Degree Program Assessment Reports

1. Students will be able to write a final research paper.

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest.)

2. Students will be able to conduct an instructional design project.

(2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study.)

3. Students will be able to write a research proposal/an idea paper.

(4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)

4. Students will be able to design and execute a culminating research project.

(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience.)

5. Students will be able to present their research at an online international conference.

(7. Interact professionally with others.)

6. Students will be able to complete and submit an IRB application.

(6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)

7. Students will be able to work in collaborative teams.

(7. Interact professionally with others.)

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2020:

• File (11/15/2020)

No
Yes, on some(1-50%) of the program SLOs
Yes, on most(51-99%) of the program SLOs
Yes, on all(100%) of the program SLOs

Create/modify/discuss program learning assessment procedures (e.g., SLOs, curriculum map, mechanism to collect student work, rubric, survey)
Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement
Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups
Use assessment results to make programmatic decisions (e.g., change course content or pedagogy, design new course, hiring)
Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 8)
Other: Once a semester faculty meet to review every student on academic achievement and dispositions to make sure they are on track.

Artistic exhibition/performance
Assignment/exam/paper completed as part of regular coursework and used for program-level assessment
Capstone work product (e.g., written project or non-thesis paper)
Exam created by an external organization (e.g., professional association for licensure)
Exit exam created by the program
IRB approval of research
Oral performance (oral defense, oral presentation, conference presentation)
Portfolio of student work
Publication or grant proposal
Qualifying exam or comprehensive exam for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation (graduate level only)
Supervisor or employer evaluation of student performance outside the classroom (internship, clinical, practicum)
Thesis or dissertation used for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation
Alumni survey that contains self-reports of SLO achievement
Employer meetings/discussions/survey/interview of student SLO achievement
Interviews or focus groups that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Student reflective writing assignment (essay, journal entry, self-assessment) on their SLO achievement.
Student surveys that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Assessment-related such as assessment plan, SLOs, curriculum map, etc.
Program or course materials (syllabi, assignments, requirements, etc.)
Other 1: Semester review of student academic achievement and dispositions.
Other 2:

Course instructor(s)
Faculty committee
Ad hoc faculty group
Department chairperson
Persons or organization outside the university
Faculty advisor
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
Dean/Director
Other:

The chart provided previously also indicates the outcomes. I've provided it here again. Please note that the data are aggregated. A review of data indicated nearly 100% of students achieving SLOs for each category with the following exceptions: (1) Concern about one 2019 cohort student not meeting ILO 2 & 3. (2) One 2019 cohort student not meeting ILO 3. (3) One 2017 and one 2018 cohort student not meeting ILO 4. In all cases, the students were advised on appropriate requirements. Similarly, students identified as having concerns with dispositions receive a letter and meet with the Department Chair for advising.

LTEC uses the assignments linked to the ILOs from 4 core courses for the past 5 academic years. ILO’s 2 and 3 are from first year courses and ILO’s 1, 4, 5 and 6 are from final year courses. ILO 7 is an assessment on student dispositions conducted at a faculty meeting at the end each academic semester (but only recorded at the end of the academic year).  The total number of students during that period is N=111 broken down by cohort: 2015-2016=24; 2016-2017=30; 2017-2018=17; 2018-2019=21; 2019-2020=19

0=Concerns   1=Acceptable   2=Excellent

These have been updated from the previous submission and are included in our Self-Study report.

 While assessment results indicated that the vast majority of students in their final year were doing acceptable work in preparing their master’s proposal (SLO 1) and master’s project and paper (SLO 4) and IRB application (SLO 6), faculty believed there was room for improvement. Faculty teaching the final year practicum courses (LTEC 687 and LTEC 690) met frequently to revise the content of both courses. They added instruction to assist students in writing drafts of their master’s paper and they added milestones for the course that were integrated into a paper template so that weekly work on the milestones could be addressed in the paper. The course schedules were adjusted to allow ample time to share milestones with critical friends, receive feedback and then include their narratives in their master’s paper drafts. Also, the IRB application in eProtocol appeared to challenge students with finding appropriate pieces of their paper to fit into the eProtocol form. Therefore, questions or directions from the eProtocol form were highlighted in the paper template so that students would be able identify sections of their paper that were associated with a particular eProtocol item. As can be seen by the reported data, scores improved on these assessments following implementation of the changes. 

Faculty also observed from the data that there was room for improvement in the instructional design aspects of the final master’s project. Students were not putting enough emphasis on the design process. Faculty revised the curriculum in first year courses to include more practical design thinking in assignments. Faculty also noted that students could improve their literature review, a section of their master’s paper. Discussion is ongoing about which first-year core course should include writing a literature review as an assignment. Work was also done after the last program review to revise all core assessments and align ILOs with new AECT standards, which serve as the program SLOs. Faculty also committed to trying to provide feedback to students within a two week timeframe.

The program did engage in assessment activities.