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)
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 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
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 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?
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)?
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.
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.
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?
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 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?
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