in which learners need to develop understanding.

Component	Level 1 - Emerging	Level 2 - Basic	Level 3 - Proficient
PLO 3: Knowledge of Application and Content Target Threshold: 100% of learners will meet or exceed Level 2. 70% of learners will meet Level 3.		Promote children’s and young adult literature that meets diverse developmental, cultural, social, and linguistic needs of all learners; and use evidence-based strategies to foster learner motivation to read for learning, personal growth, and enjoyment. Model, promote, and teach critical thinking, information literacy, and the inquiry process using multiple literacies. Use digital tools, resources, and emerging technologies to design and adapt learning experiences; engage learners in finding, evaluating, creating, and communicating data and information; and articulate, communicate, model, and teach digital citizenship.
3.1.a Reading Engagement – Knowledge of Literature	Knowledge of children’s and young adult literature is not used in reading promotion activities.	Use diverse developmental, cultural, social, and linguistic children’s and young adult fiction and nonfiction literature in the development of reading promotion activities and instruction.	Use diverse developmental, cultural, social, and linguistic children’s and young adult fiction and nonfiction literature in the development of personalized reading promotion activities and instruction.
3.1.b Reading Engagement – Fostering Learner Motivation to Read	Do not engage learners in strategies that foster learner motivation to read.	Engage learners in strategies that foster learner motivation to read for learning, personal growth, and enjoyment.	Engage learners in evidence-based strategies that foster learner motivation to read for learning, personal growth, and enjoyment.
3.2.a Information Literacy – Professional Applications	Does not locate, evaluate, use, and/or communicate information in an ethical manner.	Locate, evaluate, use, and communicate information in an ethical manner.	Assess one’s need for information; and then locate, evaluate, use, and communicate information in an ethical manner.
3.2.b Information Literacy - Instruction	Do not model, promote, and teach critical thinking and the inquiry process.	Model, promote, and teach critical thinking and the inquiry process.	Use evidence-based strategies to model, promote, and teach critical thinking and the inquiry process.
3.3.a Technology-Enabled Learning – Instruction	Use of digital tools is limited or not existent.	Use digital tools, resources, and emerging technologies to design and adapt learning experiences.	Use and evaluate the effectiveness of digital tools, resources, and emerging technologies to design and adapt learning experiences.
3.3.b Technology-Enabled Learning – Learners’ Use	Does not engage learners in finding, evaluating, creating, and communicating information in a digital environment.	Engage learners in finding, evaluating, creating, and communicating information in a digital environment.	Engage and support all learners in finding, evaluating, creating, and communicating information in a digital environment.
3.3.c Technology-Enabled Learning – Digital Citizenship	Does not articulate, communicate, model, or teach digital citizenship.	Articulate, communicate, model, and teach digital citizenship.	Articulate, communicate, model, teach, and provide opportunities for learners to practice digital citizenship.

Component	Level 1 - Emerging	Level 2 - Basic	Level 3 - Proficient
PLO 4: Organization and Access Target Threshold: 100% of learners will meet or exceed Level 2. 70% of learners will meet Level 3.		Model, facilitate, and advocate for equitable access to and the ethical use of resources in a variety of formats. Develop, curate, organize, and manage a collection of resources that meet the diverse needs of the school community. Make effective use of data and other forms of evidence to evaluate and inform decisions about library policies, resources, and services.
4.1.a Access – Policies	Do not recognize or acknowledge barriers to flexible, open access to library resources and services.	Identify barriers to flexible, open access to library resources and services and advocate for changes in policy and practice aligned with the ethical codes of the profession.	Design and implement strategic plans which include changes to policy and practice that ensure flexible, open access to library resources and services according to the ethical codes of the profession.
4.1.b Access - Solutions	Do not identify, analyze, or utilize solutions for addressing barriers to equitable access.	Identify, analyze, and utilize strategic solutions for addressing physical, social, virtual, economic, geographic, and intellectual barriers to equitable access to resources and services.	Design, develop, and implement evidence-based strategic solutions for addressing physical, social, virtual, economic, geographic, and intellectual barriers to equitable access to resources and services.
4.2 Information Resources	Do not use evaluation criteria and select tools in the development, curation, organization, and management of the collection.	Identify and apply evaluation criteria and use selection tools to develop, curate, organize, and manage a collection designed to meet the diverse curricular, professional, and personal needs of the learning community.	Integrate evaluation criteria and use selection tools to develop, curate, organize, and manage a collection designed to meet the diverse curricular, professional, and personal needs of the learning community.
4.3 Evidence-Based Decision Making	Do not collect data and information.	Collect data and information to analyze and understand how practice and policies in school libraries impact groups and individuals in their diverse communities.	Collect, assess, and apply data and information to analyze and understand how practice and policies in school libraries impact groups and individuals in their diverse communities.

Component	Level 1 - Emerging	Level 2 - Basic	Level 3 - Proficient
PLO 5: Leadership, Advocacy, and Professional Responsibility Target Threshold: 100% of learners will meet or exceed Level 2. 70% of learners will meet Level 3.		Actively engage in leadership, collaboration, advocacy, and professional networking. Participate in and lead ongoing professional learning. Advocate for effective school libraries to benefit all learners. Conduct oneself in accordance with the ethical principles of the library and information profession.
5.1.a Professional Learning – Growth	Does not reflect on learning needs, and/or does not plan for professional learning.	Reflect on learning needs and plan activities for relevant professional learning.	Accurately analyze one’s own learning, identify learning needs, and engage in ongoing learning to meet those needs.
5.1.b – Professional Learning – Delivery	Does not plan or implement professional development.	Plans and implements professional development to meet the needs of the members of their professional learning community.	Systematically plans, implements, and leads ongoing professional development to consistently meet the diverse needs of all members of the professional learning community.
5.2 Leadership and Collaboration	Does not collaborate and/or provides little to no leadership in improving instructional practice.	Collaborates with and leads members of the learning community to design and implement solutions that impact learner growth and strengthen the role of the school library.	Collaborates with and leads members of the learning community to design and implement solutions that impact learner growth. Strengthens the role of the school library by embedding library resources and services in curriculum and teaching.
5.3 Advocacy	Does not advocate for learners and school libraries.	Advocates for all leaners, resources, services, policies, procedures, and school libraries through networking and collaborating within the school community.	Advocates for all leaners, resources, services, policies, procedures, and school libraries through networking and collaborating within the larger education and library community. Assess the effectiveness of advocacy efforts and identifies ways to strengthen advocacy.
5.4 Ethical Practice	Does not model or promote the ethical practices of the profession.	Use knowledge of the ethical practices of the library profession to guide professional learning and teaching, as expressed in the foundational documents of the profession.	Intentionally model and promote the ethical practices of the library profession as expressed in the foundational documents of the profession. Examine one’s practices and resources through an ethical lens.

EHHD_ED_GR_LMC_PLAN_2017-20

Assessment Plan: Department of Education
Library Media Certificate: 2017‐2020

5/15/17

Program Learning Outcomes

Our graduates will:

demonstrate the ability to design, implement, assess, and evaluate an information literacy program that prepares independent lifelong learners and includes the ability to demonstrate collaboration techniques with students and staff in the development and implementation of K‐12 curriculum.
demonstrate the ability to manage the library facility to meet school district goals by:
1. utilizing current practices in the areas of policy development, budgeting, needs assessment, and collaboration with students and colleagues; and
2. demonstrating competency and professionalism in library program administration including budgeting, facilities, equipment, public relations, and program advocacy
promote reading for learning and enjoyment by demonstrating the ability to:
1. manage library collections through evaluation, selection, acquisition, and organization of library materials;
2. collaborate with teachers and students in the selection of reading materials in print and digital formats; and
3. select materials which reflect knowledge of current youth literature, support a wide range of information needs and interests, and support American Indians and tribes in Montana;
demonstrate knowledge of technical services and the policies and procedures that govern these services.
model and facilitate the effective use of current and emerging digital information tools to locate, analyze, evaluate, and efficiently and ethically use information to support research, learning, creating, and communicating in a digital society.

Curriculum Map

		Outcomes
Course	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDCI 545	3	M	M	M	M	M
EDCI 547	3	M
EDCI 522	3					M
EDCI 549	3			M
EDCI 546	3		M
EDCI 548	3			M
EDCI 598	3	M	M	M	M	M

Student Performance: Data Sources

		Outcomes
Course	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDCI 545	3	X	X	X	X	X
EDCI 547	3	X
EDCI 522	3					X
EDCI 549	3			X
EDCI 546	3		X
EDCI 548	3			X
EDCI 598	3	X	X	X	X	X

Response Threshold

At least 80% of students will be rated “Acceptable” or higher on every category of the scoring rubrics.

Schedules

Outcomes

	Year
Outcome	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X

Assessment Plan Elements

	Year
Element	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X

Course Review

	Review Year
Course	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
EDCI 545	X				X
EDCI 547	X				X
EDCI 522		X				X
EDCI 549		X				X
EDCI 546			X
EDCI 548			X
EDCI 598				X

Process for Assessing the Data

Annual Assessment Process

Data is collected from identified courses.
Random samples of collected assignments are scored by two faculty members using
prepared scoring rubrics.
The assessment coordinator tabulates the scores. Areas where the acceptable performance threshold has not been met are highlighted.
The scores are presented to the faculty for assessment.
The faculty reviews the assessment results, and makes decisions on how to respond.
- If an acceptable performance threshold has not been met, a faculty response is required. Possible responses:
  - Gather additional data next year to verify or refute the result.
  - Change something in the curriculum to try to fix the problem.
  - Change the acceptable performance threshold.
  - Choose a different assignment to assess the outcome.
- Faculty can respond to assessment results even if the acceptable performance threshold has been met.
- It is OK to determine that changes are not needed when students are demonstrating proficiency with each learning outcome.
A summary of the year’s assessment activities and faculty decisions is reported to the Provost’s Office in your Department’s Annual Assessment Activities report.

EHHD_ED_GR_LMC_REPORT_2016-17

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year 2016-17
Department: Education
Program: Curriculum & Instruction, Library Media Certificate

1.What was done?

3 students completed the certificate in Fall 2016.
15 students completed the certificate in Spring 2017.
8 students completed the certificate in Summer 2017.

Library Media instructors met in March 2017 to ensure alignment of course objectives with Montana standards for preparation of library media specialists.

We discussed what we needed to do to meet CAEP accreditation standards for advanced programs in 2023. We also discussed moving toward CAEP Specialized Professional Association (SPA) Accreditation in 2023 and what we needed to do to prepare.

2. What data was collected?

Syllabi from all courses and instructors and completion rates.

3.What was learned?

We learned that our program is well articulated (little overlap between courses).

4. How we responded?

We will continue to ensure that our course objectives are aligned with BPE standards for preparation of school library media specialists.

We will also begin building a data system to focus on continuous improvement

EHHD_ED_GR_LMC_REPORT_2015-16

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year 2015‐16
Department: Education
Program: Curriculum & Instruction, Library Media Certificate

1. What was done?

15 students completed the certificate in Summer 2015.

4 students completed the certificate in Fall 2015 and 4 completed the certificate in Spring 2016.
Library Media instructors met in March 2016 to align course objectives with Montana standards for preparation of library media specialists.

The Library Media Certificate was re‐accredited by the Montana Board of Public Education in summer 2016 for 7 years.

2. What data was collected?

Syllabi from all courses and instructors.

3. What was learned?

We learned that our program is well articulated (little overlap between courses).

4. How we responded?

We will continue to ensure that our course objectives are aligned with BPE standards for preparation of school library media specialists. In the upcoming assessment cycle we will focus on improvement of EDCI 598 Internship including examining the number of hours required for field experience.

EHHD_ED_GR_LMC_REPORT_2013-14

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year 2013‐14
Department: Education
Program: Curriculum & Instruction, Library Media Certificate

1. What was done?

The Library Media program was managed by Extended University during this year.

2. What data was collected?

None. Students were enrolled as non‐degree or continuing education.

3. What was learned?

N/A

4. How we responded?

N/A

Educational Leadership - Master of Education (MEd)

Program Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Have the knowledge required to be successful in the field of EducationAdministration/Leadership as indicated by PSEL standards.
Have the skills needed to be able to effectively lead schools in rural and other locations at the school level as indicated by PSEL standards.
Be able to analyze problems of practice in education and develop evidence‐based solutions or strategies to solve those problems.
Be able to communicate effectively with a growing and diverse audience as indicated by PSEL standards.
Be able to apply the code of ethics from the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders when making decisions.
Be able to design an action research project and analyze data to solve problems of practice at the school level and or district.

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_EDLD_PLAN_2017-20

Assessment Plan: MSU Educational Leadership
(Administration) M.Ed. 2017‐2020

5/15/17

Program Learning Outcomes

Our graduates will:

have the knowledge required to be successful in the field of Education Administration/Leadership as indicated by PSEL standards.
have the skills needed to be able to effectively lead schools in rural and other locations at the school level as indicated by PSEL standards.
be able to analyze problems of practice in education and develop evidence‐based solutions or strategies to solve those problems.
be able to communicate effectively with a growing and diverse audience as indicated by PSEL standards.
be able to apply the code of ethics from the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders when making decisions.
be able to design an action research project and analyze data to solve problems of practice at the school level and or district.

Curriculum Map

		Outcomes
	Cr	1	2	3	4	5	6
EDLD 507 Foundations Leadership	3	D	D	D		D
EDLD 515 Planned Change	3		D		D
EDLD 508 Supervision of Instruction	3	D	M		D	M
EDLD 532 School Law	3	M	M		M	M
EDLD 534 Data Driven Decisions	3	D	D	M			M
EDLD 520 Schools Diverse Communities	3	D		D	M	M	D
EDLD 565 K‐12 Inst Leadership	3	M	M		M	D	M
EDLD 526 Evaluate School Programs				M		M	M
EDLD 555 Finance	3	D		M		M
EDLD 574 Field Experience	6	M	M	M	M	M	M
EDLD 566 Admin of Special Ed Programs	3	D			DM	M

Student Performance: Data Sources

		Outcomes
	Cr	1	2	3	4	5	6
EDLD 507					X	X
EDLD 508 Final Exam		X	X			X
EDLD 534				X			X
EDLD 520			X		X
EDLD 565					X	X
EDLD 574				X	X	X	X
EDLD 515				X
PRAXIS		X

Response Threshold

At least 80% of students will be rated “Acceptable” or higher on every category of the scoring rubrics.

Schedules

Outcomes

	Year
Outcome	2016‐17	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22
1			X			X
2			X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5	X			X
6	X			X

Assessment Plan Elements

A yearly exit survey with M.Ed. graduates also provides qualitative data to help faculty review program content, delivery, and overall student satisfaction. An end of year retreat for all master’s graduates also provides focus group data about faculty, instruction and field experience.

	Year
Outcome	2016‐17	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22
1			X			X
2			X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5	X			X
6	X			X

Course Review

	Review Year
Course	2016‐17	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22
EDLD 532			X
EDLD 515				X
EDLD574	X	X	X	X	X	X
EDLD 566
EDLD 508	X
EDLD 565					X
EDLD 507		X
EDLD 515			X
EDLD 526				X
EDLD 534					X
EDLD 520						X

Process for Assessing the Data

Annual Assessment Process

Data is collected from identified courses.
Random samples of collected assignments are scored by two faculty members using
prepared scoring rubrics.
The assessment coordinator tabulates the scores. Areas where the acceptable performance threshold has not been met are highlighted.
The scores are presented to the faculty for assessment.
The faculty reviews the assessment results, and makes decisions on how to respond.
- If an acceptable performance threshold has not been met, a faculty response is required. Possible responses:
  - Gather additional data next year to verify or refute the result.
  - Change something in the curriculum to try to fix the problem.
  - Change the acceptable performance threshold.
  - Choose a different assignment to assess the outcome.
- Faculty can respond to assessment results even if the acceptable performance threshold has been met.
- It is OK to determine that changes are not needed when students are demonstrating proficiency with each learning outcome.
A summary of the year’s assessment activities and faculty decisions is reported to the Provost’s Office in your Department’s Annual Assessment Activities report.

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_EDLD_PLAN_2016

Assessment Plan:
MSU Educational Leadership (Administration) M.Ed.

2016

Program Learning Outcomes

Our graduates will:

have the knowledge required to be successful in the field of Education Administration/Leadership.
have the skills needed to be able to effectively lead schools at the school level.
be able to analyze problems of practice in education and develop solutions or strategies to solve those problems.
be able to communicate effectively with a growing and diverse audience.
be able to apply the code of ethics from the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders when making decisions.
be able to design an experiment and analyze data to solve problems of practice at the school level.

Curriculum Map

		Outcomes
	Cr	1	2	3	4	5	6
EDLD 507 Foundations Leadership	3	D	D	D		D
EDLD 515 Planned Change	3		D		D
EDLD 508 Supervision of Instruction	3	D	M		D	M
EDLD 532 School Law	3	M	M		M	M
EDLD 534 Data Driven Decisions	3	D	D	M			M
EDLD 520 Schools Diverse Communities	3	D		D	M	M	D
EDLD 565 K‐12 Inst Leadership	3	M	M		M	D	M
EDLD 526 Evaluate School Programs				M		M	M
EDLD 555 Finance	3	D		M		M
EDLD 574 Field Experience	6	M	M	M	M	M	M
EDLD 566 Admin of Special Ed Programs	3	D			DM	M

Student Performance: Data Sources

		Outcomes
	Cr	1	2	3	4	5	6
EDLD 507					X	X
EDLD 508		X	X				X
EDLD 534			X	X			X
EDLD 520			X			X
		X			X	X
EDLD574		X	X	X	X	X	X

Response Threshold

At least 80% of students will be rated “Acceptable” or higher on every category of the scoring rubrics.

Schedules

Outcomes

	Year
Outcome	2011‐12	2012‐13	2013‐14	2014‐15	2015‐16	2016‐17
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X
6			X			X

Assessment Plan Elements

	Year
Outcome	2011‐12	2012‐13	2013‐14	2014‐15	2015‐16	2016‐17
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X
6			X			X

Course Review

	Review Year
Course	2011‐12	2012‐13	2013‐14	2014‐15	2015‐16	2016‐17


EDLD 574				X	X
EDLD 566					X
EDLD 526						X
EDLD

Process for Assessing the Data

Annual Assessment Process

Data is collected from identified courses.
Random samples of collected assignments are scored by two faculty members using
prepared scoring rubrics.
The assessment coordinator tabulates the scores. Areas where the acceptable performance threshold has not been met are highlighted.
The scores are presented to the faculty for assessment.
The faculty reviews the assessment results, and makes decisions on how to respond.
- If an acceptable performance threshold has not been met, a faculty response is required. Possible responses:
  - Gather additional data next year to verify or refute the result.
  - Change something in the curriculum to try to fix the problem.
  - Change the acceptable performance threshold.
  - Choose a different assignment to assess the outcome.
- Faculty can respond to assessment results even if the acceptable performance threshold has been met.
- It is OK to determine that changes are not needed when students are demonstrating proficiency with each learning outcome.
A summary of the year’s assessment activities and faculty decisions is reported to the Provost’s Office in your Department’s Annual Assessment Activities report.

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_EDLD_PLAN_2015

Assessment Plan:
MSU Educational Leadership (Administration) M.Ed.

2015

Program Learning Outcomes

Our graduates will:

have the knowledge required to be successful in the field of Education Administration/Leadership.
have the skills needed to be able to effectively lead schools at the school level.
be able to analyze problems of practice in education and develop solutions or strategies to solve those problems.
be able to communicate effectively with a growing and diverse audience.
be able to apply the code of ethics from the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders when making decisions.
be able to design an experiment and analyze data to solve problems of practice at the school level.

Curriculum Map

		Outcomes
	Cr	1	2	3	4	5	6
EDLD 507 Foundations Leadership	3	D	D	D		D
EDLD 515 Planned Change	3		D		D
EDLD 508 Supervision of Instruction	3	D	M		D	M
EDLD 532 School Law	3	M	M		M	M
EDLD 534 Data Driven Decisions	3	D	D	M			M
EDLD 520 Schools Diverse Communities	3	D		D	M	M	D
EDLD 565 K‐12 Inst Leadership	3	M	M		M	D	M
EDLD 526 Evaluate School Programs				M		M	M
EDLD 555 Finance	3	D		M		M
EDLD 574 Field Experience	6	M	M	M	M	M	M
EDLD 566 Admin of Special Ed Programs	3	D			DM	M

Student Performance: Data Sources

		Outcomes
	Cr	1	2	3	4	5	6
EDLD 507					X	X
EDLD 508		X	X				X
EDLD 534			X	X			X
EDLD 520			X			X
		X			X	X
EDLD574		X	X	X	X	X	X

Response Threshold

At least 80% of students will be rated “Acceptable” or higher on every category of the scoring rubrics.

Schedules

Outcomes

	Year
Outcome	2011‐12	2012‐13	2013‐14	2014‐15	2015‐16	2016‐17
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X
6			X			X

Assessment Plan Elements

	Year
Outcome	2011‐12	2012‐13	2013‐14	2014‐15	2015‐16	2016‐17
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X
6			X			X

Course Review

	Review Year
Course	2011‐12	2012‐13	2013‐14	2014‐15	2015‐16	2016‐17


EDLD 574				X	X
EDLD 566					X
EDLD 526						X
EDLD

Process for Assessing the Data

Annual Assessment Process

Data is collected from identified courses.
Random samples of collected assignments are scored by two faculty members using
prepared scoring rubrics.
The assessment coordinator tabulates the scores. Areas where the acceptable performance threshold has not been met are highlighted.
The scores are presented to the faculty for assessment.
The faculty reviews the assessment results, and makes decisions on how to respond.
- If an acceptable performance threshold has not been met, a faculty response is required. Possible responses:
  - Gather additional data next year to verify or refute the result.
  - Change something in the curriculum to try to fix the problem.
  - Change the acceptable performance threshold.
  - Choose a different assignment to assess the outcome.
- Faculty can respond to assessment results even if the acceptable performance threshold has been met.
- It is OK to determine that changes are not needed when students are demonstrating proficiency with each learning outcome.
A summary of the year’s assessment activities and faculty decisions is reported to the Provost’s Office in your Department’s Annual Assessment Activities report.

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_EDLD_REPORT_2016-17

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year: 2016-17
Department: Education
Program(s): Educational Leadership, Master’s of Education (M.Ed.)

2016-17 EDLD M.Ed. Summer 2016-Spring 2017

1. What Was Done?

A) Twenty-five students earned their M.Ed. degrees

B) All M.Ed. graduates/program completers took the Education Leader PRAXIS exam - 24 passed on the first attempt. One Student had to take the exam twice, but did pass.

C) We had master’s students (completers) fill out a program effectiveness survey (40 total items with availability to make open-ended comments). The survey was developed by a faculty member as a part of her doctoral program 7 years before.

D) We asked informal questions about the program at the Spring 2017 CTL Retreat held in April.

2. What Data Were Collected?

A) Twenty-five students earned their M.Ed. degrees

B) Pass rates for the PRAXIS test of Education Leader Knowledge.

C) We collected descriptive data (on a 9 pt. scale) on 4 areas in the EDLD program: 1) Recruitment and Selection Processes; 2) Relevancy of Coursework to Practice; 3) Faculty and Instruction ; 4) Clinical Field Experience. Students rated the effectiveness of each component in the program.

D) Qualitative notes from the CTL discussion.

3. What Was Learned?

A) Twenty-five students earned their M.Ed. degrees.

B) Pass rates for the PRAXIS test of Ed Leader Knowledge was 96% on first attempt. All students did eventually pass the PRAXIS. Our MSU mean score was 169. Which is higher than the previous year of 166.

C) Overall the first three sections (Recruitment, Coursework and Faculty) were rated between 6-9 on most items. Indicating that students felt the program elements were mostly effective. Faculty was rated highest and comments about caring for students, expertise in content and practice areas were most often cited. The 4th section on clinical field experience was rated higher than in previous years. We attribute that to providing more flexibility in assignments and allowing students to collect hours before the beginning of the school year and during the Holiday break.

D) Student comments reinforced that they enjoy the cohort nature of the program and suggested we find more times for students to meet face to face during the year and especially during their field work semesters. Some suggested that students only be allowed to begin the program in summer in order to maintain a true cohort identity. Several who began later felt out of sync and not as “bonded” with classmates. Students also indicated they would like the EDLD 566 Sped class earlier in the program.

4. How We Responded?

A) We continue to require the PRAXIS as a measure of content knowledge and proof of skills.

B) We also discussed holding a face to face Field experience class in the fall over a weekend to give students a chance to debrief their internship experiences and ask for assistance if needed.

C) We changed when the Special Ed course is offered – it is now offered in the 4th semester rather than the last semester. Students feel it is valuable knowledge they can use as teachers so having the class earlier benefits them.

D) We continue to discuss how we can maximize face to face time to support the cohort structure of the program. We will also discourage students from beginning in the spring.

E) We designed a new newsletter to send to recently admitted MED students detailing more specifically program expectations and how they should prepare for summer classes.

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_and_EdD_EDLD_REPORT_2015-16

Question 1 – What did you do on assessment this year?

PRAXIS scores for all master's candidates were collected and reviewed for program evaluation. Field Experience signature assignments were also collected and reviewed to determine mastery of program goals and personal dispositions. Exit surveys were also reviewed to review what candidates thought about overall program quality, course delivery and instructor/advisor feedback.

Question 2 – What data did you collect?

Master's Level: 1) Educational Leadership PRAXIS and 2) Self-Efficacy surveys were completed by each candidate of the graduating cohort group. 3) An exit survey that asks about quality of coursework, instruction and field experience was also given during the final comprehensive retreat.

Doctoral Level: comprehensive exam pass rates and dissertation defense pass rates were collected and examined. Individual interviews were done with finishing doctoral students.

Question 3 – What did your review of the data indicate for you?

Pass rates for PRAXIS for students graduating spring 2015 was 45 of 49 graduates passing or 91.8% passing. For spring of 2016, 28 of 28 students passed the PRAXIS for a pass rate of 100%
Students' knowledge of special education law and programs was relatively weak.
Students prefer more face to face meetings to discuss and debrief theory to practice assignments as well as field experience.
Doctoral students gave feedback about how the lack of a strong, consistent cohort left them feeling more isolated in their degree pursuits.

Question 4 – As a result of your review of the data, what did you do?

We instituted a new class (EDLD 566 Supervision and Administration of Special Education) required of all EDLD master's students. The first course was offered Spring 2016.
We offered bi-weekly ADOBE Connect sessions to increase face to face time in EDLD 532, and 520. EDLD 534, 508 and 526 meet face to face at least 2x/semester. There is a week-long on campus/face to face component for all summer masters and doctoral/superintendent licensure courses.
We now will only review doctoral program applications in the spring for fall admission to insure that students are enrolled in courses as cohort groups. We believe the consistent cohort grouping will reduce isolation and increase the satisfaction and completion rates of doctoral students. If need be, we may only admit a doctoral cohort of 10-12 students every other year. That will be determined by looking at data for the following 1-2 years examining the success of the new cohort approach.

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_EDLD_REPORT_2013-14

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year: 2013‐14
Department: Education
Program(s): Educational Leadership, Master’s of Education (M.Ed.)

1. What was done?

A) We had master’s students (completers) fill out a program effectiveness survey (40 total items with availability to make open‐ended comments). A faculty member as a part of her doctoral program developed the survey 5 years before.

B) 23 program completers took the Education Leader PRAXIS exam.

2. What Data Were Collected?

A) We collected descriptive data ( on a 9 pt. scale) on 4 areas in the EDLD program: 1) Recruitment and Selection Processes; 2) Relevancy of Coursework to Practice; 3) Faculty and Instruction ; 4) Clinical Field Experience. Students rated the effectiveness of each component in the program.

B) PRAXIS Scores for each completer.

3. What Was Learned?

A) Overall the first three sections (Recruitment, Coursework and Faculty) were rated between 6‐9 on most items. Indicating that students felt the program elements were mostly effective. Faculty was rated highest and comments about caring for students, expertise in content and practice areas were most often cited. The 4th section on clinical field experience was rated somewhat highly, but had some areas that needed improvement – such as making sure that students were given the opportunity to experience a variety of instructional leadership tasks, rather than simply supervisory tasks over students at extra‐curricular events.

B) We continue to have high pass rates for students taking the PRAXIS. Some students felt that they were weaker in areas dealing with special populations and governance and organization of charter schools.

4. How We Responded?

A) We revised the MSU Field Experience Handbook and more clearly articulated MSU’s expectations for the kinds of instructional leadership activities that we wanted students to experience. We created a list of possible activities for our students to help school administrators determine how they wanted to use students in quasi‐ leadership roles. We also created 10 “signature assignments “ that represented the ISLLC standards and that reflected the goals and activities of our core program classes.

B) We began discussions about how to incorporate more special education activities/topics into existing coursework. Since there are few Charter Schools in Montana, we decided to hold off on any curricular change that would include more information about Charter Schools, and wait until the legislature acted on Charter School development.

Educational Leadership - Education Specialist (EdS)

Program Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Have the knowledge required to be successful in the field of Education Administration/Leadership.
Have the skills needed to be able to effectively lead schools at the district level.
Be able to analyze problems of practice in education and develop solutions or strategies to solve those problems.
Be able to communicate effectively with a growing and diverse audience.
Be able to apply the code of ethics from the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders when making decisions.
Be able to design an experiment and analyze data.

EHHD_ED_GR_EdS_EDLD_PLAN_2017-20

Assessment Plan:
MSU Educational Leadership (Administration) Ed. S.

2017‐2020

Program Learning Outcomes

Our graduates will:

have the knowledge required to be successful in the field of Education Administration/Leadership.
have the skills needed to be able to effectively lead schools at the district level.
be able to analyze problems of practice in education and develop solutions or strategies to solve those problems.
be able to communicate effectively with a growing and diverse audience.
be able to apply the code of ethics from the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders when making decisions.
be able to design an experiment and analyze data.

Curriculum Map

		Outcomes
	Cr	1	2	3	4	5	6
EDLD 610 Organizational Leadership	3	M	D	M		M	D
EDLD 620 The Supt.	3						D
EDLD 630 Supervision and Instructional Leadership	3	M	M	M	D	M	D
EDLD 643 Leading Social Justice	3	M	M		M	M	D
EDLD 657 Policy and Politics	3	M			M	M
EDLD 645 Personnel and Collective Bargain	3	M		M
EDLD 650 MT Facilities and Finance	3	M	M
EDLD 655 MT Legal Policy Studies	3	D		M
EDLD 575 Prof Paper	3-6	M	M	M	M	M	M

Student Performance: Data Sources

		Outcomes
	Cr	1	2	3	4	5	6
EDLD 643					X	X

EDLD 645			X			X
EDLD 620		X
EDLD 655			X		X		X
		x		X

Response Threshold

At least 80% of students will be rated “Acceptable” or higher on every category of the scoring rubrics.

Schedules

Outcomes

	Year
Outcome	2014‐15	2015‐16	2016‐17	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X
6			X			X

Assessment Plan Elements

A yearly exit review with Ed. S. graduates also provides qualitative data to help faculty review program content, delivery, and overall student satisfaction.

	Year
Outcome	2014‐15	2015‐16	2016‐17	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X
6			X			X

Course Review

	Review Year
Course	2011‐12	2012‐13	2013‐14	2014‐15	2015‐16	2016‐17




EDLD 610						X
EDLD 643						X

Process for Assessing the Data

Annual Assessment Process

Data is collected from identified courses.
Random samples of collected assignments are scored by two faculty members using
prepared scoring rubrics.
The assessment coordinator tabulates the scores. Areas where the acceptable performance threshold has not been met are highlighted.
The scores are presented to the faculty for assessment.
The faculty reviews the assessment results, and makes decisions on how to respond.
- If an acceptable performance threshold has not been met, a faculty response is required. Possible responses:
  - Gather additional data next year to verify or refute the result.
  - Change something in the curriculum to try to fix the problem.
  - Change the acceptable performance threshold.
  - Choose a different assignment to assess the outcome.
- Faculty can respond to assessment results even if the acceptable performance threshold has been met.
- It is OK to determine that changes are not needed when students are demonstrating proficiency with each learning outcome.
A summary of the year’s assessment activities and faculty decisions is reported to the Provost’s Office in your Department’s Annual Assessment Activities report.

EHHD_ED_GR_EdS_EDLD_PLAN_2016

Assessment Plan:
MSU Educational Leadership (Administration) Ed. S.

2016

Program Learning Outcomes

Our graduates will:

have the knowledge required to be successful in the field of Education Administration/Leadership.
have the skills needed to be able to effectively lead schools at the district level.
be able to analyze problems of practice in education and develop solutions or strategies to solve those problems.
be able to communicate effectively with a growing and diverse audience.
be able to apply the code of ethics from the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders when making decisions.
be able to design an experiment and analyze data.

Curriculum Map

		Outcomes
	Cr	1	2	3	4	5	6
EDLD 610 Organizational Leadership	3	M	D	M		M	D
EDLD 620 The Supt.	3						D
EDLD 630 Supervision and Instructional Leadership	3	M	M	M	D	M	D
EDLD 643 Leading Social Justice	3	M	M		M	M	D
EDLD 657 Policy and Politics	3	M			M	M
EDLD 645 Personnel and Collective Bargain	3	M		M
EDLD 650 MT Facilities and Finance	3	M	M
EDLD 655 MT Legal Policy Studies	3	D		M
EDLD 575 Prof Paper	3-6	M	M	M	M	M	M

Student Performance: Data Sources

		Outcomes
	Cr	1	2	3	4	5	6
EDLD 643					X	X

EDLD 645			X			X
EDLD 620		X
EDLD 655			X		X		X
		x		X

Response Threshold

At least 80% of students will be rated “Acceptable” or higher on every category of the scoring rubrics.

Schedules

Outcomes

	Year
Outcome	2011‐12	2012‐13	2013‐14	2014‐15	2015‐16	2016‐17
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X
6			X			X

Assessment Plan Elements

A yearly exit review with Ed. S. graduates also provides qualitative data to help faculty review program content, delivery, and overall student satisfaction.

	Year
Outcome	2011‐12	2012‐13	2013‐14	2014‐15	2015‐16	2016‐17
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X
6			X			X

Course Review

	Review Year
Course	2011‐12	2012‐13	2013‐14	2014‐15	2015‐16	2016‐17




EDLD 610						X
EDLD 643						X

Process for Assessing the Data

Annual Assessment Process

Data is collected from identified courses.
Random samples of collected assignments are scored by two faculty members using
prepared scoring rubrics.
The assessment coordinator tabulates the scores. Areas where the acceptable performance threshold has not been met are highlighted.
The scores are presented to the faculty for assessment.
The faculty reviews the assessment results, and makes decisions on how to respond.
- If an acceptable performance threshold has not been met, a faculty response is required. Possible responses:
  - Gather additional data next year to verify or refute the result.
  - Change something in the curriculum to try to fix the problem.
  - Change the acceptable performance threshold.
  - Choose a different assignment to assess the outcome.
- Faculty can respond to assessment results even if the acceptable performance threshold has been met.
- It is OK to determine that changes are not needed when students are demonstrating proficiency with each learning outcome.
A summary of the year’s assessment activities and faculty decisions is reported to the Provost’s Office in your Department’s Annual Assessment Activities report.

EHHD_ED_GR_EdS_EDLD_REPORT_2016-17

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year: 2016-17
Department: Education
Program(s): Educational Leadership, Education Specialist (Ed. S.)

Ed.S. 2016-17

1. What Was Done?

We reviewed graduation rates and numbers of students selecting the Ed. S. option.

2. What Data Were Collected?

We Collected data on the number of students who chose the Ed. S. program, and those who have been
enrolled in the ED.D. program, but who have not made adequate progress to completion.

3. What Was Learned?

We began a process to offer the Ed. S. as a degree option to students who had been admitted in the Ed. D. program, but had not progressed to completion. Five of the Ed. D. students were contacted and given the choice to move to an Ed. S. degree so that they can finish and earn a degree for their efforts. These students had taken most of the Ed. D. coursework, but didn’t believe they would be able to finish a dissertation in the time they had remaining; this was either due to work or personal circumstances.

4. How We Responded?

We have been able to move four (4) Ed. D. students into the Ed. S. program for the 16-17 year. Three of those students should finish Fall 2017, with the remaining student finishing Spring 2018.
The Ed.S. provided an option to complete coursework and a professional paper – making ”time to degree” much shorter than would have been possible continuing to pursue the doctorate.
We discussed how we could better recruit superintendent candidates into the Ed. S. programs. Though we had done this previously, we had few students show interest in this model. In an effort to award students taking superintendent classes some recognition of their efforts we have a proposal before the Board of Public Education to grant MSU a 15 credit Superintendent Certificate program. This would not change the current program in any way, other than to enroll all students in a degree program and award a certificate.

EHHD_ED_GR_EdS_EDLD_REPORT_2013-14

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year: 2013‐14
Department: Education
Program(s): Educational Leadership, Education Specialist (Ed.S.)

1. What Was Done?

We reviewed graduation rates and numbers of students selecting the Ed.S. option.

2. What Data Were Collected?

We collected data on the number of students who chose the Ed.S. program, and surveyed/tried to recruit summer superintendent candidates to consider earning an Ed.S. degree.

3. What Was Learned?

We had few post‐masters students who wanted an Ed.S. degree in the current cohorts. Most were satisfied in obtaining only Superintendent licensure, and did not see value in getting the Ed. S. as something that would increase their employability in Montana.

4. How We Responded?

We discussed how we could better recruit superintendent candidates into the Ed.S. program. We also began a process to offer the Ed.S. as a degree option to students who had been admitted in the Ed.D. program, but had not progressed to completion. Some students changed jobs and/or life circumstances, making it hard for them to complete the doctorate within the 10‐year window. The Ed.S. provided an option to complete coursework and a professional paper – making ”time to degree” much shorter than would have been possible continuing to pursue the doctorate.

Educational Leadership - Doctor of Education (EdD)

Program Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.
Develop meaningful solutions to complex problems of practice from a position of equity and social justice.
Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic and systematic inquiry.
Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

EHHD_ED_GR_EdD_EDLD_REPORT_Year_0

Graduate Biennial Program Assessment Report - YEAR 0

Program Information: (Modify table as needed)
Degree/s Assessed	Ed.D. Educational Leadership

College or Administrative Division	EHHD
Department/School	Education
Report Submitted By	Tena Versland
Date Submitted	10/12/22
Assessment Period	Year 0

_{Graduate assessment reports are to be submitted biennially. The report deadline is
October 15th.}

Biennial Graduate Assessment Process:

Every graduate program assessment must have the following key components:

Program Description: Depending on the program plan (A: Thesis; B: Professional, or C: Course Work) will define the nature of your PLO’s. Ideally plans would include assessment that would cover all plans, but that would depend on the nature of your Master’s program.
Program Learning Outcomes: PLOs are the accumulated knowledge, skills, and attitudes that students develop during a course of study in the program. Essentially, PLOs tell us what students will learn in the program. PLOs should be written as specific, measurable statements describing what students will be able to do upon completion of the program. Each PLO should contain an action verb and a learning statement. (For help in developing learning outcomes see “Program Assessment Overview”, under Resources on Provost Page: https://www.montana.edu/provost/assessment/program_assessment.html)
Threshold Values: Along with program learning outcomes, program assessment reports should include threshold values to measure student achievement for learning outcomes.
Methods of Assessment: Every assessment report needs evidence to demonstrate student learning at the program level. This evidence can be in the form of a direct measure of student learning or an indirect measure of student learning. Both direct and indirect assessment data must be associated with the program’s learning outcomes, and collected within a timeframe determined by the program.
Timeframe for Collecting and Analyzing Data: Please provide a multi-year assessment schedule that will show when all program learning outcomes will be assessed, and by what criteria (data). Ideally, assessment data should be collected throughout the year on an annual basis. At the minimum, program faculty should schedule an annual meeting to review these data and discuss student progress toward the SLOs.
Use of Assessment Data: The assessment report should identify who received the analyzed assessment data, and how it was used by program faculty for program improvement (s).
Closing the Loop: Assessment reports should also be reflective on previous assessment and program improvements. Based on assessment from previous years, please include program level changes that have led to outcome improvements.

Part 1. Program Description:

The Ed.D. in Educational Leadership is a doctoral program designed to advance the knowledge and skills of educational leaders (principals, superintendents) as they seek evidence - based solutions to complex problems in current educational settings. An additional focus on theories of leadership and organizational behavior helps students elevate critical thinking skills.

Part 2. Program Learning Outcomes, Assessment Schedule, and Methods of Assessment

ASSESSMENT PLANNING CHART
PROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOMES	2022-2023	2023-2024	2024-2025	2025-2026	Data Source*
	X			X
1. Communicate effectively with diverse audience in multiple modes.		X			EDLD 657 Policy and Politics Final Project Oral comps presentation
2. Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge required to be successful in the field of education administration as indicated by PSEL Standards.	X		X		Final Project in EDLD 650 Finance class
3. Develop evidence-based solutions for complex problems of practice from a perspective of equity and social justice.			X		EDLD 610 Ethics Platform Papers
4. Integrate personal, practical, theoretical and empirical knowledge with systemic and systematic inquiry.		X		X	EDLD 630 Supervision and Instructional Leadership Final Project
5. Conduct scholarly research and professional activities in an ethical manner.	X			X	Comps Exam Written Research Questions

Part 3. Threshold values for program learning outcomes (please include assessment rubrics)

PROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOME	Threshold Value	Data Source
1. Communicate effectively with diverse audience in multiple modes.	85% of students will develop and defend at least three (3) communication/dissemination plans to reach diverse constituents regarding new or controversial school policies.	EDLD 657 Policy and Politics Final Project
2. Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge required to be successful in the field of education administration as indicated by PSEL Standards.	85% of students will correctly develop and defend a “mock school budget” incorporating knowledge of school funding structures, statutory requirements for equity and accountability, that also advances educational opportunities for all students.	EDLD 650 Finance - Final Budget Project
3. Develop evidence-based solutions for complex problems of practice from a perspective of equity and social justice.	85% of students will identify contemporary theories and theoretical frameworks that address equity and social justice. Students will then utilize these theories as they develop strategies to address a contemporary leadership challenge in a mock school district.	EDLD 610 Organizational Leadership - Ethics Platform Paper
4. Integrate personal, practical, theoretical and empirical knowledge with systemic and inquiry.	85% of students will evaluate the efficacy of contemporary theoretical frameworks used in educational leadership literature as they pertain to their individual leadership contexts.	EDLD 630 Final Project
5. Conduct scholarly research and professional activities in an ethical manner.	85% of students will correctly develop and defend the rationale for specific quantitative and qualitative research designs in an empirical study proposal. Students will apply ethical considerations in answering exam questions.	Comps Exam Written Research Questions

PLO 1. Communicate effectively with diverse audience in multiple modes.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1
Communication plans and policy input	Seeks input about policies from multiple perspectives. Implements comprehensive communication and revision plan.	Implements comprehensive communication plans for disseminating policy information. Policy input minimal.	Identifies simplistic communication plan for disseminating policy information. Plan implementation is inconsistent.	Fails to identify a communication plan and does not disseminate information about new school policies.
PLO 2. Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge required to be successful in the field of education administration as indicated by PSEL Standards.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1
Demonstration of disciplinary skills and knowledge	Designs a project that correctly identifies budget issues and the reasons behind them. Provides 3-5 potential solutions that promote equity across the district.	Designs a project that details budget issues and provides 2-3 potential solutions to balancing a budget in a mock school district.	Designs a project that somewhat identifies the pressing budget issues in a mock school district. Solutions provided are simplistic in nature.	Cannot or incorrectly identifies pressing budget issues within a mock school district. Provides incorrect solutions to the issues.
PLO 3. Develop evidence-based solutions for complex problems of practice from a perspective of equity and social justice.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1
Equity and Social Justice	Integrates understanding of social justice and equity into investigation of solutions that promote ethical decision-making.	Integrates sound understanding of social justice and equity and consistently applies them to ethical dilemmas.	Demonstrates minimal understanding of social justice and equity and applies them inconsistently to ethical dilemmas.	Does not apply or understand social justice and equity as necessary to ethical leadership of schools.
PLO 4. Integrate personal, practical, theoretical and empirical knowledge with systemic and inquiry.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1
Synthesis	Synthesizes personal knowledge, as well as practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge from the literature to inform systemic and systematic inquiry	Synthesizes personal knowledge, with empirical knowledge from the literature to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Can somewhat synthesize personal experience into contemporary empirical inquiry.	Does not reflect on or synthesize personal experiences within empirical inquiry.
Apply theories and literature to personal and practical contexts.	Applies in-depth knowledge of educational leadership theory and literature to better understand personal, practical contexts.	Accurately applies solid knowledge of educational leadership theories to personal, practical contexts.	Can somewhat identify and apply educational leadership literature as pertaining to personal, practical contexts.	Cannot apply or cannot identify educational leadership literature as pertaining to personal, practical contexts.
PLO 5. Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1
Ethical Scholarship	Adhere to guidelines for ethical scholarship, including those for the protection of human subjects, as well as principles of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion within all scholarly activities.	Adhere to guidelines for ethical scholarship, including those for the protection of human subjects within all scholarly activities.	N/A	N/A
Application of research methods.	Provides extensive rationale for and correctly applies qualitative and quantitative research methods to answer comprehensive exam research questions.	Correctly applies quantitative and qualitative research methods to answer comprehensive exam research questions.	Incorrectly applies quantitative and qualitative research methods to answer comprehensive exam research questions.	N/A

Part 4: Program Assessment:

The assessment plan will need to include: 1. how assessment will be conducted; 2. who receives the analyzed assessment data, and 3. how it will be used by program faculty for program improvement(s).

How will assessment artifacts be identified?
- Assessment artifacts have been identified by program faculty. Identification of artifacts will consider how effectively each artifact provides evidence of the appropriate PLO.
How will they be collected (and by whom)?
- Assessment Data will be collected by course instructors, and committee chairs as appropriate. Data may include course and project-specific grades as well as results of comprehensive exams.
Who will be assessing the artifacts?
- Program faculty will be assessing data on an annual basis to identify areas for program improvement. Additionally, program learning outcome assessment scores for the specific artifact assignment
  will not influence the student’s earned grade in the course.

Part 5: Program Assessment Plan:

How will annual assessment be communicated to faculty within the department? How will faculty participating in the collecting of assessment data (student work/artifacts) be notified?
- Presently, the EDLD Unit has 2 faculty members who will fully participate in the collection and analysis data together. No other communications are needed.
When will the data be collected and reviewed, and by whom?
- Data will be collected spring semester and reviewed on an annual basis by program faculty.
Who will be responsible for the writing of the report?
- The report will be written collaboratively by both program faculty members.
How, when, and by whom, will the report be shared?
- The report will be shared by program leadership with the faculty at a fall department meeting.
How will past assessments be used to inform changes and improvements? (How will Closing the Loop be documented)?
- As part of each cycle’s assessment, we will set goals for continuous program improvement. These goals will be revisited throughout the cycle to determine what progress is being made toward the goals and what additional adjustments need to be made to continue progress.
Other Comments:

EHHD_ED_GR_EdD_EDLD_PLAN_2017-20

Assessment Plan: Department of Education

EdD in Education‐ Educational Leadership; 2017‐2020

5/15/17

Program Learning Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.
Develop meaningful solutions to complex problems of practice from a position of equity and social justice.
Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic and systematic inquiry.
Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

Curriculum Map

		Outcomes
Required Courses	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDU 600‐Doctoral Seminar	3	I	I	I	I	I
EDU 602‐Ed Stats II	3	D		D		I
EDU 607‐Quantitative Ed Research	3	D	D	D	D	D
EDU 610‐Qualitative Ed Research	3	D		D	M	M
EDLD 610 ‐ Leadership Organizational Theory	3	M	D	D	M	D
EDLD 643‐ Leading Social Justice	3		D		D	D
EDLD 630 – Supervision & Instructional Leadership	3	D			D
EDLD 620 – The Superintendent	3	M	D	M	D
EDLD 645‐ Personnel and MT Collective Bargaining	3	D			D
EDLD 655 – Legal and Policy Studies	3	M			D
EDLD 650 – MT Finance and Facilities	3	M			D
EDCI 604‐ Advanced Ed Psych	3	D	D	D
EDU 690‐Doctoral Thesis	14	M	M	M	M	M

Student Performance: Data Sources

		Outcomes
Required Courses	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDU 600‐Doctoral Seminar	3
EDU 602‐Ed Stats II	3
EDU 607‐Quantitative Ed Research	3
EDU 610‐Qualitative Ed Research	3
EDLD 610 ‐ Leadership Organizational Theory	3			X
EDLD 643‐ Leading Social Justice	3		X
EDLD 630 – Supervision & Instructional Leadership	3				X
EDLD 620 – The Superintendent	3
EDLD 645‐ Personnel and MT Collective Bargaining	3
EDLD 655 – Legal and Policy Studies	3	X
EDLD 650 – MT Finance and Facilities	3
EDCI 604‐ Advanced Ed Psych	3
EDU 690‐Doctoral Thesis	14

Response Threshold

During the 2017‐18 AY we will finalize our rubrics and determine response threshold.

Schedules

Outcomes Review

	Year
Outcome	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
1	X					X
2		X
3			X
4				X
5					X

Assessment Plan Element Review

	Year
Outcome	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
1	X					X
2		X
3			X
4				X
5					X

Course Review

	Review Year
Course	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
EDU 600
EDU 602
EDU 607
EDU 610
EDLD 610		X
EDLD 643			X
EDLD 620				X
EDLD 630					X
EDLD 645						X
EDLD 655					X
EDLD 650				X
EDCI 604			X
EDU 690

Process for Assessing the Data

Annual Assessment Process

Data is collected from identified courses.
Random samples of collected assignments are scored by two faculty members using
prepared scoring rubrics.
The assessment coordinator tabulates the scores. Areas where the acceptable performance threshold has not been met are highlighted.
The scores are presented to the faculty for assessment.
The faculty reviews the assessment results, and makes decisions on how to respond.
- If an acceptable performance threshold has not been met, a faculty response is required. Possible responses:
  - Gather additional data next year to verify or refute the result.
  - Change something in the curriculum to try to fix the problem.
  - Change the acceptable performance threshold.
  - Choose a different assignment to assess the outcome.
- Faculty can respond to assessment results even if the acceptable performance threshold has been met.
- It is OK to determine that changes are not needed when students are demonstrating proficiency with each learning outcome.
A summary of the year’s assessment activities and faculty decisions is reported to the Provost’s Office in your Department’s Annual Assessment Activities report.

EHHD_ED_GR_EdD_EDLD_PLAN_2016

Assessment Plan:
MSU Educational Leadership (Administration) Ed. D.

2016

Program Learning Outcomes

Our graduates will:

have the knowledge required to be successful in the field of Education Administration/Leadership.
have the skills needed to be able to effectively lead schools at the district level.
be able to analyze problems of practice in education and develop solutions or strategies to solve those problems.
be able to communicate effectively with a growing and diverse audience.
be able to apply the code of ethics from the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders when making decisions.
be able to design an experiment and analyze data.

Curriculum Map

		Outcomes
	Cr	1	2	3	4	5	6
EDLD 610 Organizational Leadership	3	M	D	M		M	D
EDCI 602 ED Stats II	3						D
EDLD 630 Supervision and Instructional Leadership	3	M	M	M	D	M	D
EDLD 643 Leading Social Justice	3	M	M		M	M
EDLD 657 Policy and Politics	3	M			M	M	M
EDU 610 Qualitative Research	3						M
EDU 607 Quantitative Research	3						M
EDLD 620 The Supt.	3	D		M
EDLD 645 Personnel and Collective Bargain	3	M	M			M
EDLD 655 MT Legal Policy Studies	3	M		M	M
EDLD 690 Dissertation	14+						M

Student Performance: Data Sources

		Outcomes
	Cr	1	2	3	4	5	6
EDLD 643					X	X
EDLD 630					X		X
EDLD 610	X
EDLD 620		X
EDLD 690							X
EDLD 645		x		X
EDLD 655			X			X

Response Threshold

At least 80% of students will be rated “Acceptable” or higher on every category of the scoring rubrics.

Schedules

Outcomes

	Year
Outcome	2011‐12	2012‐13	2013‐14	2014‐15	2015‐16	2016‐17
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X
6			X			X

Assessment Plan Elements

A yearly exit review with Ed. D. graduates also provides qualitative data to help faculty review program content, delivery, and overall student satisfaction.

	Year
Outcome	2011‐12	2012‐13	2013‐14	2014‐15	2015‐16	2016‐17
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X
6			X			X

Course Review

	Review Year
Course	2011‐12	2012‐13	2013‐14	2014‐15	2015‐16	2016‐17




EDLD 610						X
EDLD 643						X

Process for Assessing the Data

Annual Assessment Process

Data is collected from identified courses.
Random samples of collected assignments are scored by two faculty members using
prepared scoring rubrics.
The assessment coordinator tabulates the scores. Areas where the acceptable performance threshold has not been met are highlighted.
The scores are presented to the faculty for assessment.
The faculty reviews the assessment results, and makes decisions on how to respond.
- If an acceptable performance threshold has not been met, a faculty response is required. Possible responses:
  - Gather additional data next year to verify or refute the result.
  - Change something in the curriculum to try to fix the problem.
  - Change the acceptable performance threshold.
  - Choose a different assignment to assess the outcome.
- Faculty can respond to assessment results even if the acceptable performance threshold has been met.
- It is OK to determine that changes are not needed when students are demonstrating proficiency with each learning outcome.
A summary of the year’s assessment activities and faculty decisions is reported to the Provost’s Office in your Department’s Annual Assessment Activities report.

Submit Your Assessment Plan to

Ron Larsen, Associate Provost
212 Montana Hall
406‐994‐4371
ronl@montana.edu

Please cc Diane Heck, at dheck@montana.edu.

EHHD_ED_GR_EdD_EDLD_REPORT_2016-17

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year: 2016-17
Department: Education
Program(s): Educational Leadership, Doctorate of Education (Ed. D.)

1. What Was Done?

From Spring 2016-summer 2017, four doctoral students took oral and written comprehensive examinations. Five doctoral students defended final dissertations (Miller, Scalia, Rocksund, Filpula, Clyatt).

2. What Data Were Collected?

Pass rates were collected to assess the program. All students taking comprehensive examinations passed both the written and oral exams, leading to a 100% pass rate. All 5 doctoral students who defended their final dissertations passed, leading to a 100% pass rate

3. What Was Learned?

Two years ago, we made a decision to schedule comp exams and the dissertation proposal meeting in back to back time slots, so that the research and writing done for comps could also inform the dissertation process. After talking with recent graduates, we feel, this process has led to more productivity for students and less “time to degree.” However, there are questions about consistency with departmental expectations.

4. How We Responded?

We continue to tweak the timeline for “writing comps” knowing that students are also writing documents with their dissertation proposals in mind. We need to establish a consistent amount of time so as not to advantage or disadvantage any students and to maintain consistency within our entire Education Department.

EHHD_ED_GR_MEd_and_EdD_EDLD_REPORT_2015-16

Question 1 – What did you do on assessment this year?

Question 2 – What data did you collect?

Doctoral Level: comprehensive exam pass rates and dissertation defense pass rates were collected and examined. Individual interviews were done with finishing doctoral students.

Question 3 – What did your review of the data indicate for you?

Pass rates for PRAXIS for students graduating spring 2015 was 45 of 49 graduates passing or 91.8% passing. For spring of 2016, 28 of 28 students passed the PRAXIS for a pass rate of 100%
Students' knowledge of special education law and programs was relatively weak.
Students prefer more face to face meetings to discuss and debrief theory to practice assignments as well as field experience.
Doctoral students gave feedback about how the lack of a strong, consistent cohort left them feeling more isolated in their degree pursuits.

Question 4 – As a result of your review of the data, what did you do?

We instituted a new class (EDLD 566 Supervision and Administration of Special Education) required of all EDLD master's students. The first course was offered Spring 2016.
We offered bi-weekly ADOBE Connect sessions to increase face to face time in EDLD 532, and 520. EDLD 534, 508 and 526 meet face to face at least 2x/semester. There is a week-long on campus/face to face component for all summer masters and doctoral/superintendent licensure courses.
We now will only review doctoral program applications in the spring for fall admission to insure that students are enrolled in courses as cohort groups. We believe the consistent cohort grouping will reduce isolation and increase the satisfaction and completion rates of doctoral students. If need be, we may only admit a doctoral cohort of 10-12 students every other year. That will be determined by looking at data for the following 1-2 years examining the success of the new cohort approach.

EHHD_ED_GR_EdD_EDLD_REPORT_2014-15

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year: 2014‐15
Department: Education
Program(s): Educational Leadership, Doctorate of Education (Ed.D.)

1. What Was Done?

4 doctoral students sat for oral comprehensive examinations and 5 doctoral students sat for written comprehensive examinations. 6 doctoral students defended final dissertations.

2. What Data Were Collected?

Pass rates were collected to assess the program. All students who sat for comprehensive examinations passed both the written and oral exams, leading to a 100% pass rate. All 6 doctoral students who defended their final dissertations passed, leading to a 100% pass rate

3. What Was Learned?

Through this process, we reviewed how we organized the doctoral comprehensive exams. In some cases, there was too much time between the exam and the student taking the next step to bringing forth a proposal for the dissertation/research topic and study. Some students felt that they “floundered” and were unsure of how to move from comprehensive exam to proposal writing. We felt that students would have greater efficacy in the research process and a shorter “ time to degree” if we reorganized comprehensive exams and the subsequent proposal meetings to occur together.

4. How We Responded?

We wanted to utilize the comprehensive exam as a launching point for students’ research and dissertation, so scheduled the exam and proposal meetings for back‐to‐back time slots. This gave us an opportunity to hold the written and oral exams, and then immediately engage with students about their dissertation topics and research proposals.

We also changed the format for written comprehensive exams to include two major questions that aligned more to their proposed research topic. The first question would be a literature review and analysis of the particular topic of study the student was choosing for the dissertation. The second question would ask the student to operationalize his/her hypothetical research question using both quantitative and qualitative research methods.

Changing the comprehensive exam format and the content of the questions for the comprehensive exam have made for a more seamless process for students as they progress through the latter stages of their doctoral programs.

Education - Doctor of Education (PhD)

Program Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.
Develop meaningful evidence‐based solutions to complex problems from a position of equity and social justice.
Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic and systematic inquiry.
Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

EHHD_ED_GR_PHD_REPORT_YEAR_0

Assessment Plan – Year 0 Report

College: Education, Health, & Human Development
Department: Education
Submitted by: Sarah Pennington

_{Year 0 Assessment Plan Report is due September 15th .}

Indicate all majors, minors, certificates and/or options that are included in this new assessment Plan

Majors/Minors/Certificate	Options
Ph.D.	Adult & Higher Education; Curriculum & Instruction; Educational Leadership

Part 1: Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)

PLO#	PLO Description
1.	Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.
2.	Develop meaningful evidence‐based solutions to complex problems from a position of equity and social justice.
3.	Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic and systematic inquiry.
4.	Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
5.	Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

Part 2: Development of Assessment Plan

2a. Curriculum Map

ASSESSMENT PLANNING CHART
Program Learning Outcomes	Course Alignments: Include rubric, number and course title	Identification of Assessment Artifact
1, 5	EDU 600 – Doctoral Seminar	Literature Review
1, 4, 5	EDU 650 – Dissertation Seminar	Dissertation Proposal Chapter 1; Brief Chapter 2
1, 4, 5	EDU 690 – Doctoral Thesis	Doctoral Dissertation
3, 5	EDU 610 – Qualitative Research	Qualitative Research Proposal/Project; IRB app.
3, 5	EDU 607- Quantitative Educational Research	Quantitative Research proposal/Project; IRB app.
2	EDU 612 – Critical Race Theory	Final Paper/Presentation
2	EDU 613 – Indigenous Methodologies in Educational Research	Research Proposal/Project; IRB app
2	EDU 643 – Leading Social Justice	Action Plan
3, 4	Program Benchmark: Comprehensive Exams	Written comprehensive exams with oral defense

ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
		Year to be assessed
PLO	Course	2022-2023	2023-2024	2024-2025	2025-2026	2026-2027
1	EDU 600- Doctoral Seminar		X			X
1	EDU 690 - Doctoral Thesis		X		X
2	EDU 612-Critical Race Theory	X			X
2	EDU 613 - Indigenous Methodologies in Educational Research		X			X
2	EDU 643 – Leading Social Justice			X
3	EDU 610 – Qualitative Research	X			X
3	EDU 607- Quantitative Educational Research			X
3	Program Benchmark: Comprehensive Exams			X
4	EDU 650 – Dissertation Seminar
4	EDU 690 – Doctoral Thesis		X		X
4	Program Benchmark: Comprehensive Exams			X
5	EDU 650 – Dissertation Seminar		X			X
5	EDU 610 – Qualitative Research	X			X
5	EDU 607- Quantitative Educational Research			X

Part 3: Program Assessment

The assessment plan will need to include: 1. how assessment will be conducted; 2. who receives the analyzed assessment data, and 3. how it will be used by program faculty for program improvement(s).

1) How will assessment artifacts be identified?

2) How will they be collected (and by whom)?

3) Who will be assessing the artifacts?

Part 4: Program Assessment Plan

All plans must include assessment rubrics (the methodology of how student artifacts are to be assessed, and a threshold for student success attainment.

PLO #1 Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.					Threshold Values
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Identification of problems	Provides multiple perspectives on a problem relevant to their field of study	Describes the complexity of a problem relevant to their field of study	Identifies a problem relevant to their field of study	Partially identifies a problem OR identifies a problem that is not clearly relevant to their field of study
Contextualized analysis of problem(s)	Applies disciplinary skills and knowledge to thoroughly analyze a problem relevant to their field of study resulting in a nuanced discussion of perspectives	Applies disciplinary skills and knowledge to thoroughly analyze a problem relevant to their field of study	Logical analysis of a problem relevant to their field of study is guided by elements of disciplinary skills & knowledge	Analysis of a problem relevant to their field of study is incomplete and may include assumptions and statements not supported by disciplinary knowledge.
PLO #2 Develop meaningful evidence‐based solutions to complex problems from a position of equity and social justice.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Meaningful evidence-based solutions	Designs a study utilizing appropriate, evidence-based methods firmly grounded in theory and previous literature (or gaps therein) to study a complex problem relevant to their field	Designs a study utilizing appropriate, evidence-based methods grounded in theory and/or previous literature (or gaps therein) to study a complex problem relevant to their field	Designs a study utilizing minimally appropriate, evidence-based methods which may or may not be grounded in theory and/or previous literature (or gaps therein) to study a problem relevant to their field	Designs a study that does not utilize appropriate, evidence-based methods grounded in theory and/or previous literature (or gaps therein) to study a problem relevant to their field
Social Justice & Equity	Integrate understanding of social justice and equity into investigation of solutions related to a complex problem relevant to their field, resulting in solutions that support the vitality and self-determination of diverse stakeholders.	Integrate understanding of social justice and equity into investigation of solutions related to a complex problem relevant to their field	Apply minimal understanding of social justice and equity into investigation of solutions related to a complex problem relevant to their field	Does not apply understanding of social justice and equity into investigation of solutions related to a complex problem relevant to their field
PLO #3 Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic and systematic inquiry.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Synthesis	Synthesizes personal knowledge, as well as practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge from the literature to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Synthesizes personal knowledge, as well as two of the following: practical, theoretical, or empirical knowledge from the literature to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Synthesizes personal knowledge, as well as one of the following: practical, theoretical, or empirical knowledge from the literature to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Does not synthesize personal knowledge, as well as practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge from the literature to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.
Critical Analysis	Critically analyzes sources identified for synthesis to identify biases and gaps and utilizes these to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Critically analyzes sources identified for synthesis to identify biases or gaps and utilizes these to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Conducts surface analysis of sources identified for synthesis to identify biases or gaps and utilizes these to inform systemic and systematic inquiry.	Conducts surface analysis of sources identified for synthesis that does not identify biases or gaps and/or utilizes these to minimally inform systemic and systematic inquiry.
PLO #4 Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Effective Communication	Consistently and successfully utilizes strategies for effective communication, including awareness of the intended audience, purpose of the communication, and clear organization and support to enhance the message.	Frequently and successfully utilizes strategies for effective communication, including awareness of the intended audience, purpose of the communication, and clear organization and support to enhance the message.	Inconsistently utilizes strategies for effective communication, including awareness of the intended audience, purpose of the communication, and clear organization and support.	Rarely utilizes strategies for effective communication, including awareness of the intended audience, purpose of the communication, and clear organization and support.
Communication in Multiple Modes	Consistently and successfully demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively in multiple modes, including a variety of written/visual products, oral presentations, and interpersonal communications.	Demonstrates the ability to communicate effectively in multiple modes, including a variety of written/visual products, oral presentations, and interpersonal communications.	Demonstrates basic ability to communicate effectively in multiple modes, including a variety of written/visual products, oral presentations, and interpersonal communications.	Does not demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively in multiple modes, including a variety of written/visual products, oral presentations, and interpersonal communications.
PLO #5 Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.
Indicators	Level 4	Level 3	Level 2	Level 1	80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Ethical Scholarship	Adhere to guidelines for ethical scholarship, including those for the protection of human subjects, as well as principles of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion within all scholarly activities.	Adhere to guidelines for ethical scholarship, including those for the protection of human subjects within all scholarly activities.	N/A	N/A
Professionalism	Consistently and successfully adhere to guidelines for professional conduct, including respectful interactions with others, collegiality, and collaboration.	Frequently and successfully adhere to guidelines for professional conduct, including respectful interactions with others, collegiality, and collaboration.	Inconsistently adhere to guidelines for professional conduct, including respectful interactions with others, collegiality, and collaboration.	Infrequently adhere to guidelines for professional conduct, including respectful interactions with others, collegiality, and collaboration.

Part 5: Program Assessment Plan:

1) How will annual assessment be communicated to faculty within the department? How will faculty participating in the collecting of assessment data (student work/artifacts) be notified?

Faculty, staff, and graduate students in the department meet bi-weekly to discuss programmatic matters. The assessment reports will be communicated in a Fall department meeting each year. This will be communicated ahead of time through the weekly Monday Minutes communication that is sent out to the department community.

2) When will the data be collected and reviewed, and by whom?

3) Who will be responsible for the writing of the report?

The report will be written collaboratively by program leadership from the three programs covered by the Ph.D. (Adult & Higher Education, Curriculum & Instruction, and Educational Leadership) with input and feedback from the faculty.

4) How, when, and by whom, will the report be shared?

5) How will past assessments be used to inform changes and improvements? (How will Closing the Loop be documented)?

6) Other Comments:

Submit report to programassessment@montana.edu

EHHD_ED_GR_PhD_PLAN_2017-20

Assessment Plan: Department of Education

PhD in Education: 2017‐2020

5/15/17

Program Learning Outcomes

Our graduates will:

Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge, applying these to analyze problems.
Develop meaningful evidence‐based solutions to complex problems from a position
of equity and social justice.
Integrate personal, practical, theoretical, and empirical knowledge with systemic
and systematic inquiry.
Communicate effectively using multiple modes.
Conduct scholarly and professional activities in an ethical manner.

Curriculum Map

		Outcomes
Required Courses	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDU 600‐Doctoral Seminar	3	I	I	I	I	I
EDU 650‐Dissertation Seminar	3		D	D	D	D
EDU 602‐Ed Stats II	3	D		D		I
EDU 607‐Quantitative Ed Research	3	D	D	D	D	D
EDU 610‐Qualitative Ed Research	3	D		D	M	M
EDLD 643‐ Leading Social Justice	3		D		D	D
EDLD 635‐ College Teaching	3	D	D			D
EDLD 610‐ Leadership & Org Theory	3	M	D	D	M	D
EDCI 604‐ Advanced Ed Psych	3	D	D	D
EDU 690‐Doctoral Thesis	18	M	M	M	M	M

Student Performance: Data Sources

		Outcomes
Required Courses	Cr	1	2	3	4	5
EDU 600‐Doctoral Seminar	3	X		X
EDU 650‐Dissertation Seminar	3			X		X
EDU 602‐Ed Stats II	3	X		X		X
EDU 607‐Quantitative Ed Research	3	X	X	X	X	X
EDU 610‐Qualitative Ed Research	3	X		X	X	X
EDLD 643‐ Leading Social Justice	3		X	X	X	X
EDLD 635‐ College Teaching	3	X	X			X
EDLD 610‐ Leadership & Org Theory	3		X	X	X	X
EDCI 604‐ Advanced Ed Psych	3	X	X	X
EDU 690‐Doctoral Thesis	18	X	X	X	X	X

Response Threshold

During the 2017‐18 AY we will finalize our rubrics and determine response threshold.

Schedules

Outcomes Review

	Year
Outcome	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X

Assessment Plan Element Review

	Year
Outcome	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
1	X			X
2	X			X
3		X			X
4		X			X
5			X			X

Course Review

	Review Year
Course	2017‐18	2018‐19	2019‐20	2020‐21	2021‐22	2022‐23
EDU 600	X					X
EDU 650	X					X
EDU 602		X
EDU 607		X
EDU 610			X
EDLD 610			X
EDLD 635				X
EDLD 643				X
EDCI 604					X
EDU 690					X

Process for Assessing the Data

Annual Assessment Process

Data is collected from identified courses.
Random samples of collected assignments are scored by two faculty members using
prepared scoring rubrics.
The assessment coordinator tabulates the scores. Areas where the acceptable performance
threshold has not been met are highlighted.
The scores are presented to the faculty for assessment.
The faculty reviews the assessment results, and makes decisions on how to respond.
- If an acceptable performance threshold has not been met, a faculty response is
  required. Possible responses:
  - Gather additional data next year to verify or refute the result.
  - Change something in the curriculum to try to fix the problem.
  - Change the acceptable performance threshold.
  - Choose a different assignment to assess the outcome.
- Faculty can respond to assessment results even if the acceptable performance
  threshold has been met.
- It is OK to determine that changes are not needed when students are demonstrating
  proficiency with each learning outcome.
A summary of the year’s assessment activities and faculty decisions is reported to the Provost’s Office in your Department’s Annual Assessment Activities report.

EHHD_ED_GR_PhD_REPORT_2016-17

Annual Assessment Report

Academic Year 2016-17
Department: Education
Program: PhD in Education

1.What was done?

2 students graduated with their PhD in Education.
We developed an assessment plan for the PhD in Education (2017-2020).

2. What data was collected?

Syllabi for the core courses in the PhD in Education.

3.What was learned?

We learned that there is little overlap between courses but we could have a tighter program in
terms of articulation and discussed running themes that could weave throughout the courses.

4. How we responded?

We believe that the assessment plan will create the roadmap for ensuring continuous
improvement for this new program that began in Fall 2015.

For the 2017-18 academic year, we created a new course, EDU 600, Doctoral Seminar, that
intends to build a cohort and acculturate students to doctoral study. This builds upon a 1 credit
pilot course, EDU 691, in Fall 2016.

Department of Education Program Outcomes and Assessment

Undergraduate

Montana State University ‐ BozemanDepartment of EducationProgram Assessment System Plan

Program Learning OutcomesELED, EDGS, EDSS and TEBD majors; TRDG and TTCH minors

1

2

3

4

5

Delivery ‐ Elementary Education

Assessment ‐ Elementary Education

Delivery - General Science Broadfield

Assessment ‐ General Science Broadfield

Delivery - Social Studies Broadfield

Assessment ‐ Social Studies Broadfield

Delivery - Technology Education Broadfield Teaching Option

Assessment ‐ Technology Education Broadfield Teaching Option

Delivery - Teaching Reading Minor

Delivery - Teaching Technology Education Minor

Assessment - Teaching Reading Minor

Assessment - Teaching Technology Education Minor

Programmatic ExpectationsELED, EDGS, EDSS and TEBD majors;TRDG and TTCH minors

Assessment ScheduleELED, EDGS, EDSS and TEBD majors;TRDG and TTCH minors

Annual Assessment Process ‐ TEP

Program Learning OutcomesTechnology Education Industrial Technology Option

1

2

3

4

Delivery - Technology Education Industrial Technology Option

Assessment - Technology Education Industrial Technology Option

Programmatic Expectations Technology Education Industrial Technology Option

Assessment ScheduleTechnology Education Industrial Technology Option

Annual Assessment ProcessTechnology Education Industrial Technology Option

Field Experience Performance Assessment (FEPA)

Scoring Rubric

Teacher Work Sample (TWS)

Scoring Rubric

TE 331 - Portfolio Rubric

TE 250 - Medical Technology Debate Rubric

TE 410 ‐ Plumb Bob Project

TE 498 - Internship Rubric

Question 1 – What did you do on assessment this year?

Signature Assignments (SAs)

Field Experience Performance Assessment (FEPA)

Teacher Work Sample (TWS)

Graduate Survey (GS)

Employer Survey (ES)

TEP Assessment Timeline

Question 2 – What data did you collect?

Signature Assignments (SA)

Teacher Work Sample (TWS)

Field Experience Performance Assessment (FEPA)

Praxis II

Graduate Survey (GS)

Employer Survey (ES)

Question 3 – What did your review of the data indicate for you?

RESEARCH QUESTION 1: Does the evidence support the Program Claims regarding Completers of the MSU Teacher Education Program?

Claim 1: Content Mastery

Claim 2: Understanding Development and Diversity of Learners

Claim 3: Pedagogical and Technological Proficiency

Claim 4: Excellence in Instructional Design and Assessment

Claim 5: Professionalism

RESEARCH QUESTION 2: What are strengths of the MSU Teacher Education Program?

Academic Ability of TEP Completers

Role of Clinical Evaluators

Measurement Strengths of the FEPA, TWS, and GS

Reduction of Bias in PAS Instruments

RESEARCH QUESTION 3: What are the opportunities for growth in the MSU Teacher Education Program?

Signature Assignment Scoring

Signature Assignment Alignment with the TWS

Practicum FEPA Inter-rater Reliability

Structure of the TWS

Graduate & Employer Survey Response Rate

CONCLUSION

Question 4 – As a result of your review of the data, what did you do?

Align the FEPA with the Danielson Framework

Refinement of the Signature Assignments

Refinement, Alignment & Scoring of the TWS

Increase Teacher Candidates’ Assessment Literacy

Montana State University ‐ Bozeman
Department of Education
Program Assessment System Plan

Program Learning Outcomes
ELED, EDGS, EDSS and TEBD majors; TRDG and TTCH minors

Programmatic Expectations
ELED, EDGS, EDSS and TEBD majors;
TRDG and TTCH minors

Assessment Schedule
ELED, EDGS, EDSS and TEBD majors;
TRDG and TTCH minors

Program Learning Outcomes
Technology Education Industrial Technology Option

Programmatic Expectations
Technology Education Industrial Technology Option

Assessment Schedule
Technology Education Industrial Technology Option

Annual Assessment Process
Technology Education Industrial Technology Option