Assessment of Student Learning - Minnesota State University Moorhead

Curriculum & Instruction Masters
Assessment Report

Six measures used to assess the Curriculum and Instruction MS Degree Program. They include: 1) Action Research Project Assessment, 2) Verbal Presentation Assessment, 3) Capstone Paper Assessment, 4) Student Program Evaluation, 5) Evaluation for Student Advising and Program Coordination and 6) Student Portfolio Evaluation. Data exists for measures 1, 2, 3, and 4 for the two-year Biennial Report period, while data for measures five and six cover only a one-year period, as these are new measures developed as a result of the six-year review.

Measures 1, 2, and 3 assess the culminating work for students in the C and I program. The Action Research Project is a piece of original research that students complete in their classroom or school. The Verbal Presentation substitutes for an oral defense and allows students the opportunity to talk about their research project. The Capstone Paper substitutes for the written comprehensive exam. It requires students to respond to four questions: 1) What is the purpose of school? 2) What is the relationship between school and society? 3) How has the C and I program informed your work as a teacher and changed you as an educational thinker? and 4) What questions remain after completing the C and I program? Questions one and two are the main themes for the C and I program, while questions three and four are intended to asses self-reflection and depth and breadth of thinking.

Measures 4, 5, and 6 assess the C and I program. Measure 4 requires students to evaluate six different program components: teaching effectiveness; quality of reading materials; knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary for effective teaching; refining of thinking, reading, writing and researching skills; learning about personal areas of interest; and framing of courses by program themes. Measure 5 asks students to evaluate program advising and program coordination. It is intended that Measures 5 and 6 provide a broad look at the program and provide useful information to base programmatic modifications. Measure 6 evaluates the student portfolio. The portfolio is a collection of projects and assignments that address five criteria: rich, deep and thoughtful thinking; awareness of important issues; historical and contemporary perspectives; creativity and problem solving; and critical questioning of existing policies and practices. The portfolio serves the purpose of documenting growth in educational thinking and ideas about reflective teaching over time.

See Appendix A Measures 1 – 6.

Results from Measures 1 – 6

1) Measure 1: Action Research Project (mean score of 5 out of 7 to pass)
For the 2-year period covered by this report all 28 students passed the Action Research project. The overall mean score for this group of students was 6.3. By and large, the work completed by these full-time teaching researchers is quite good. Dr. Bill Ayers, the six-year external report consultant, also made this conclusion.

What is true for these students is true for many graduate students—nearing the end of their research project they become fatigued and sometimes under analyze the data. This many times results in conclusions that are not as strong as they might be have been. We continue to encourage and support these students during this phase of their work.

2) Measure 2: Verbal Presentation (mean score of 5 out of 7 to pass)
For the 2-year period covered by this report all 28 students passed the Verbal Presentation. The overall mean score for this group of students was 6.3. Typically the students do fine work with their presentations, given they are teachers practicing these skills on a daily basis. There have been times when they are not as clear as they might be in responding to questions. I encourage faculty who are working with these students to help them think ahead and anticipate questions that might be asked during their verbal presentations.

3) Measure 3: Capstone Paper (mean score of 5 out of 7 to pass)
For the 2-year period covered by this report all 28 students have passed. However 2 students were asked to re-write portions of their paper because of lack of depth and breadth. The overall mean score for this group of students was 6.0. I believe what is needed to improve the writing of capstone papers is for students to better conceptualize their thinking about the capstone questions, given the complexity of the questions. This can be accomplished by better assisting the students with their planning and organizing prior to writing the paper. In addition, the quality of capstone papers may be improved if students increase their attention to the program themes when they are thinking about and writing their papers—this improvement should result from expanded discussions about the themes.

4) Measure 4: Student Program Evaluation
For the 2-year period covered by this report 28 students completed the program evaluation piece. The mean score for the seven items on the program evaluation is 4.3 on a 5-point scale, with 5 being high and 1 low. Mean scores for the seven items are as noted:

1) Teaching Effectiveness of Faculty	4.3
2) Quality of Required Readings	4.2
3) Curriculum provided knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary for effective teaching	4.3
4) As a result of participation in the program, you are a more effective teacher	4.3
5) Program assisted you in refining thinking, reading, writing, and researching skills	4.4
6) Program allowed you to learn more about areas of personal interest	4.3
7) The following themes framed the courses in the program: purpose of school, school-society relationship, learning from inquiry, teacher as decision maker, critical reflection and improving teaching and learning	4.0

These numbers reflect a fairly high level of satisfaction with the C and I program by the students surveyed. Hopefully, I can provide the leadership necessary to better frame all C and I courses by the identified six themes.

5) Measure 5: Evaluation for Student Advising and Program Coordination
This measure was used for the first time with students enrolled in the second year course ED 695 (n=17). Students were asked to evaluate the advising they received and overall coordination of the C and I program (e.g., scheduling). Using a rating scale of

Excellent (5), Good (4), Average (3), Below Average (2), and Poor (1), the following findings are noted:

54% (n = 11) rated advising as excellent
39% (n = 5) rated advising as good
7% (n = 1) rated advising as average

82% (n = 14) rated program coordination as excellent
17% (n = 3) rated program coordination as good

As program coordinator, I advise all C and I students, meet with all prospective students and am responsible for all areas of program coordination. These results, although limited by the small number of respondents, speak to overall satisfaction with the advising they receive and how program coordination affects their lives as graduate students. I will continue to administer this evaluation to gain additional insight into the student’s perspectives about these 2 issues.