Assessment Details
Academic Year: 2020-2021 Level: Graduate
Campus Department: Lynch School of Education & Human Development [UG and Grad]
Program Type: Major [UG] / Program [Grad]
Program Name: Curriculum and Instruction PhD (Link)
Description of Data Collection:
Data sources include:
a. Annual checklists in Year 1 and Year 2. All first and second year students track their progress on specific experiences and goals required by the program (e.g., conference presentations); progress toward these goals are evaluated by 2 faculty members each spring based on written materials and a face-to-face meeting. Additionally, all students in the program engage in 20-hour/week graduate assistantships, which are evaluated by the individual faculty member or senior administrator to whom the student is assigned and by the department chair.
b. The Comprehensive Exam. The “comps” require the development of a publishable paper, and are evaluated by a 2-member faculty committee, who review the student’s work at multiple stages using a face to face meeting and written comments and a review form similar to that of a journal article. These articles are also submitted to actual journals for publication, which yield external reviewer comments.
c. Pre-proposal, proposal, and dissertation. All students are required to take a dissertation seminar at the end of their coursework period. This leads to the production of a dissertation pre-proposal or proposal, which is evaluated by the seminar leader and by the faculty member who serves as dissertation advisor. All students also complete the multi-phased dissertation process, which includes review and evaluation of materials by a 3-member committee at the pre-proposal stage, the proposal stage, and the final dissertation defense.
d. Exit Surveys. Upon completion of the program, all graduates of the Curriculum and Instruction doctoral program complete an exit survey that asks questions regarding the degrees to which the learning outcomes established in 1) above have been met. The Doctoral Advisory Committee uses these surveys to annually determine whether programmatic changes are necessary in order to meet our continuous improvement goals.
Review Process:
The Doctoral Advisory Committee interprets the evidence gathered, and then brings those interpretations of the data to the larger department, with recommendations, for discussion and final decision-making.
Resulting Program Changes:
Several years ago, we developed a new comps process for the program, switching from a take-home exam format to a publishable paper format (see 2b above). Since then, we have made 2 revisions to the process (and the materials that accompany it) based on the evidence gathered from faculty and students who were engaged in the comps. The most recent revisions were completed in March 2015. Based on data from the comprehensive exam and exit survey, we are providing doctoral students additional experiences with teaching courses (1a), and developing a series of projects to assist students in their writing (1b and 1d).
Date of Most Recent Program Review:
Several years ago, we developed a new comps process for the program, switching from a take-home exam format to a publishable paper format (see 2b above). Since then, we have made 2 revisions to the process (and the materials that accompany it) based on the evidence gathered from faculty and students who were engaged in the comps. The most recent revisions were completed in March 2015. Based on data from the comprehensive exam and exit survey, we are providing doctoral students additional experiences with teaching courses (1a), and developing a series of projects to assist students in their writing (1b and 1d).
Attachments (if available)