EHHD_ED_GR_EDD_AHE_REPORT_YEAR_0

Assessment Plan – Year 0 Report

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

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:

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

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. 

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/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.  

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:

EDLD 614: 

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

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)

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