University of Nebraska Kearney

During summer 2003, fall 2003 and spring 2004 semesters a total of 583 undergraduate student major artifacts and 79 graduate student major artifacts were assessed for this report. This contrasts sharply with the assessment report for summer 2003 for the department which included the assessment of 124 undergraduate student artifacts and just 3 graduate student artifacts. The assessment activities evaluated this past year for undergraduate students were: Sports Administration (professional philosophy, facilities plan, budget development, marketing, and a policies/procedures plan), Recreation (leadership profile, computer software implementation, facility design, recreation programming, and a policies/procedures handbook), Exercise Science (incentive plan development, computer software implementation, theory application, and a case study), and Health & Physical Education ( lesson plan development & delivery, professional philosophy, and instruction of students with disabilities). The assessment activities evaluated this spring for graduate students were: General Physical Education Sports Administration (professional philosophy, facilities plan, budget development, marketing, and a policies/procedures plan), Master Teacher (professional philosophy and instruction of students with disabilities). Exercise Science (case study development, review of scientific research, and power point use). The following are average scores obtained on the program specific learning objectives for student majors in the department during the past year. Note that not all objectives for all programs are assessed every semester.

Assessment of Undergraduate Internship Experiences

Undergraduate majors in Recreation, Exercise Science, and Sports Administration complete an internship experience (REC 477) during their senior year. All students are evaluated by their site supervisor during their internship experience utilizing the "Student Performance Evaluation" form. During summer 2003, fall 2003, & spring 2004 semesters 56 majors were assessed and the average score obtained was a 3.77.

Mean scores of 3.0 or higher on program specific learning objectives indicate HPERLS majors are scoring at the "Good" level, which indicates a successful result for the department. Based on this scale the health & physical education majors were successful at producing a mean score of 3.0 or higher on all objectives measured during the past year. Recreation, Sports Administration, and Exercise Science majors were mostly successful at producing mean scores of 3.0 or higher on some objectives measured during the past year. Mean scores of 4.0 or higher obtained on the "Student Performance Evaluation" form indicate an above average performance by student majors during their internship experience and a successful outcome for the HPERLS department. As noted above the mean score for students assessed during their internship experience was a 3.77.

Undergraduate Majors:

Sports Administration Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

The average score of 3.66 on the development of a philosophy of athletics (obj. 1.) indicates that the average student in the sports administration major is scoring above the "good" level on this objective. The department is pleased with this result as it is an important skill for professionals. We will continue to monitor this objective in the future. The average scores of 3.20 on the development of a facilities plan (obj. 2) and the development of a budget (obj. 3) and a score of 3.07 on the development of a policies/procedures plan (obj. 5) indicates that the average student in sports administration is scoring above the "good" level on these objectives. Course content has been modified and the instructors charged with delivering these courses have been successful in delivering the material in a way that has led to improved student scores on these objectives. The average score of 1.96 on the development of a marketing plan (obj. 4) indicates that the average student in sports administration is scoring below the competent level on this objective. This finding is disturbing as marketing is a key component for professionals in sports administration. The instructor charged with the delivery of this assignment plans to reassess her presentation of the materials and information related to this assignment.

Recreation Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

The average scores of 3.21 and 3.51 on the development of a leadership profile (obj.1) and computer software implementation (obj.2) indicates that the average student in recreation is scoring above the "good" level on these objectives. The department is pleased with these results, but will continue to monitor closely these objectives. The average score of 3.20 on the development of a facility design (obj. 3) indicates that the average student scored above the "good" level on this objective. This is a significant improvement from results from the previous year and indicates that instructor changes have been successful. The average score of 3.07 for the development of a policies/procedures handbook (obj.5) indicates that students are scoring above "good" for this objective. Results from the recreation programming activity were below the standard of "good" for objective 4 for recreation students. The instructor for this course plans to review her lesson plans and course information concerning this topic in an attempt to improve instruction on this important objective. Close monitoring of this objective will follow.

Exercise Science Objectives 1, 2, 3, 5.

The average scores of 3.08 development of a case study (obj.1) 3.40 on computer software implementation (obj. 3) and 3.48 (obj. 5 ) indicates that the average exercise science student scored above the "good" level on these objectives. Given the importance of these objectives the department is pleased with the results, but will continue to monitor both objectives closely in the future. The average score of 3.92 on the development of an incentive plan (obj. 2) indicates a very high "good" result on this valuable objective.

Health & Physical Education Objectives 2, 3, 4, 5.

The average scores of 3.35 case study lesson plan implementation (obj. 2), 3.24 development of professional philosophy (obj. 3), & 3.92 instruct students with disabilities (obj. 5) indicate that the average health & physical education student scored above the "good" level on these objectives. Additionally, the average score of 3.49 on the development of exemplary health lessons (obj.4) also indicates an above "good" level of performance for health and physical education majors. The faculty members of the department are pleased with these results, but plan to work diligently to improve these scores in the future. Several initiatives related to teacher education at UNK should work to impress upon student majors in health & physical education the importance of doing well on these assessment activities. The implementation of decision points within the teacher education program in particular should work to ensure a greater effort is delivered by students.

What the data indicates about the undergraduate internship experience.

During the spring semester 56 exercise science, recreation, and sports administration students participated in REC 477 Internship. Their average score on the "Student Performance Evaluation" completed by their site supervisor (non-UNK professionals) was 3.77 on a five point scale. The score indicates that our students are receiving an "above average" score from their site supervisors. While this is adequate we have higher expectations for our students and will therefore work to improve these scores. One program change that has begun to pay dividends on improving internship scores is the implementation of a process that requires students to seek approval from their advisors prior to beginning their internships. As a part of the process, professional portfolios need to be submitted and approved along with a minimum grade point average requirement. This procedure was implemented with the fall 2003 internship students.

Graduate Majors:

Master Teacher of Physical Education Objectives 3 & 4.

The average score of 3.83 on the development of a professional philosophy (obj. 3) and an average score of 3.86 on the delivery of instruction to students with disabilities (obj. 4) indicate that our graduate students are scoring significantly above the "good" level for these objectives.

General Physical Education, Sports Administration Objectives 1, 2,3,4, & 5.

Average scores of 3.92, 3.60 and 3.85 on objectives 1, 2 and 3 indicate students are scoring well above the "good" level on these objectives. However, a score of 2.20 on objective 4 (the production of a marketing plan) is troubling, but not surprising given that this result mirrors the performance of the undergraduate students on the same artifact. The instructor for this course is diligently reviewing her materials in an attempt to improve the students' ability to perform well on this important activity. The score of 4.0 on objective 5 is the result of only one student's performance in an independent study course.

Exercise Science Objective 1,2,3.

Average scores of 3.50, 3.09 and 3.70 all indicate that students are scoring above the "good" level for these objectives. Exercise science faculty are happy with these results, but wish to work to improve these results in the future.

Previous recommendations for improvement focused on individual faculty evaluation of instructional techniques and delivery of course materials. Based on the improved student scores on those artifacts that were assessed both during the spring of 2003 and during the spring of 2004 it appears that the department was successful in improving student understanding and performance.

During the spring semester of 2004 the faculty of the department considered the following points:

• Are the desired outcomes for the graduates of our department still relevant and defensible? In general, the faculty of the department believe the answer to the above question is yes; however, a critical analysis and review of the assessment plan and artifacts will be performed during the fall semester of 2004. 
• Does the current means of assessing actually assess the department's desired outcomes for graduates and provide information that allows for the continuous improvement of our degree programs? Given that the process allows for assessment to occur both at the course/instructor level and at end of the program (student teaching/internship) the faculty believe that data collected will allow for improvement of all degree programs. 
• Is the scope and focus of our assessment process reasonable? To be valid and reliable the assessment process must be broad and consistent. However, the current system is too time consuming and must be placed on the COE server for more accurate and efficient analysis. 
• Do we need to discontinue or add any assessment activities. This question will be addressed during the fall 2004 semester, but there will likely be changes.