|
Understanding Student Mastery of Higher Education Curriculum Standards
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Leigh D'Amico, University of South Carolina, kale_leigh@yahoo.com
|
| Grant Morgan, University of South Carolina, praxisgm@aol.com
|
| Tammy Pawloski, Francis Marion University, tpawloski@fmarion.edu
|
| Janis McWayne, Francis Marion University, jmcwayne@fmarion.edu
|
| Abstract:
Francis Marion University developed six Teaching Children of Poverty Standards to better align the teacher preparation curriculum with needs expressed by surrounding schools and to promote teacher retention and student achievement. These standards are embedded within more than 20 courses across the curriculum. To understand student mastery of these standards, a 48-item assessment is administered to students shortly before graduation. A bookmarking process was completed by experts in the field and allows faculty members to gauge proficiency in the area of Teaching Children of Poverty. Through this presentation, evaluators and faculty members will detail the process used to develop and score the assessment and describe how assessment results are used to inform curriculum and instruction. In addition, understanding of student mastery better enables evaluators to explore the relationship between proficiency in teaching children of poverty and factors such as teacher retention and student achievement.
|
|
Is Critical Thinking the All-Purpose Outcome in Higher Education?
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| John Stevenson, University of Rhode Island, jsteve@uri.edu
|
| Abstract:
How can evaluators in higher education work with administrators and faculty to select, implement, and learn from institution-level measures of crucial learning outcomes? Critical thinking is a pervasive choice, and this paper explores issues in its definition and measurement, drawing on experiences of one university along with the published literature.
|
|
Science, Technology, Engineering, And Mathematics (STEM) Evaluations: Best Practices from a Multi-site, Multi-national Research Program
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Courtney Brown, Indiana University, coubrown@indiana.edu
|
| Christina Russell, Indiana University, chriruss@indiana.edu
|
| Abstract:
This paper provides best practices for evaluating undergraduate STEM programs. A current literature review of STEM evaluations provides the context; however the paper focuses on practice using a long-term, multi-site, multi-national summer undergraduate STEM research initiative program. The purpose of which is to provide a reflective case narrative of how program evaluation was implemented, evolved and improved over a four year time span. Over this time period a wide variety of evaluation techniques were utilized and perfected in order to provide the individual programs as well as the funder accurate, useful, and timely evaluative information. Best practices and lessons learned are offered for evaluating the entire program. The evaluation practices begin in the application process and continue to acceptance and participation and subsequently short-term and long-term follow-up.
|
|
Equity, Social Justice, and Quality in School Leadership Preparation: A Critical Self-Assessment to Build Criteria for Candidate Selection
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Aarti P Bellara, University of South Florida, abellara@mail.usf.edu
|
| Zorka Karanxha, University of South Florida, karanxha@usf.edu
|
| Vonzell Agosto, University of South Florida, vagosto@usf.edu
|
| Abstract:
The various components of the policies and procedures for candidate recruitment and selection to a Master’s Degree in Educational Leadership program are vital aspects that influence the diversity and subsequent quality of preparation of future administrators. This paper outlines the current applicant selection process of a leadership department’s faculty, and the subsequent need that arose to assess and create a systematic approach to the application and selection processes of masters degree students. This self assessment for equity incorporated a transformative lens to analyze, determine the program theory of the department and restructure the application and selection process to increase the critical mass of diverse candidates. This self assessment’s aim was to serve as a critical self-assessment of the processes and policies that may appear fair on the surface but in reality are unsystematic and driven more by demands for efficiency than equity.
|
| | | |