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 |
|
|||
2. Demonstrate disciplinary skills and knowledge required to be successful in the field of education administration as indicated by PSEL Standards. | X | X |
|
||
3. Develop evidence-based solutions for complex problems of practice from a perspective of equity and social justice. | X |
|
|||
4. Integrate personal, practical, theoretical and empirical knowledge with systemic and systematic inquiry. | X | X |
|
||
5. Conduct scholarly research and professional activities in an ethical manner. | X | X |
|
||
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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.
- 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
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: