University of Rhode Island
                                                                                                                    School of Education

NCATE Advanced Program Assessment Data 2005


PhD in Education

 

Name of Assessment

Theme

Type or

Form of Assessment

When the Assessment Is Administered

Attachments

Assessment

Scoring Guides/

Criteria

Data Table

1.  Application Review

 

[Licensure assessment, or other content-based assessment]

 

#1

Content

 

#5

Prof. Devel.

Paper screening score

 

GPA for bachelor’s degree

 

GPA for Master’s degree

 

GRE Scores

 

Interview Scores

Prior to admission to program

1.1.a

1.2.a

1.2.b

1.3.a

1.3.b

1.3.c

2.  Coursework and Comprehensive Examinations

 

[Content-based assessment]

 

#1

Content

Core coursework Grades

 

Written Comprehensive Exam

 

Oral Comprehensive Exam

End of each of 6 semesters

 

After all coursework

 

After successful written comps.

2.1.a

 

 

2.1.b

 

 

2.1.c

2.2.a

 

 

2.2.b

2.2.c

 

 

2.2.d

 

2.3.a

2.3.b&c

2.3.d

3. Research Design

 

[Assessment of candidate ability to plan instruction]

 

#6

Prof.

Practice

Research Strand EDP 641

 

Dissertation

First 6 semesters

 

End of Program

3.1.a

 

 

3.1.b

3.2.a

 

 

3.2.b

3.3.a

3.3.b

3.3.c

4. Community Service Learning Projects & Dissertation Field Research

 

[Assessment of internship, practicum, or other clinical experience]

#6

Prof.

Practice

Project for EDP 622 Community Service Learning

 

Dissertation Research

Spring, Year 2

 

 

End of Program

4.1.a

 

 

4.1.b

4.2.a

 

 

4.2.b

4.3.a 

4.3.b

4.3.c

4.3.d

5. Community Service Learning Projects & Dissertation Topics

 

[Assessment of candidate effect on student learning]

#3

Diverse

Learning

Project for EDP 622 Community Service Learning

 

Dissertation Research Topics

Spring, Year 2

 

 

End of Program

5.1.a

 

 

5.1.b

5.2.a

 

 

5.2.b

5.3.a 

5.3.b

5.3.c

5.3.d

6.  Original Educational Research

 

[Additional assessment]

#4

Research

 

Research Strand EDP 641

 

Dissertation

First 6 semesters

 

End of Program

6.1.a

 

 

6.1.b

6.2.a

 

6.2.b

6.3.a

6.3.b1

6.3.b2

7. Graduate Follow-up Survey

 

[Additional assessment]

# 2

Leadership

Follow-up Survey:  Subsequent Careers of Graduates

Each year

7.1.a

NA

7.3.a

7.3.b

 <<Back

 

Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance

 

Evidence must be presented in this section that assessment results have been analyzed and have been or will be used to improve candidate performance and strengthen the program. This description should not link improvements to individual assessments but, rather, it should summarize principal findings from the evidence, the faculty’s interpretation of those findings, and changes made in (or planned for) the program as a result. Describe the steps program faculty has taken to use information from assessments for improvement of both candidate performance and the program. This information should be organized around (1) content knowledge, (2) pedagogical and professional knowledge, skill, and dispositions, and (3) effects on student learning and on creating environments that support learning.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance: 

URI/RIC PhD in Education

 

The use of various assessments to make alterations in various aspects of the PhD in education program is an ongoing process that has been discussed each semester by the Administrative Committee, on a monthly basis by the Program Committee and at an annual retreat with all program instructors, major professors and program committee members.  In addition to the data provided by the student quality and progress assessments related to the themes of the Advanced Programs, we have the 2002 recommendations of our accrediting body, NEASC, the survey of graduates, and faculty and student surveys concerning the strengths and concerns regarding the program. 

The May, 2005 survey summaries and data are attached.  Table 1 presents the key findings.

The recommendations from the 2002 site visit of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) included the following points:

·        Logistics of the program need to be improved including the viewing of transcripts, obtaining ID cards from two campuses and obtaining signatures (sometimes 12) from faculty and deans at two campuses.

·        More of a balance between quantitative and qualitative research methods needs to be required of students

·        Need to focus on a few well-defined specializations to guide admissions

·        Need for more and broader student and faculty contact

·        Need to revisit the original mission of school-based reform and the current student interest in higher education teaching and administration

·        Need an advisory committee

·        Need more diversity
 

Table 1:  Student and Faculty View of PhD Program

 

Needs/Concerns

Strengths

Summary of Student Responses

·         Need more formative assessment and feedback in some classes

·         Need more timely feedback

·         Need more ways or occasions to connect with faculty especially major professors and advisors who do not teach in program

·         More balance in research design approaches emphasized

·         More information on the comps and dissertation processes

·         Better information on faculty including publication samples

·         Better timing of courses

·         Need a student advisory committee

·         Combination of broad and specialized foci in program

·         Interest and support of faculty

·         Cohort models and connections among cohorts in 641

·         Feedback and other help when given

Faculty Responses

·    Disconnect/lack of communication among faculty in terms of course assignment and knowing rules/expectations,

·    Inconsistent expectations,

·    Spread of student backgrounds,

·    Lack of defined specializations to serve students)

·    More selective admissions that match offerings

·    Updates and bulletins to keep faculty and students informed

·    Limit specializations, but develop some core ones more fully

·    Get more faculty involved through colloquia and teaching roles

·    Provide handbook for major professors

·    Examine the flow and content of coursework—more responsive to student population that has shifted
  • Great population of professionals served
  • Cohort model
  • Collaborations between RIC/URI faculties
  • Recent improvements in logistics

<<Back

(1)   content knowledge improvements  There are three areas in which we have been working to improve the content knowledge of our students. 

 

First, we are moving to develop more specific specialization course configurations both within the program and in conjunction with other doctoral programs on campus.  For example, the PhD program in the College of Business offers advanced courses in organizational behavior and leadership theory.  School psychology offers doctoral courses in many connected areas.  Once these areas have been defined and communicated to students and program faculty, we can do a better job of selecting students whose background and interests match what we have to offer.  Additionally, our students would benefit from working with doctoral students in other disciplines. 

 

Second, we have included instructors in our annual retreat to examine the flow of the content in our coursework, to assure the infusion of relevant literature for the broader interest of our students (e.g., the inclusion of adult development and curriculum in Core II), and to agree on expectations both for writing as well as timely formative assessment and feedback. 

 

Third, we have a proposal that will move for adoption this year to add a qualitative methodology requirement for all students.

 

 (2)   pedagogical and professional knowledge, skill, and dispositions

 

In this area we have started the annual student review process this last year by asking major professors and advisors to report on meetings with advisees and update on their progress that is then reported to the URI Graduate School.  In the 2005 retreat we decided to move this further, using a model from the PhD in School Psychology program.  Starting in March, 2006, we will have advisor/major professors, instructors, and the program committee come together to consider the progress of all students.  Major professors will be asked to bring in relevant materials and will have the opportunity to discuss course progress with the instructors.  Students will then meet with their advisors to discuss this report and plan for the next steps.

 

(3)   effects on student learning and on creating environments that support learning

 

There were many successes in the 2004-2005 year as well as planning for continuing improvements that will impact student learning and the learning environment for our doctoral students. 

 

First, to address some of the difficulties in communication inherent in a dual institution program, we put the URI/RIC Program Handbook on-line so that the rules and most current forms (that are specific to this program) are available at all times to prospective and current students and faculty.  

 

Second, we have arranged access for all major professors, advisors, instructors, and URI/RIC student service administrators in the PeopleSoft databases at either campus.  Enrollment services, the Graduate School and other critical offices can now locate important information without relying on the RIC offices to provide it in paper form. 

 

Third, we are working on a Major Professor’s Handbook to make sure that the required procedures are followed in assisting student progress through the program and avoiding difficulties caused by not understanding rules and procedures. 

 

Fourth, we planned and held a series of colloquia during the 2004-2005 year to allow students to hear the research interests of program faculty who do not teach in the Core classes but have exciting plans to share.  These colloquia were held on Friday afternoons, not the optimal time for gatherings.  This year we are incorporating these sessions in the regular meetings of EDP 641 the research strand so that these opportunities are enjoyed by all students.  These sessions also help our faculty members to get to know colleagues from the other campus and better advise their students about potential dissertation committee members.

 

Fifth, we are working on updating the faculty information (even photos) on the website and including links to pdf versions of sample publications so students can get a better sense of the research interests of our faculty.

 

Sixth, we will be using the electronic admissions available at URI to reduce the amount of paper shuffling and data input as we consider and accept new students.  This change also allows potential students to review the admission process in a more timely way.

 

Seventh, we will be continuing to poll the faculty and students to gain their perspectives on strengths and weaknesses of the program.  Part of this effort will be to create a Student Advisory group.

 

 <<Back