Submitted Fall, 2006
Data Report
During the fall semester 2005, spring semester 2006 and 2006 summer session, a total of 54 graduate student major artifacts were assessed for this report. The number of graduate student artifacts was slightly less than the previous year. Only direct measures were assessed during fall semester 2005, spring semester 2006 and 2006 summer session.
Table 1 is a display of data gathered from the assessment of graduate student artifacts.
Table 1
Graduate Program Artifact Scores
| Program |
Artifact No. |
Artifact |
No. Students |
Mean Score |
| Exercise Science |
1 |
Case Study |
1 |
4.0 |
| |
3 |
Treatment Program |
4 |
4.0 |
| Master Teacher of Physical Education |
1 |
Assessment |
2 |
3.0 |
| |
2 |
K-6 Lesson Plan |
12 |
3.55 |
| |
3 |
Philosophy |
2 |
3.5 |
| Recreation |
3 |
Facility Design |
2 |
3.5 |
| Sports Admin. |
1 |
Philosophy |
8 |
3.45 |
| |
2 |
Facility Design |
2 |
3.5 |
| |
3 |
Budget |
4 |
3.0 |
| |
4 |
Marketing Plan |
2 |
4 |
Interpretation of Data Gathered
Mean scores of 3.0 or higher on program specific learning objectives indicate HPERLS majors are scoring at the “Good” level, which indicates an acceptable student achievement outcome for the department. Based on this scale the Health & Physical Education Teaching Candidates achieved a mean score 3.0 or higher on all artifacts assessed. Recreation, Sports Administration, and Exercise Science majors were all successful at producing mean scores of 3.0 or higher on artifacts measured during the past year.
What the Data Indicates About Student Learning
Graduate Majors
Exercise Science: Artifacts 1 & 3
The mean score for all artifacts collected in the Exercise Science program was a 4.0. This is an outstanding accomplishment in the understanding of formulation of case studies and the development of treatment plans. The exercise science faculty will continue to maintain this level of student achievement
Master Teacher of Physical Education: Artifacts 1, 2 & 3
The overall mean score of 3.35 indicates that the average Master Teacher of Physical Education student is achieving above the level of good on the artifacts associated with competence in the assessment of learning and the formulation of health education lesson plans. Faculty will work to maintain this level of achievement.
Recreation: Artifacts 1, 3 & 5
The average Recreation graduate student achieved above the good level in the development of the artifact associated with facility design and management. Since this is the first year of the assessment process that we have graduate students enrolled in the recreation area this is encouraging.
Sports Administration: 1,2,3, & 4
The average Sports Administration graduate is continuing to achieve or surpassed the “good” level (3.48) on the development of artifacts associated with philosophy development, facility design and management, budget development and monitoring, marketing and policy development. This continues to encourage faculty, and they will work to maintain or improve upon these findings.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on interpretation of data generated from assessment of artifacts.
Graduate Programs
Exercise Science
- Faculty should continue to implement procedures to maintain student achievement in the areas where artifacts are generated.
Master Teacher of Physical Education
- Faculty should consider and implement procedures to maintain student achievement in the area where artifacts are generated.
- Faculty should consider and implement procedures whereby all artifacts are gathered and assessed on at least a bi-annual basis.
Recreation
- Faculty should continue to implement procedures to maintain student achievement in the areas where artifacts are generated.
Sports Administration
- Faculty should consider and implement procedures to maintain student achievement in the areas where artifacts are generated.
Assessment of the Assessment Process
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the previous chair, the faculty did not convene to discuss the assessment process this past academic year. It is the opinion of the current chair that not much was done differently from the previous year and faculty were confident in the plan of action presented them in the fall of 2005.
It is the perception of this Department Chairperson that the assessment plan still has shortcomings and agrees with last years discussion and is going to pursue the following suggestions from the former chair: First the assessment of individual artifacts rather than a totally completed portfolio may dilute the evaluation of student’s achievement and the overall effectiveness of the program of study. Second, the current plan places the responsibility for artifact assessment on a relatively few faculty persons. The department may need to consider how to more effectively spread the responsibility for assessment. Third, the Chairperson needs more knowledge and experience regarding assessment to upgrade and improve the current plan. In addition, in the next academic year, the faculty will be discussing a review of the assessment process in relation to comprehensive exams.