University of Nebraska Kearney

During the spring semester of 2003 a total of 124 undergraduate student majors and 3 graduate student majors in the department completed assessment activities during enrollment in required courses. Specifically, at the undergraduate level 35 sports administration majors, 33 recreation majors, 21 exercise science majors, and 35 health & physical education majors participated in the assessment activities. The assessment activities evaluated this spring for undergraduate students were: Sports Administration (professional philosophy, facilities plan, budget development), Recreation (leadership profile, computer software implementation, facility design), Exercise Science (incentive plan development, computer software implementation, theory application), and Health & Physical Education (fitness technology use, 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), Master Teacher (fitness technology, case study, and field based instruction). The following are average scores obtained on the program specific learning objectives for student majors in the department during the spring of 2003. 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 the spring of 2003 fifteen majors were assessed and the average score obtained was a 3.61.

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 spring semester of 2003. Recreation, Sports Administration, and Exercise Science majors were partially successful at producing mean scores of 3.0 or higher on some objectives measured during the spring semester of 2003. 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 3.61.

Sports Administration Objectives 1, 2a, 2b.

The average score of 3.67 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 2.90 and 2.84 on the development of a facilities plan (obj. 2a) and the development of a budget (obj. 2b) indicates that the average student in sports administration is scoring below the "good" level on these objectives. Course content will be modified and the instructors charged with delivering these courses will attempt to deliver this valuable information in a more sequential manner in the future. These objectives will be closely monitored in the future.

Recreation Objectives 1, 2, 3a.

The average scores of 3.10 and 3.47 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 2.90 on the development of a facility design (obj. 3a) indicates that the average student scored below the "good" level on this objective. 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 2, 3, 4.

The average scores of 3.47 and 3.51 on computer software implementation (obj. 3) and theory application of exercise behavior (obj. 4) 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 2.77 on the development of an incentive plan (obj. 2) indicates a below "good" level result on this valuable objective. The instructors charged with the delivery of this information will review their teaching techniques and make a concerted effort to emphasize the importance of this skill. The objective will be closely monitored in the future.

Health & Physical Education Objectives 1, 2, 3, 5.

The average scores of 3.12 fitness technology implementation (obj. 1), 3.33 case study lesson plan implementation (obj. 2), 3.06 development of professional philosophy (obj. 3), & 3.71 instruct students' with disabilities (obj. 5) indicate that the average health & physical education student scored above the "good" level on these objectives. The faculty 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 fifteen 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 3.61 on a five point scale. The score indicates that our students are receiving a slightly "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 will have a major impact on improving internship scores will be the implementation of a process that will require students to seek approval from their advisors prior to beginning their internships. As a part of the process, professional portfolios will need to be submitted and approved along with a minimum grade point average requirement.

Graduate Majors: 

Master Teacher of Physical Education Objectives 1, 2, 4.

Only two students participated (one completed objectives 1 & 2 during enrollment in PE 841 via an independent study and a second student completed objective 4 during enrollment in PE 828 via an independent study) in the assessment activities this semester. Therefore, little can be learned from the fact that the average score for these activities was a 4.0. It was valuable to have students work through the instructions and process for each assessment activity.

General Physical Education, Sports Administration Objective 1.

Only one student completed the assessment activity for objective 1 this semester. However, the student did well scoring a perfect 4.0 on the activity. Future monitoring of this objective will create opportunities for reflection.

There were no previous recommendations made relative to the assessment plan for the HPERLS department.

During the spring semester of 2003 the faculty of the department considered the following points:

• Are the desired outcomes for the graduates of our department still relevant and defensible? The faculty of the department believe the answer to the above question is yes. 
• 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? This remains to be seen. It certainly is time consuming for both the instructors and the Dept. Chair . . . However, to be valid and reliable it must be broad and consistent. 
• Do we need to discontinue or add any assessment activities. Given that this is our first semester of implementation we are not prepared to add or discontinue any established assessment activities.