Transcript www.cameron.edu

Department of Mathematical Sciences
School of Science and Technology
B.A. in Mathematics Education
CIP Code: 13.1311
Program Code: 155
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
1
Student Learning Outcomes
The following standards, as designated by the NCTM, are used
for the Mathematics Education program:
• Standard 1: Knowledge of Mathematical Problem Solving
• Standard 2: Knowledge of Reasoning and Proof
• Standard 3: Knowledge of Mathematical Communication
• Standard 4: Knowledge of Mathematical Connections
• Standard 5: Knowledge of Mathematical Representation
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
2
• Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology
• Standard 7: Dispositions
• Standard 8: Knowledge of Mathematics Pedagogy
• Standard 9: Knowledge of Number and Operation
• Standard 10: Knowledge of Different Perspectives on
Algebra
• Standard 11: Knowledge of Geometries
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
3
• Standard 12: Knowledge of Calculus
• Standard 13: Knowledge of Discrete Mathematics
• Standard 14: Knowledge of Data Analysis, Statistics, and
Probability
• Standard 15: Knowledge of Measurement
• Standard 16: Field-Based Experiences
* All sixteen standards are mandated student-learning outcomes.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
4
Alignment with Cameron University’s
Mission Statements
• framework which students can acquire the skills and knowledge
that will enable them to become highly qualified mathematics
secondary teachers
• promote and establish excellent working relations with all
departments in the university
• optimizes the goals from all the mission statements including
the
, School of Science and Technology, and the
• highest quality of education possible
• enhances the opportunities for students to make meaningful
contributions to the community
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
5
Alignment with Cameron University’s
Strategic Plan 2013
Candidates will:
• receive the highest quality education
• become fully qualified to teach mathematics in the secondary
schools
• interact with the community in the form of field-based experiences
• become effective teachers of mathematics
• strengthen connections with the community
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
6
Program Direct Measures of Student Learning
• Assessment # 1 Oklahoma Subject Area Test (OSAT) for Advanced
Mathematics
• Assessment # 2 Major Field Achievement Test (MFT) in Mathematics
• Assessment # 3 Lesson Plans
• Assessment # 4 Student Teaching Evaluations
• Assessment # 5 Teacher Work Sample (TWS)
• Assessment # 6 Mid-level Assessment Exam
• Assessment # 7 Mathematical Proof Portfolio
• Assessment # 8 Technology Portfolio
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
7
Shortfalls in Student Learning
When It Occurs
During MATH 2613
Foundations of Mathematics
Major Assessments
Mid-level Assessment Exam (passing score
required)
Recommended Remediation
Retake after completing additional
math classes
After completing at least 30
of 39 hours of required core
mathematics courses
OSAT (Advanced Mathematics) (passing score
required)
Retake after completing additional
math classes
During EDUC 4313 Practicum Teacher Work Sample (passing the class
in Assessment and Instruction required)
Retake class
Before completion of MATH
4772 Teaching of Secondary
Mathematics
Major Field Test (Mathematics) (passing score
required)
Meet with assigned mathematics
instructor for tutoring and guidance.
Retake.
During Math 4772
Lesson Plans (passing score required on all
lesson plans)
During Math 4772
Mathematical Proof Portfolio (score of Meets
Standards or higher required)
During Math 4772
Technology Portfolio
(score of Meets Standards or higher required)
Meet with mathematics instructor for
tutoring and guidance.
Rework lesson plans and resubmit to
instructor.
Meet with mathematics faculty
member who graded the proofs.
Rework and resubmit.
Meet with mathematics faculty
member who graded the portfolio.
Rework and resubmit.
During Student Teaching
Student Teaching Evaluation (passing scores
required on both student teaching evaluation
forms)
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
Meet with math education faculty
committee for career counseling and
guidance.
Possibly repeat student teaching.
8
Midway Check
Check candidates progress on the following:
• Mid-level Assessment
• Grade Point Average (at least 2.5)
• Grades of C or better in math courses
• Oklahoma General Education Test (OGET)
• Teacher education admission
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
9
Program Actions Since Fall 2009
Last year’s action plan:
• Develop a technology portfolio
• Add an induction proof of a recursive relation to the
mathematical proof portfolio
• Realign the lesson plan format
• Develop a pretest for MATH 2215 Calculus I
• Collect more data
Last year’s PQIR presentation focused on three standards:
• Standard 2: Knowledge of Reasoning and Proof
• Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology
• Standard 13: Knowledge of Discrete Mathematics
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
10
Standard 2: Knowledge of Reasoning and Proof
Learning Outcomes
2.1
Recognize reasoning and proof as fundamental
aspects of mathematics.
2.2
Make and investigate mathematical conjectures.
2.3
Develop and evaluate mathematical arguments and
proofs.
2.4
Select and use various types of reasoning and
methods of proof.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
11
Standard 2: Knowledge of Reasoning and Proof
Assessments
• Oklahoma Subject Area Test in Advanced Mathematics
• Mid-level Assessment Exam
• Mathematical Proof Portfolio
• Technology Portfolio
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
12
TABLE 1
Oklahoma Subject Area Test (OSAT) scores, Advanced Mathematics
NCTM Standard 2
Total number of OSATs scored: n=2
Academic
Year
Mean State Score on Mathematical
Processes and Number Sense
Mean Score on Mathematical Processes and Number
Sense (NCTM Standard 2)
2008-2009
(n=2)
260*
280.5
2009-2010
(n=0)
NA
NA
* Weighted Mean for tests given on 4/18/2009 and 5/30/2009. Total state tests given = 59
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
13
TABLE 2
Results of Oklahoma Subject Area Test
NCTM Standard 2
Total Number of OSATs scored: n = 2
Does Not Meet
Standards
0-239
Mathematical
Processes and
0%
Number Sense
Meets
Standards
240-269
Exceeds
Standards
270-300
Total*
0%
100%
100%
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
Total
14
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
OSAT
• Two mathematics education majors took the OSAT
during the AY 2008-2009.
• There were no mathematics education candidates who
took the OSAT during the AY 2009-2010.
• Both candidates exceeded standards in Mathematical
Processes and Number Sense.
• No Trend Analysis can be done at this time.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
15
TABLE 3
Results of Mid-level Assessment Exam
NCTM Standard 2
Total Number of Mid-level Assessment Exams Scored: n = 5
Does Not Meet
Meets
Standards – 1
Standards - 3
NCTM Standard 2
Fall 2007 (n=2)
50%
0%
Fall 2008 (n=1)
0%
100%
Fall 2009 (n=2)
0%
50%
Total (n=5)
20%
40%
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
Exceeds
Standards – 5
Total
50%
0%
50%
40%
100%
100%
100%
100%
16
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Mid-level Assessment Exam
• During the Fall semesters of 2007-2009, the Mid-level Assessment
Exam was administered to five mathematics education candidates.
• For Standard 2, one candidate did not meet standards while the
other candidate exceeded standards in the Fall 2007.
• The mathematics education candidate taking the exam in the Fall
semester of 2008 met only Standard 2.
• For Standard 2, one mathematics education candidate met standards
and one candidate exceeded standards in the Fall 2009.
• Due to the small number (n = 5) of mathematics education
candidates taking the Mid-level Assessment Exam, a definitive
conclusion cannot be drawn at this time nor can trend analysis be
conducted.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
17
TABLE 4
Results of Mathematical Proof Portfolio
NCTM Standard 2
Total Number of Proof Portfolios Scored: n = 2
Does Not Meet
Meets
Standards – 1
Standards - 3
Proof by Contradiction
2008-2009 (n=2)
0%
0%
2009-2010 (n=0)
NA
NA
Total (n=2)
0%
0%
Direct Proof
2008-2009 (n=2)
0%
50%
2009-2010 (n=0)
NA
NA
Total (n=2)
0%
50%
Proof by Induction
2008-2009 (n=2)
0%
100%
2009-2010 (n=0)
NA
NA
Total (n=2)
0%
100%
Proof by Induction
(Recursive Relation)
added Fall 2009
2009-2010 (n=0)
NA
NA
Proof Evaluation
2008-2009 (n=2)
0%
0%
2009-2010 (n=0)
NA
NA
Total (n=2)
0%
0%
All Proofs
2008-2009 (n=2)
0%
38%
2009-2010 (n=0)
NA
NA
Total (n=2)
0%
38%
Exceeds
Standards – 5
Total*
100%
NA
100%
100%
NA
100%
50%
NA
50%
100%
NA
100%
0%
NA
0%
100%
NA
100%
NA
NA
100%
NA
100%
100%
NA
100%
63%
NA
63%
100%
NA
100%
* percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
18
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Mathematical Proof Portfolio
• Two mathematics education candidates submitted mathematical
proof portfolios for evaluation during the Spring 2009 semester.
• In the proof by Contradiction and Proof Evaluation categories both
candidates exceeded standards.
• In the Proof by Induction category both candidates met standards
• In the Direct Proof category one candidate exceeded standards
and the other met standards.
• There were no mathematics education candidates who completed
the proof portfolio during the AY 2009-2010.
• The sample (n=2) is statistically insignificant, and a definite
conclusion cannot be drawn nor can a trend analysis be
completed.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
19
TABLE 5
Results of Technology Portfolio
NCTM Standard 2
Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0
Does Not Meet
Meets
Standards – 1
Standards - 3
Triangle Worksheet (College Geometry)
2009-2010 (n=0)
NA
NA
Total
NA
NA
Recursive Worksheet (Discrete
Mathematical Structures)
2009-2010 (n=0)
NA
NA
Total
NA
NA
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
Exceeds
Standards – 5
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Technology Portfolio
•The technology portfolio replaced the upper-level assessment
during AY 2009-2010.
•No students were enrolled in MATH 4772 (Teaching of
Secondary Mathematics) during AY 2009-2010 thus no data was
collected.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
21
Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology
Learning Outcomes
6.1
Use knowledge of mathematics to select and use
appropriate technological tools, such as, but not
limited to, spreadsheets, dynamic graphic tools,
computer algebra systems, dynamic statistical
packages, graphing calculators, data-collection
devices, and presentation software.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
22
Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology
Assessments
• Lesson Plans
• Student Teaching Evaluation
• Teacher Work Sample
• Technology Portfolio
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
23
TABLE 6
Results of Lesson Plans
NCTM Standard 6
Total Number of Lesson Plans Scored: n = 6 (two for each of the three assigned lesson plans)
NCTM Indicator 6.1
2008-2009 (n=6)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Does Not Meet
Standards - 1
Meets
Standards - 3
Exceeds
Standards - 5
Total*
0%
NA
83%
NA
17%
NA
100%
NA
* percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
24
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Lesson Plans
• There were no mathematics education candidates who
completed lesson plans during AY 2009-2010.
• The sample (n=2) is statistically insignificant, and a definite
conclusion cannot be drawn nor can a trend analysis be
completed.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
25
Min
Max
# of Not
Observed
Exceeds
Standards – 3*
Mean
TABLE 7
Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Education Portion
NCTM Standard 6
Total Number of Assessments: n = 12
Total Number of Candidates: N=2
Does Not Meet
Meets
Standards – 1* Standards - 2*
2.75
2
3
0
0%
25%
75%
2.7
2.72
2
2
3
3
1
1
0%
0%
29%
27%
71%
73%
E3 NCTM Indicator 6.1
2009-2010 (n=4)
M10 NCTM Indicator 6.1
2009-2010(n=8)
Total (n=12)
* percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
26
Table 21
Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Mathematics Addendum
NCTM Standard 6
# of
Not
Obser
ved
Meets Standards 2
Exceeds Standards
–3
Max
Does Not Meet
Standards – 1
Min
Mean
Total Number of Assessments: n = 8
Total Number of Candidates: N=2
Fall 2009 (n=4)
2.5
2
3
0
0%
50%
50%
Spring 2010 (n=4)
3.0
3
3
1
0%
0%
100%
Total (n=8)
2.7
2
3
1
0%
29%
71%
M10 (NCTM 6.1)
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
27
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Student Teaching Evaluation
•Two mathematics education candidates completed student
teaching during AY 2009-2010 .
•For Standards 6, candidates met standards approximately 28%
of the time and exceeded standards approximately 72% of the
time.
•The sample (n=2) is statistically insignificant, and a definite
conclusion cannot be drawn nor can a trend analysis be
completed.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
28
TABLE 8
Results of Teacher Work Sample
NCTM Standard 6
Total Number of Teacher Work Samples Scored: n = 2
Does Not Meet
Meets
Standards - 1
Standards - 3
Factor 4 (36 points)
0-10
11-28
2008-2009 (n=1)
0%
0%
2009-2010 (n=1)
0%
0%
Total (n=2)
0%
0%
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
Exceeds
Standards - 5
29-36
100%
100%
100%
Total
100%
100%
100%
29
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
TWS
• One mathematics education candidate completed a Teacher
Work Sample during AY 2009-2010.
• The one mathematics education candidate who completed
Standard 6 exceeded standards.
• The sample (n=2) is statistically insignificant, and a definite
conclusion cannot be drawn nor can a trend analysis be
completed.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
30
TABLE 9
Results of Technology Portfolio
NCTM Standard 6
Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0
Does Not Meet
Meets
Standards – 1
Standards - 3
Real-World problem worksheet (Graphing
Calculator)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
Statistics worksheet (Graphing Calculator)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
Triangle Worksheet (College Geometry)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
Recursive Worksheet (Discrete
Mathematical Structures)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
NLVM Worksheet (Teaching of Secondary
Mathematics)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
All Items
2009-2010
Total
Exceeds
Standards – 5
Total*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
31
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Technology Portfolio
•The technology portfolio replaced the upper-level assessment
during AY 2009-2010.
•No students were enrolled in MATH 4772 (Teaching of
Secondary Mathematics) during AY 2009-2010 thus no data was
collected.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
32
Standard 13: Knowledge of Discrete Mathematics
Learning Outcomes
13.1 Demonstrate knowledge of basic elements of discrete
mathematics such as graph theory, recurrence relations, finite
difference approaches, linear programming, and combinatorics.
13.2 Apply the fundamental ideas of discrete mathematics in the
formulation and solution of problems arising from real-world
situations.
13.3 Use technological tools to solve problems involving the use of
discrete structures and the application of algorithms.
13.4 Demonstrate knowledge of the historical development of discrete
mathematics including contributions from diverse cultures.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
33
Standard 13: Knowledge of Discrete Mathematics
Assessments
• Oklahoma Subject Area Test for Advanced Mathematics
• Major Field Achievement Test in Mathematics
• Mathematical Proof Portfolio
• Technology Portfolio
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
34
TABLE 10
Results of Oklahoma Subject Area Test (OSAT) scores, Advanced Mathematics
NCTM Standard 13
Total number of OSATs scored: n=2
Academic
Mean State Score on Probability,
Mean Score on Probability, Statistics, and Discrete
Year
Statistics, and Discrete Mathematics
Mathematics (NCTM Standard 13)
2008-2009
259*
252
(n=2)
2009-2010
NA
NA
(n=0)
*Weighted Mean for tests given on 4/18/2009 and 5/30/2009. Total state tests given = 59
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
35
TABLE 11
Results of Oklahoma Subject Area Test
NCTM Standard 13
Total Number of OSATs scored: n = 2
Probability, Statistics,
and Discrete
Mathematics
Does Not Meet
Standards
Meets
Standards
Exceeds
Standards
Total
0-239
240-269
270-300
Total
50%
0%
50%
100%
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
36
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
OSAT
• Two mathematics education majors took the OSAT during
the AY 2008-2009.
• One candidate exceeded standards in Probability, Statistics,
and Discrete mathematics.
• One candidate did not meet standards in Probability,
Statistics, and Discrete mathematics.
• There were no mathematics education candidates who took
the OSAT during the AY 2009-2010.
• No Trend Analysis can be done at this time.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
37
TABLE 12
Results of Major Field Achievement Test
NCTM Standard 13
Total Number of Major Field Achievement Tests Scored: n = 3
2007-2008 (n=1)
2008-2009 (n=2)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total (n=3)
Does Not Meet
Standards - 1
Meets
Standards - 3
Exceeds
Standards - 5
Total
120-135
0%
0%
NA
0%
136-170
100%
50%
NA
67%
171-200
0%
50%
NA
33%
Total
100%
100%
NA
100%
* percentage may not add up to 100 due to rounding
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
38
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Major Field Achievement Test
• There were no candidates who took the Major Field
Achievement Test during AY 2009-2010.
• The sample (n=3) is statistically insignificant, and a definite
conclusion cannot be drawn nor can a trend analysis be
completed.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
39
TABLE 13
Results of Mathematical Proof Portfolio
NCTM Standard 13
Total Number of Proof Portfolios Scored: n = 0
Does Not Meet
Standards – 1
Meets
Standards - 3
Exceeds
Standards – 5
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Proof by Induction (Recursive
Relation) added Fall 2009
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total (n=0)
* percentage may not add up to 100 due to rounding
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
40
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Mathematical Proof Portfolio
• No data has been collected for Standard 13 for Proof by
Induction (recursive relation was added Fall 2009).
• There were no mathematics education candidates who
completed the proof portfolio during the AY 2009-2010.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
41
TABLE 14
Results of Technology Portfolio
NCTM Standard 13
Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0
Does Not Meet
Standards – 1
Meets
Standards - 3
Exceeds
Standards – 5
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Recursive Worksheet (Discrete
Mathematical Structures)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
* percentage may not add up to 100 due to rounding
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
42
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Technology Portfolio
• The technology portfolio replaced the upper-level
assessment during AY 2009-2010.
• No students were enrolled in MATH 4772 (Teaching of
Secondary Mathematics) during AY 2009-2010 thus no data
was collected.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
43
Program Priority Learning Outcomes for
Current Year
• Standard 1: Knowledge of Mathematical Problem Solving
• Standard 3: Knowledge of Mathematical Communication
• Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
44
Standard 1: Knowledge of Mathematical
Problem Solving
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
45
Program objective and measurement
(Create separate chart or table for each priority objective)
PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 1: Knowledge of Mathematical Problem Solving
MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE
1.1 Apply and
adapt a variety of
appropriate
strategies to
solve problems.
1.2 Solve
problems that
arise in
mathematics and
those involving
mathematics and
other contexts.
CURRICULUM
AREA OR TARGET
AUDIENCE
Required
Courses:
MATH 1001
MATH 2215
MATH 2235
MATH 3013
MATH 3302
MATH 3333
MATH 3413
MATH 4423
MATH 4772
STAT 3013
EDUC 4313
EDUC 4965
EDUC 4975
Measurements
Methods used to
determine validity
of measurement
instruments
Methods used
to determine
reliability of
measurements
OSAT (direct)
State wide test
Determined by
Oklahoma
Commission
for Teacher
Preparation
(OCTP)
Recommended
that students
take after
completing 30 or
more hours of
their
mathematical
course work
MFT (direct)
National norm
Norm
reference
scores
Every Spring
semester
Student Teaching
Evaluation (direct)
Developed by
Department of
Education
Developed by
Department of
Education
Assessed in EDUC
4965 and EDUC
4975
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
Schedule for
measurements
46
Program objective and measurement
(Create separate chart or table for each priority objective)
PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 1: Knowledge of Mathematical Problem Solving
MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE
1.3 Build new
mathematical
knowledge
through problem
solving.
1.4 Monitor and
reflect on the
process of
mathematical
problem solving.
CURRICULUM
AREA OR TARGET
AUDIENCE
Elective Courses:
MATH 2244
MATH 3213
MATH 3253
MATH 4113
MATH 4483
Methods used to
determine validity
of measurement
instruments
Methods used
to determine
reliability of
measurements
TWS (direct)
Developed by
Department of
Education
Developed by
Department of
Education
Assessed in EDUC
4313
Technology
Portfolio (direct)
Portfolio graded
using standardized
rubric
Faculty using
rubric discuss
rubric before
grading begins
Collected during
MATH 4772
Measurements
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
Schedule for
measurements
47
Display of Assessment Data – OSAT
TABLE 16
OSAT scores
NCTM Standard 1
Total number of OSATs scored: n=2
Academic
Mean
Mean Score
OSAT
on
Year
Mathematiscore
cal Processes
and Number
Sense
2008-2009
(n=2)
Mean Score
on Relations,
Functions,
and Algebra
Mean score
on
Measurement and
Geometry
Mean score
on
Trigonometry and
Calculus
Mean score
on
Probability,
Statistics,
and
Discrete
Mathematics
Mean
Score on
Constructed
Response
269.5
280.5
253.5
271
268
252
281.5
State
Mean*
260
260
267
257
256
259
267
2009-2010
(n=0)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
*Weighted Mean for tests given on 4/18/2009 and 5/30/2009. Total state tests given = 5
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
48
Display of Assessment Data – OSAT (continued)
TABLE 17
Results of OSAT
NCTM Standard 1
Total Number of OSATs Scored: n = 2
Does Not Meet Standards
0-239
OSAT – Advanced
Mathematics
2008-2009 (n=2)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Mathematical Processes
and Number Sense
2008-2009 (n=2)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Relations, Functions, and
Algebra
2008-2009 (n=2)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Measurement and
Geometry
2008-2009 (n=2)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Trigonometry and Calculus
2008-2009 (n=2)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Probability, Statistics, and
Discrete Mathematics
2008-2009 (n=2)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Constructed Response
2008-2009 (n=2)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Meets
Standards
240-269
0%
NA
50%
NA
0%
NA
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
100%
NA
50%
NA
50%
NA
100%
NA
NA
NA
NA
100%
50%
50%
100%
NA
NA
NA
NA
50%
0%
0%
NA
100%
NA
NA
NA
100%
100%
0%
0%
NA
Total
NA
NA
NA
Total*
50%
NA
NA
NA
Exceeds
Standards
270-300
100%
NA
50%
NA
100%
NA
*Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
49
Display of Assessment Data – MFT
TABLE 18
Results of Major Field Achievement Test
NCTM Standard 1
Total Number of Major Field Achievement Tests Scored: n = 3
Does Not Meet
Meets
Standards - 1
Standards - 3
2007-2008 (n=1)
2008-2009 (n=2)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total (n=3)
120-135
0%
0%
NA
0%
Exceeds
Standards - 5
Total*
171-200
0%
50%
NA
33%
Total
100%
100%
NA
100%
136-170
100%
50%
NA
67%
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
50
Display of Assessment Data –
Student Teaching Evaluation
Table 21
Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Mathematics Addendum
NCTM Standard 1
Max
# of Not
Observe
d
Does Not Meet
Standards – 1
2.5
2.67
2.57
2
2
2
3
3
3
0
1
1
0%
0%
0%
50%
33%
43%
50%
67%
57%
2.5
2.5
2.5
2
2
2
3
3
3
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
2.25
2.33
2.29
2
2
2
3
3
3
0
1
1
0%
0%
0%
75%
67%
71%
25%
33%
29%
Mean
Min
Total Number of Assessments: n = 8
Total Number of Candidates: N=2
M1 (NCTM 1.1, 8.8)
Fall 2009 (n=4)
Spring 2010 (n=4)
Total (n=8)
M2 (NCTM 1.4, 8.8)
Fall 2009 (n=4)
Spring 2010 (n=4)
Total (n=8)
M16 (NCTM 1.1, 1.2, 4.2, 5.3)
Fall 2009 (n=4)
Spring 2010 (n=4)
Total (n=8)
Meets
Standards - 2
Exceeds
Standards – 3
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
51
Display of Assessment Data - TWS
TABLE 22
Results of Teacher Work Sample
NCTM Standard 1
Total Number of Teacher Work Samples Scored: n = 2
Does Not Meet
Standards - 1
Meets
Standards - 3
Exceeds
Standards - 5
0-21
22-41
42-50
2008-2009 (n=1)
0%
0%
100%
100%
2009-2010 (n=1)
0%
0%
100%
100%
Total (n=2)
0%
0%
100%
100%
Factor 6 (50 points)
(NCTM 1.4, 7.3, 7.4)
Total*
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
52
Display of Assessment Data –
Technology Portfolio
TABLE 25
Technology Portfolio
NCTM Standard 1
Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0
Does Not Meet
Standards – 1
Meets
Standards - 3
Exceeds
Standards – 5
Total*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Real-World problem worksheet (Graphing
Calculator)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
Triangle Worksheet (College Geometry)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
NLVM Worksheet (Teaching of Secondary
Mathematics)
All Items
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
53
Action Plan
• Collect more data.
• Redo the data tables for Assessment 4, Student
Teaching. After speaking with the Dean of the School
of Education and Psychology, the decision was made to
rework the tables so the values for n are consistent
with those in the Education Department’s tables, as
well as within our Mathematics Education tables. Both
departments continue to work toward displaying the
data so they accurately and clearly tell the story of the
candidates’ successes in their student teaching
experiences (as well as any issues that may need
attention).
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
54
Standard 3: Knowledge of Mathematical
Communication
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
55
Program objective and measurement
(Create separate chart or table for each priority objective)
PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 3: Knowledge of Mathematical Communication
MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE 1
3.1 Communicate
their
mathematical
thinking
coherently and
clearly to peers,
faculty, and
others.
3.2 Use the
language of
mathematics to
express ideas
precisely.
CURRICULUM
AREA OR TARGET
AUDIENCE
Required courses:
MATH 2613
MATH 3013
MATH 3302
MATH 3333
MATH 3413
MATH 4423
MATH 4772
EDUC 4313
EDUC 4653
EDUC 4965
EDUC 4975
Measurements
Methods used to
determine validity
of measurement
instruments
Methods used
to determine
reliability of
measurements
OSAT (direct)
State wide test
Determined by
OCTP
Recommended
that students
take after
completing 30 or
more hours of
their
mathematical
course work
Student Teaching
Evaluation (direct)
Developed by
Department of
Education
Developed by
Department of
Education
Assessed in EDUC
4965 and EDUC
4975
TWS (direct)
Developed by
Department of
Education
Developed by
Department of
Education
Assessed in EDUC
4313
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
Schedule for
measurements
56
Program objective and measurement
(Create separate chart or table for each priority objective)
PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 3: Knowledge of Mathematical Communication
MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE 1
3.3 Organize
mathematical
thinking through
communication.
3.4 Analyze and
evaluate the
mathematical
thinking and
strategies of
others.
CURRICULUM
AREA OR TARGET
AUDIENCE
Elective courses:
MATH 3213
MATH 4113
MATH 4483
STAT 3113
Measurements
Methods used to
determine validity
of measurement
instruments
Methods used
to determine
reliability of
measurements
Mid-level
Assessment Exam
(direct)
Developed by
subcommittee of
faculty
Test is multiple
choice –
answers are
right or wrong;
questions are
aligned with
indicators
Every Fall
semester
Technology
Portfolio (direct)
Portfolio graded
using standardized
rubric
Faculty using
rubric discuss
rubric before
grading begins
Collected during
MATH 4772
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
Schedule for
measurements
57
Display of Assessment Data – OSAT
TABLE 16
OSAT scores
NCTM Standard 3
Total number of OSATs scored: n=2
Mean OSAT
Mean Score on
Academic Year
Mathematical
score
Processes and
Number Sense
2008-2009
(n=2)
State Mean*
2009-2010
(n=0)
Mean Score
on Constructed
Response
269.5
280.5
281.5
260
260
267
NA
NA
NA
*Weighted Mean for tests given on 4/18/2009 and 5/30/2009. Total state tests given = 5
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
58
Display of Assessment Data – OSAT (continued)
TABLE 17
Results of OSAT
NCTM Standard 3
Total Number of OSATs Scored: n = 2
Does Not Meet Standards
0-239
OSAT – Advanced
Mathematics
2008-2009 (n=2)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Mathematical Processes
and Number Sense
2008-2009 (n=2)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Constructed Response
2008-2009 (n=2)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Meets
Standards
240-269
0%
NA
50%
NA
0%
NA
0%
0%
Total
100%
NA
100%
NA
50%
NA
Total*
50%
NA
NA
NA
Exceeds
Standards
270-300
100%
NA
50%
NA
100%
NA
*Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
59
Display of Assessment Data –
Student Teaching Evaluation
Table 20
Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Education Portion
NCTM Standard 3
# of Not
Observed
2.25
2.25
2.25
Max
**E24 (NCTM 3.1, 3.2, 4.3, 7.1, 7.3, 7.4, 8.1, 8.4)
Fall 2009 (n=4)
Spring 2010 (n=4)
Total (n=8)
Min
Mean
Total Number of Assessments: n = 4 or 8**
Total Number of Candidates: N=2
2
2
2
3
3
3
0
0
0
Does Not Meet
Standards – 1
Meets
Standards - 2
Exceeds
Standards – 3
0%
0%
0%
75%
75%
75%
25%
25%
25%
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
*Items found on Education University Supervisor Form
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
60
Display of Assessment Data –
Student Teaching Evaluation (continued)
Table 21
Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Mathematics Addendum
NCTM Standard 3
Total Number of Assessments: n = 8
Total Number of Candidates: N=2
2.25
2.75
2.5
2
2
2
3
3
3
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
75%
25%
50%
25%
75%
50%
2.25
2.5
2.38
2
2
2
3
3
3
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
75%
50%
63%
25%
50%
37%
2.25
3.0
2.63
2
3
2
3
3
3
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
75%
0%
37%
25%
100%
63%
2.5
2.0
2.29
2
2
2
3
2
3
0
1
1
0%
0%
0%
50%
100%
71%
50%
0%
29%
Mean
# of Not
Observe
d
Exceeds
Standards – 3
Max
Meets
Standards - 2
Min
Does Not Meet
Standards – 1
M3 (NCTM 3.1)
Fall 2009 (n=4)
Spring 2010 (n=4)
Total (n=8)
M4 (NCTM 3.2)
Fall 2009 (n=4)
Spring 2010 (n=4)
Total (n=8)
M5 (NCTM 3.3)
Fall 2009 (n=4)
Spring 2010 (n=4)
Total (n=8)
M6 (NCTM 3.4)
Fall 2009 (n=4)
Spring 2010 (n=4)
Total (n=8)
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
61
Display of Assessment Data - TWS
TABLE 22
Results of Teacher Work Sample
NCTM Standard 3
Total Number of Teacher Work Samples Scored: n = 2
Factor 3 (45 points)
(NCTM 3.4, 7.4, 7.5, 8.3)
Does Not Meet
Standards - 1
Meets
Standards - 3
Exceeds
Standards - 5
0-20
21-37
38-45
2008-2009 (n=1)
2009-2010 (n=1)
Total (n=2)
Factor 5 (14 points)
(NCTM 3.4, 7.4, 7.5, 8.3, 16.3)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
0-4
5-11
12-14
2008-2009 (n=1)
2009-2010 (n=1)
Total (n=2)
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
Total*
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
62
Display of Assessment Data –
Mid-level Assessment Exam
TABLE 23
Mid-level Assessment Exam
NCTM Standard 3
Total Number of Mid-level Assessment Exams Scored: n = 5
Does Not Meet
Standards – 1
NCTM Standard 3
Fall 2007 (n=2)
Fall 2008 (n=1)
Fall 2009 (n=2)
Total (n=5)
0%
100%
50%
40%
Meets
Standards - 3
Exceeds
Standards – 5
Total*
50%
0%
50%
40%
50%
0%
0%
20%
100%
100%
100%
100%
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
63
Display of Assessment Data –
Technology Portfolio
TABLE 25
Technology Portfolio
NCTM Standard 3
Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0
Does Not Meet
Standards – 1
Meets
Standards - 3
Exceeds
Standards – 5
Total*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Triangle Worksheet (College Geometry)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
Recursive Worksheet (Discrete Mathematical
Structures)
All Items
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
64
Action Plan
• Collect more data.
• Assessment 6, Mid-level Assessment Exam needs to be
checked for face validity to determine if the twenty
questions are appropriate to adequately evaluate
students in relation to the courses completed and to
determine if the instrument is measuring the studentlearning outcomes. A mathematics faculty member not
previously involved with the Mid-level assessment will
be asked to conduct this check.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
65
Action Plan
(Continued)
• Redo the data tables for Assessment 4, Student
Teaching. After speaking with the Dean of the School
of Education and Psychology, the decision was made to
rework the tables so the values for n are consistent
with those in the Education Department’s tables, as
well as within our Mathematics Education tables. Both
departments continue to work toward displaying the
data so they accurately and clearly tell the story of the
candidates’ successes in their student teaching
experiences (as well as any issues that may need
attention).
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
66
Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
67
Program objective and measurement
(Create separate chart or table for each priority objective)
PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology
MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE 1
6.1: Use
knowledge of
mathematics to
select and use
appropriate
technological tools,
such as, but not
limited to,
spreadsheets,
dynamic graphic
tools, computer
algebra systems,
dynamic statistical
packages, graphing
calculators, datacollection devices
and presentation
software
CURRICULUM
AREA OR
TARGET
AUDIENCE
Required
courses:
MATH 1001
MATH 2215
MATH 3001
MATH 3013
MATH 3413
MATH 4772
STAT 3013
EDUC 3673
EDUC 4313
EDUC 4965
EDUC 4975
Elective courses:
MATH 4113
STAT 3113
Methods used
to determine
validity of
measurement
instruments
Methods used
to determine
reliability of
measurements
Lesson Plans
(direct)
Developed by
Department of
Education
Developed by
Department of
Education
Assessed in MATH
4772
Student Teaching
Evaluation (direct)
Developed by
Department of
Education
Developed by
Department of
Education
Assessed in EDUC
4965 and EDUC
4975
TWS (direct)
Developed by
Department of
Education
Developed by
Department of
Education
Assessed in EDUC
4313
Portfolios graded
using
standardized
rubric
Faculty using
rubric discuss
rubric before
grading begins
Collected during
MATH 4772
Measurements
Technology
Portfolio (direct)
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
Schedule for
measurements
68
Display of Assessment Data – Lesson Plans
TABLE 19
Results of Lesson Plans
NCTM Standard 6
Total Number of Lesson Plans Scored: n = 6 (two for each of the three assigned lesson plans)
NCTM Indicator 6.1
2008-2009 (n=6)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Does Not Meet
Standards - 1
Meets
Standards - 3
Exceeds
Standards - 5
Total*
0%
NA
83%
NA
17%
NA
100%
NA
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
69
Display of Assessment Data –
Student Teaching Evaluation
Table 20
Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Education Portion
NCTM Standard 6
# of Not
Observed
3.0
2.5
2.75
Max
E3 (NCTM 6.1, 7.6, 8.9)
Fall 2009 (n=2)
Spring 2010 (n=2)
Total (n=4)
Min
Mean
Total Number of Assessments: n = 4 or 8**
Total Number of Candidates: N=2
3
2
2
3
3
3
0
0
0
Does Not Meet
Standards – 1
Meets
Standards - 2
Exceeds
Standards – 3
0%
0%
0%
0%
50%
25%
100%
50%
75%
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
*Items found on Education University Supervisor Form
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
70
Display of Assessment Data –
Student Teaching Evaluation (continued)
Table 21
Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Mathematics Addendum
NCTM Standard 6
# of
Not
Obser
ved
Meets
Standards - 2
Exceeds
Standards – 3
Max
Does Not Meet
Standards – 1
Min
Mean
Total Number of Assessments: n = 8
Total Number of Candidates: N=2
Fall 2009 (n=4)
2.5
2
3
0
0%
50%
50%
Spring 2010 (n=4)
3.0
3
3
1
0%
0%
100%
Total (n=8)
2.7
2
3
1
0%
29%
71%
M10 (NCTM 6.1)
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
71
Display of Assessment Data - TWS
TABLE 22
Results of Teacher Work Sample
NCTM Standard 6
Total Number of Teacher Work Samples Scored: n = 2
Factor 4 (36 points)
(NCTM 6.1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.6, 8.3, 8.7, 8.9)
2008-2009 (n=1)
2009-2010 (n=1)
Total (n=2)
Does Not Meet
Standards - 1
Meets
Standards - 3
Exceeds
Standards - 5
0-10
11-28
29-36
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
Total*
100%
100%
100%
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
72
Display of Assessment Data –
Technology Portfolio
TABLE 25
Technology Portfolio
NCTM Standard 6
Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0
Does Not Meet
Standards – 1
Meets
Standards - 3
Exceeds
Standards – 5
Total*
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
Statistics worksheet (Graphing Calculator)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
Triangle Worksheet (College Geometry)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
Recursive Worksheet (Discrete Mathematical
Structures)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
NLVM Worksheet (Teaching of Secondary
Mathematics)
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
All Items
2009-2010 (n=0)
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Real-World problem worksheet (Graphing Calculator)
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
73
Action Plan
• Collect more data.
• Ask the Dean of the School of Science and Technology
to convert the remaining mathematics classrooms (that
are not already smart classrooms) in Burch Hall to
smart classrooms in order to enhance student learning.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
74
Action Plan
(continued)
• Ask the Dean of the School of Science and Technology
to purchase TI Emulator software for the classrooms.
According to the TI website, “This easy-to-use software
complements the TI-83 Plus and TI-84 Plus families of
graphing calculators, letting the educator project an
interactive representation of the calculator’s display to
the entire class. It is an ideal demonstration tool for
leading classroom instruction of math and science
concepts.” Faculty who previously used this software
agreed that it is very helpful to the students.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
75
Action Plan
(continued)
• Redo the data tables for Assessment 4, Student
Teaching. After speaking with the Dean of the School
of Education and Psychology, the decision was made to
rework the tables so the values for n are consistent
with those in the Education Department’s tables, as
well as within our Mathematics Education tables. Both
departments continue to work toward displaying the
data so they accurately and clearly tell the story of the
candidates’ successes in their student teaching
experiences (as well as any issues that may need
attention).
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
76
Ancillary Actions
• Ask the Dean of the School of Science and Technology
to have Room B026 in Burch Hall redecorated. The
atmosphere of this classroom in unfriendly and
repressive. Students say that the classroom feels like a
prison or a detention center. One student commented,
upon having a class in a different room, that she was
“glad to be out of the basement.” A more studentfriendly atmosphere should promote more positive
student learning experiences.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
77
Published information on graduates
Academic Year 09-10
Entered
Working in Discipline
Other
Summer 2009
0
0
0
Fall 2009
0
0
0
Spring 2010
0
1
0
Total
0
1
0
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
78
Questions?
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
79