GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IN EDUCATION GRADUATE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT ANNUAL REPORT FALL 2011

Transcription

1 GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IN EDUCATION GRADUATE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT ANNUAL REPORT FALL 2011 Submitted by Dr. Cynthia Kolsun, Program Coordinator Marshall University Graduate College Graduate School of Education and Professional Development 100 Angus E. Peyton Drive South Charleston, WV Program Overview The mission of the Doctoral Program in Education is to prepare practitioners to be reflective, ethical educators and researchers who contribute to the field of education. Program faculty (faculty from the Leadership Studies and Curriculum and Instruction Programs) are committed to creating a community of scholars through mentoring, engaging in collaborative research, and maintaining a focus on sound educational practices. Program Goals During the Summer Term 2011, a committee of doctoral faculty developed a set of goals and subgoals for the program which indicate the expectations for graduates. Each program goal identifies student outcomes for graduates in the doctoral program. The committee also identified assessments to measure the goals. The committee recognized that, while a formal NCATE report is not required, the NCATE format for goal identification and assessment would assist in the delineation of the program. The goals and assessments were presented to the entire Doctoral Faculty at the Annual Fall Meeting held on September 22, The student learner outcomes are measurable either quantitatively or qualitatively. Assessments include a range of thinking skills -- synthesizing, analyzing and evaluating, among others. Program graduates are expected to meet the following student outcomes: Goal 1. Collaboration: Students collaborate and interact with faculty through course work, co-teaching, co-publishing and/or co-presenting. 1a. Effectively collaborate in a professional context; and 1b. Participate in a community of scholars through mentoring, engaging in collaborative research and maintain a focus on sound educational practices. Goal 2. Depth of Understanding: Students apply and integrate learning experiences and knowledge in the field including current issues, diversity, concepts, and research. 2a. Acquire and apply content in their discipline/program; 2b. Read and analyze educational research articles and literature; 2c. Evaluate quality based on data; and 2d. Understand major theories/theorists and empirical research and shared knowledge of profession. 1

2 Goal 3. Reflection: Students evidence reflection, critical thought, and synthesis of material and learning experiences. 3a. Enhance critical thinking; and 3b. Put theory into practice. Goal 4. Scholarship: Students exhibit evidence of scholarship in the field through presentations, publications and course work; submission and/or acceptance of publication in a scholarly journal or presentation at a regional or national conference 4a. Contribute to literature base through publication; and 4b. Present to professional organizations. Goal 5. Communication: Students demonstrate composure, professionalism and poise in writing, speaking, and presentation in a variety of experiences; organize material; demonstrate a working knowledge of multimedia; adapt quickly and smoothly to change. 5a. Effectively communicate in a professional context; and 5b. Effectively use verbal, written and technical skills. Goal 6. Ethical Research: Students understand and utilize the research process; analyze and synthesize information and data from course work and collaborative research activities. 6a. Develop practitioners who are capable researchers; 6b. Experience in quantitative and qualitative research; 6c. Demonstrate knowledge of research in the field; and 6d. Become ethical educators/researchers. Goal 7. Practitioners: Students pursue professional and scholarly endeavors and thus enhance their learning community. 7a. Enhance professional education community in our region/state; and 7b. Use current technology in pursuit of professional and scholarly endeavors. Program of Study The Doctoral Program has four major programs of study: Curriculum and Instruction, Higher Education Administration, Public School Administration, and Community College Administration. A Doctoral Program of Study must be approved by the student, the doctoral committee, the program director, the doctoral programs coordinator, and the Dean of the Graduate School of Education and Professional Development (GSEPD) within the second calendar year following admission to the program. Additions to or deletions from the approved Program of Study require written consent of the student, the doctoral committee, the doctoral programs coordinator, and the Dean of the GSEPD. Approved changes must be submitted on the Request for Change in Doctoral Program of Study form and must include the signatures of the student, chair, doctoral programs coordinator, and the Dean of the GSEPD. Program changes will be kept on file with the Doctoral Program of Study in the Office of Doctoral Programs in Education (ODPE). The student s Doctoral Program of Study must satisfy the following requirements and must be submitted on the Doctoral Program of Study form. Courses, fieldwork, independent study, and other 2

3 educational experiences may be used to satisfy these requirements, with the approval of the committee and the Dean of the GSEPD. 1. Major area 2. Area of Emphasis 3. Research Foundations and Support 4. Hours of coursework 5. Residency 6. Qualifying assessment All Doctoral Programs of Study include the required research and support courses: Course # Course Title Credit Hours LS 719 Introduction to Doctoral Studies 1 LS 703 Research Design 3 EDF 517 Statistical Methods 3 EDF 625 Qualitative Research in Education 3 EDF 711 Survey Research in Education 3 LS 765 Advanced Research 3 hrs. minimum LS 776 or EDF 626 Computer Analysis in Education Research 3 or Advanced Qualitative Research LS 797 or CI 797 Dissertation Research 12 hrs. minimum Major specific Programs of Study follow: Curriculum and Instruction Required Courses (for all Curriculum and Instruction students) 24 hours Course # Course Title Credit Hours CI 701 Curriculum Development 3 CI 702 Curriculum Theories 3 CI 703 Theories, Models and Research of Teaching 3 CI 704 Social and Political Determinants of Curriculum 3 Development CI 706 Multicultural Education 3 CI 707 Curricular Change Models and Practices 3 CIEC 700 Technology and Curriculum 3 CI 677 Writing for Publication 3 Suggested Elective Courses for Curriculum and Instruction minimum 12 hours Course # Course Title Credit Hours CI 609 Curriculum in the Modern Elementary School 3 CI 610 Curriculum in the Modern Secondary School 3 CI 638 Curriculum Planning 3 CI 676 Program Evaluation 3 CI 705 Curriculum in Higher Education 3 EDF 615 History of American Education 3 EDF 619 Educational Psychology 3 3

4 EDF 635 Policy Studies in Education 3 EDF 665 Sociology of Education 3 CIEC 715 Online Course Development and Delivery 3 Higher Education Administration Required Courses (for all higher education students) 24 hours Course # Course Title Credit Hours LS 705 Administrative Theory 3 LS 707 Ethical Theories 3 LS 710 Principles of Leadership 3 LS 714 Administration and Organization of Higher Education 3 LS 725 Higher Education Finance 3 LS 745 Higher Education Law 3 LS 756 Current Issues in Higher Education (prerequisite: LS 3 618) LS 760 Politics of Education 3 Suggested Elective Courses for Higher Education minimum 12 hours Course # Course Title Credit Hours LS 616 Governance of Higher Education 3 LS 617 Student Personnel Administration in Higher Education 3 LS 618 History of American Higher Education 3 LS 626 Institutional Advancement in Higher Education 3 LS 646 Administration of Community and Technical Colleges 3 LS 647 Adult and Continuing Education Administration 3 LS 755 Internship: Administration in Higher Education 3 LS 780 Special Topics 4

5 Public School Administration Required Courses (for all public school students) 27 hours Course # Course Title Credit Hours LS 705 Administrative Theory 3 LS 707 Ethical Theories 3 LS 710 Principles of Leadership 3 LS 700 Superintendency 3 LS 720 Public School Finance 3 LS 730 Facility Planning and Management 3 LS 740 Public School Law 3 LS 760 Politics of Education 3 CI 702 Curriculum Theories 3 Suggested Elective Courses for Public School Administration minimum 9 hours Course # Course Title Credit Hours LS 600 School Personnel Administration 3 LS 610 Leadership for School Improvement 3 LS 630 School and the Community 3 LS 675 Legal and Policy Issues 3 LS 780 Special Topics 3 Community College Administration Required Courses (for all community college students) minimum 36 hours Course Course Title Hours Credit Number LS 705 Administrative Theory 3 LS 707 Ethical Theories 3 LS 710 Principles of Leadership 3 LS 760 Politics of Education 3 LS 725 Higher Education Finance 3 LS 745 Higher Education Law 3 LS 747 Administration of Community Colleges 3 LS 708 Comparative Study of Community Colleges 3 ATE 714 Community & Technical College Curriculum Design 3 ATE 723 Perspectives & Strategies for Teaching Workforce 3 Education ATE 712 Classroom Assessment for Community & Technical 3 College Students ATE 703 Interpretation & Utilization of Applied Research in Community & Technical College Teaching 3 5

6 Program Admissions & Graduation Admissions Students are admitted to and graduate from the Ed.D. Program each term. Curriculum and Instruction Summer 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Totals Number of Original Applicants Gender F3 F4 F5/M2 F12/M2 MAT Mean 71% 78% 84%* Number of Completed Applicants Number Admitted Gender F2 F4 F3/M1 F9/M1 MAT Mean 78% 78% 84% Educational Leadership Summer 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Totals Number of Original Applicants Gender F2/M1 F4/M1 F7/M4 F13/M6 MAT Mean 62% 65% 67% Applicants by Major PS2/HE1 PS3/HE2 PS8/ HE3 PS13/HE6 Number of Completed Applicants Number Admitted Gender F1/M2 F2/M1 F3/M3 F6/M6 MAT Mean 69% 82% 84% Admissions by Major PS1/HE1 PS1/HE2 PS3/HE3 PS5/HE6 *=applicants did not complete/submit an MAT score Graduates August 2010 December 2010 May 2011 Amy Cottle Karen McComas Yvonne Skoretz Debra Young Leslie Papelier LeAnne Olson Ray Singleton Missy Spivy Program Productivity Experienced professional educators from West Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky at the higher education, community college and public school levels serve as the primary target population for the program. During the Fall Term 2011 a new cohort of 20 doctoral students began. Students in the cohort program are either majoring in Curriculum and Instruction with Education Leadership as their Area of Emphasis or majoring in Education Leadership with Curriculum and Instruction as their Area of Emphasis. Students are from both the higher education and public school sectors. The majority of students are West Virginia residents. We have just completed a Doctoral Cohort at Braxton County, WV which consisted of 18 students. Thirteen have completed the Qualifying Assessment and been admitted to Candidacy. Information regarding program productivity follows. 6

7 Course Sections Delivered Students in Ed.D. Program Student Enrollment in Courses Student Credit Hours Generated Summer Fall Spring Assessment Model The assessments used to measure the Doctoral Education Program are in alignment with the PEU. Key assessments include: the Dissertation, Portfolio, IRB Process, Student Annual Review, Post Graduate Surveys, Pre/Post, and Oral Dissertation Defense. The dispositions for the Doctoral Program of Study are in alignment with the PEU dispositions: Commitment to student; Commitment to the profession; Commitment to the university; and Commitment to technology. Dispositions are assessed upon admission to the Ed.D. Program, admission to candidacy and upon graduation. The Doctoral Program follows a systematic assessment model that receives assessment/feedback from: Candidates; Doctoral Faculty/Staff; MU Assessment Report; and Program Graduates. The Doctoral Faculty/Staff collect information and data. Two Doctoral Faculty meetings are held each year, and data are aggregated, analyzed, and shared with the stakeholders. This data driven model allows the faculty to form judgments and thus make decisions. Meanwhile the faculty continues to receive feedback from the candidates. Program Level Data Collection and Annual Reporting The Doctoral Program of Study does not include a licensure component but leads to a terminal degree. The assessments listed above are utilized in evaluating the program. Other data include: Admission data o MAT/GRE scores o Reference ratings o Goal statement writing sample o The above data are compiled and included in the Annual Assessment Reports which are completed each year by the Coordinator of Doctoral Programs. 7

8 Data Utilization The doctoral program uses an assessment model for continuous program improvement. Data are compiled from the key assessments as well as other assessments. The data that emerge from the assessment system are aggregated, analyzed and shared with faculty, staff, and others including candidates to inform continuous program improvement. A recent example of data-driven programmatic change includes a modification to the number of times the Doctoral Seminar is held. Data determined that a more inclusive seminar program could meet the needs through an annual meeting instead of a biannual one. Assessment Model Candidate Assessment/Feedback MU Assessment Report Feedback Doctoral Faculty/Staff Program Graduates/Employers Collect Data & Information Form Judgments Make Decisions/Take Action Assessment of Goals In the fall 2011 term, the GSEPD selected key assessments to measure the newly developed goals. The specific benchmarks, results, analysis, and planned actions based on the assessment measurements follow. 8

9 Goal Assessment Goal 1. Collaboration: Students collaborate and interact with faculty through course work, co-teaching, co-publishing and/or co-presenting. 1a. Effectively collaborate in a professional context X #1 X #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 1b. Create a community of scholars through mentoring, engaging in X #1 X #2 #3 X#4 #5 #6 #7 collaborative research and maintain a focus on sound educational practices Goal 2. Depth of Understanding: Students apply and integrate learning experiences and knowledge in the field including current issues, diversity, concepts, and research. 2a. Acquire and apply content in their discipline/program X #1 X #2 #3 #4 #5 X #6 #7 2b. Read and analyze educational research articles and literature X #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 X #7 2c. Evaluate quality based on data X #1 #2 X #3 #4 #5 X #6 X #7 2d. Understand major theories/theorists and empirical research and shared X #1 X #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 knowledge of profession Goal 3. Reflection: Students evidence reflection, critical thought and synthesis of material and learning experiences. 3a. Enhance critical thinking X #1 X #2 #3 X #4 #5 #6 #7 3b. Puts theory into practice X #1 #2 #3 #4 X #5 #6 #7 Goal 4. Scholarship: Students exhibit evidence of scholarship in the field through presentations, publications and course work; submission and/or acceptance of publication in a scholarly journal or presentation at a regional or national conference. 4a. Contribute to literature base through publication #1 X#2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 4b. Present to professional organization #1 X #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Goal 5. Communication: Students demonstrate composure, professionalism and poise in writing, speaking and presentation in a variety of experiences; organize material; demonstrate a working knowledge of multimedia; adapt quickly and smoothly to change. 5a. Effectively communicate in a professional context #1 X #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 X #7 5b. Effectively use verbal, written and technical skills X#1 #2 X#3 #4 #5 #6 X #7 9

10 Goal 6. Ethical Research: Students understand and utilize the research process; analyze and synthesize information and data from course work, collaborative research activities, etc. 6a. Develop practitioners who are capable researchers X #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 X #6 #7 6b. Experience in quantitative and qualitative research #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 X #6 #7 6c. Demonstrate knowledge of research in the field X #1 #2 #3 X #4 #5 #6 X #7 6d. Become ethical educators/researchers #1 #2 X #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Goal 7. Practitioners: Students pursue professional and scholarly endeavors and thus enhance their learning community. 7a. Enhance professional education community in our region/state #1 #2 #3 #4 X #5 #6 #7 7b. Produce graduates capable of using current technology in pursuit of professional and scholarly endeavors X #1 X #2 X #3 #4 X #5 #6 #7 LIST OF ASSESSMENTS Name of Assessment Type or Form of Assessment When the Assessment is Administered 1 Dissertation Written document Electronic submission of final document Upon completion of candidate s research for and writing of the dissertation 2 Portfolio Written portfolio paper Approval of paper and document either hard copy or electronic Oral defense of portfolio experiences Upon completion of coursework and residency requirements 3 IRB Process Approval by the Institutional Review Board Following the approved prospectus of the candidates dissertation 4 Annual Review of Student Progress Student review form, approved by advisor/chair March of each year 5 Post-graduation surveys Form letter/ One year and five years postgraduation 6 Pre/Post Multiple choice exam First and last class of LS Oral Dissertation defense Oral defense of dissertation Upon completion and acceptance of research and written document 10

11 Goals, Assessments, Benchmarks, Results and Analysis Goal #1 Collaboration: Students collaborate and interact with faculty through coursework, coteaching, copublishing and/or copresenting. #2 Depth of Understanding: Students apply and integrate learning experiences and knowledge in the field including current issues, diversity, concepts and research. Assessment Measures Assessment #2 Portfolio Presentations Assessment #2 Portfolio Presentation Assessment #1 #7 Dissertation Defense Assessment #3 IRB Process Assessment #6 Benchmarks Completion of portfolios (successfully written and defended); portfolios are judged based on a rubric that covers all aspects of the portfolio defense; all areas must be acceptable for passing the defense Completion of portfolios (successfully written and defended); portfolios are judged based on a rubric that covers all aspects of the portfolio defense; all areas must be acceptable for passing the defense. Students successfully complete and defend dissertations; this is documented by all committee members and electronic publishing of the dissertation; students are required to have an outside proofreader for grammar and mechanics. Results Summer 2010 Results Fall 2010 Results Spring 2011 Analysis/ Planned Actions Portfolios - 5 Portfolios - 7 Portfolios - 3 The program coordinator will continue to monitor student progress and encourage effective advising to ensure that students maintain progress in the program. Portfolios - 5 Defense - 3 IRB Approval NA Portfolios - 7 Defense - 3 IRB Approval students took the test Portfolios - 3 Defense - 2 IRB Approval NA To improve advising across the board, doctoral faculty will meet each semester to discuss the program, share ideas and plan for program improvement. The program coordinator will continue to monitor student progress and encourage effective advising to ensure that students maintain progress in the program. To improve advising across the board, doctoral faculty will meet each semester to discuss the program, share ideas and plan for program improvement. With the production of scholarly work a requirement for the portfolio, students and faculty have become very aware of opportunities to publish and present. Faculty work with students to ensure that they complete the IRB Process and research in an ethical manner. We realize that we need to review LS 703 Research Exam data and make recommendations to the program based on them. We are just beginning to collect these data as we ve added this assessment as one of our Key Assessments. The IRB Process and 11

12 Approval ensures that students meet the ethical standards required by research. #3 Reflection: Students evidence reflection, critical thought, and synthesis of material and learning experiences. Assessment # 7 Dissertation Defense Assessment # 2 Portfolio Presentations Assessment #4 Annual Review of Student Progress Assessment # 6 Students complete a Pre/Post Research Exam during LS 703. Students successfully complete and defend dissertations; this is documented by all committee members and electronic publishing of the dissertation; students are required to have an outside proofreader for grammar and mechanics. Completion of portfolios (successfully written and defended); portfolios are judged based on a rubric that covers all aspects of the portfolio defense; all areas must be acceptable for passing the defense. Defense - 3 Portfolios 5 Annual Review NA NA Defense - 3 Portfolio 7 Annual Review NA 33 students took the test Defense - 2 Portfolio 3 Annual Review 112 returned - NA The program coordinator will continue to monitor student progress and encourage effective advising to ensure that students maintain progress in the program. To improve advising success across the board, doctoral faculty will meet each term to discuss the program, share ideas and plan for program improvement. We recognize that valuable data can be analyzed through the Pre and Post. It is critical our students understand and can analyze data. We need to review the data and thus ensure the strong research component which we expect has a strong foundation. The doctoral faculty will review data at the spring meeting. Students complete a self-evaluation and a progress report through the Annual Review of Progress. Students must complete this document as a requirement to enroll for spring term classes. 12

13 Students complete a Pre/Post Research Exam during LS 703. We realize that we need to review these data and make recommendations to the program based on them. We are just beginning to collect these data as we ve added this assessment as one of our Key Assessments. #4 Scholarship: Students exhibit evidence of scholarship in the field through presentations, publications and coursework; submission and/or acceptance of publication in a scholarly journal or presentation at regional or national conference #5 Communication: Students demonstrate composure, professionalism and poise in writing, speaking and Assessment #2 Portfolio Presentations Assessment #1 & 7 Defense Assessment #2 Portfolio Assessment #3 Scholarly articles written, submitted and published in research publications Presentations in scholarly venues (During portfolio presentations students provide information regarding their publications, presentations) Completion of portfolios (successfully written and defended); portfolios are judged based on a rubric that covers all aspects of the portfolio defense; all areas must be acceptable for passing Portfolio - 5 Portfolio - 7 Portfolio - 3 With the production of scholarly work as a requirement for the portfolio, students and faculty have become aware of opportunities to collaborate. Defense 3 Portfolio 5 IRB Approval 1 Post Grad Surveys Defense 3 Portfolio 7 IRB Approval - 1 Post Grad Surveys Defense 2 Portfolio 3 IRB Approval 2 Post Grade We will make an effort to update conference opportunities on a regular basis. With the sometimes prohibitive cost of travel, we will continue to encourage students to consider the publication option. Students will continue to hone multi-media skills as they make presentations at national conferences and to meet the guidelines for portfolio and dissertation defenses. The dissertation process provides opportunities for students to organize and research material while developing professional writing and speaking skills. Each student s committee will continue to provide 13

14 presentation in a variety of experiences; organize material; demonstrate a working knowledge of multimedia, and adapt quickly and smoothly to change IRB Process Assessment #5 Post Graduation Surveys the defense. Students successfully complete and defend dissertations; this is documented by all committee members and electronic publishing of the dissertation; students are required to have an outside proofreader for grammar and mechanics. The IRB Process and Approval ensures that students meet the ethical standards required by research. returned - 4 returned - 1 Surveys returned - 1 input and guidance during the portfolio and dissertation process. Doctoral grads are asked to provide information about their assistance with the doctoral program through the Post Graduation Survey. The results are reviewed twice a year, Fall and Spring, by the Doctoral Faculty. Changes made in 2011 included holding a required Doctoral Seminar once a year instead of twice and including components that are more helpful to students over the 4-7 years they are doctoral students at Marshall University. We recognize that even though a very few of the postgraduate surveys are returned, we are missing the opportunity to request employment information. We will be including questions regarding the use of the doctorate and employment in future post-graduate surveys. #6 Ethical Research: Students understand and utilize the research process; analyze and synthesize information and data from coursework, and Assessment #1 & #7 Defense Assessment #3 IRB Process Assessment #4 Annual Review of Student Post-graduate surveys are sent to graduates one year and five years after they ve graduated. The surveys provide information about each student s experience as a doctoral student. Students successfully complete and defend dissertations; this is documented by all committee members and electronic publishing of the dissertation; students are required to have an outside proofreader for grammar Defense - 3 IRB Approval - 1 Annual Review - NA - NA Defense - 3 IRB Approval -1 Annual Review - NA - Defense - 2 IRB Approval - 2 Annual Review returned - We recognize that valuable data can be analyzed through the Pre and Post. It is critical our students understand and can analyze data. We need to review the data and thus ensure the strong research component which we expect has a strong foundation. The Doctoral Faculty will review data at the Spring meeting. The portfolio and dissertation process provide opportunities for students to organize and research material while developing professional writing and 14

15 collaborative research activities, among others. Progress Assessment #6 and mechanics. The IRB Process and Approval ensures that students meet the ethical standards required by research. 33 students took the test NA speaking skills. The Citi Course and exam and IRB Approval are critical ethical components of scholarly research. Faculty assist students as they develop their proposals. Students complete a self-evaluation and a progress report through the required Annual Review of Progress. Students must complete this document as a requirement to enroll for Spring Term classes. #7 Practitioners: Students pursue professional and scholarly endeavors and thus enhance their learning community. Assessment #1 Dissertation Assessment #2 Portfolio Assessment #3 IRB Process Students complete a Pre/Post Research Exam during LS 703. We realize we need to review these data and make recommendations to the program based on them. We are just beginning to collect these data as we ve added this assessment as one of our Key assessments. Students successfully complete and defend dissertations; this is documented by all committee members and electronic publishing of the dissertation; students are required to have Dissertation - 3 Portfolio - 5 IRB Approval - 1 Post-grad Surveys - 4 Dissertation - 3 Portfolio - 7 IRB Approval - 1 Post-grad Surveys - 1 Dissertation - 2 Portfolio - 3 IRB Approval - 2 Post-grad Surveys - 1 Each student s committee will continue to provide input and guidance during the portfolio and dissertation process. The Citi Course and exam and IRB Approval are critical ethical components of scholarly research. Faculty assists students as they develop their proposals. We recognize that even though a very few 15

16 Assessment #5 Post-graduate Surveys an outside proofreader for grammar and mechanics. Completion of portfolios (successfully written and defended); portfolios are judged based on a rubric that covers all aspects of the portfolio defense; all areas must be acceptable for passing the defense. The IRB Process and Approval ensures that students meet the ethical standards required by research. Post-graduate surveys are sent to graduates one year and five years after they ve graduated. The surveys provide information about each student s experience as a doctoral student. of the post-graduate surveys are returned, we are missing the opportunity to request employment information. We will be including questions regarding the use of the doctorate and employment in future post-graduate surveys. The involvement of students as contributors to the community of scholars has continued to increase. As we have noted a tendency of students attend conference only to make their own presentations, and we plan to implement a report of conference attendance with emphasis on participation beyond their own presentations. Students also tend to select to present rather than publish. With limited travel funds and economic conditions, we will continue to encourage students to publish. To provide opportunities for more students to present at a scholarly conference on a state level and/or publish on a state level, GSEPD is considering implementing a state affiliation of NCPEA. The state affiliation could sponsor conferences and peerreviewed journals. GSEPD faculty attended the Ohio Fall Meeting and has received assurance from Ohio that they would be willing to assist Marshall in the development of a WV affiliation. Cross-state research and presentations could also take place. A state affiliation also lends itself to the development of a platform for legislative issues. Overall Planned Actions The six Key Assessments that will be used to assess the Goals and Outcomes of the Program were determined by the Doctoral Faculty at the fall 2011 meeting. The Doctoral Faculty members are employed through the Elementary and Secondary Education and/or the Leadership Studies Departments. They have a myriad of other duties in the Master and Education Specialist programs. They take their tasks as doctoral 16

17 level faculty seriously as they work on committees, individually, and as a group to review data. Through the NCATE process as well as the process of completing this document it has become apparent that we have data which have not been analyzed and could provide us with information to enhance our program. The Spring 2012 Doctoral Faculty Meeting will be devoted to data analysis and recommendations that come from the process. This process has also made us aware that we did not have a comprehensive Dispositions Assessment. We developed one which we piloted at the Fall 2011 Doctoral Seminar. Students in the pilot program provided input regarding the document and what it was to assess. Overall, the students (though few in number) indicated that the assessment may meet the disposition needs. The data from the pilot survey will be thoroughly reviewed during the Spring 2012 Doctoral Faculty Meeting also. 17