1. Is the program overall effective in preparing candidates to meet the expected outcomes?

Wichita State University Educational Psychology Program Committee Annual Report Calendar Year 2007 Template Adopted by Unit Assessment Committee 3-11-05, Last Revised 6-25-07, 2-15-08 Submitted April 2008, revised 8-6-08 The Educational Program Committee oversees the Educational Psychology Master s of Education Program. This report covers calendar year 2007. It provides the answers to the questions identified in the Rubrics for Reviewing the Work of Program Committees and ends with the recommendations that were made based upon its review work. The Educational Psychology Program Committee consisting of Dr. Marlene Schommer-Aikins, Dr. Randy Ellsworth, Dr. Kate Bohn-Gettler and Dr. Linda Bakken met three times during Calendar Year 2007. The primary foci of those meetings were on class scheduling, search for a new faculty member, Educational Psychology Program changes due to Dr. Bakken s retirement and the movement of Dr. Schommer-Aikins to the CESP department chair position, review of the 2006 annual program report and planning for a five-year summary report in 2008. The Educational Psychology Program Committee is advised by the Educational Psychology MEd Advisory Council. The Advisory Council consists of Dr. Marlene Schommer-Aikins (CESP department chair), Patricia Dunnell (high school teacher), Alden Hoffman (practicing school psychologist), James Paul (practitioner and department adjunct faculty member), Marianne Bass (student) and Dr. Randy Ellsworth (CESP faculty member). During Calendar Year 2007 the Advisory Council met once. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss and obtain feedback on the 2006 Educational Psychology Annual Report which was submitted to the Unit Assessment Committee on March 15, 2007. Extended discussion took place on the topics of the thesis process, recruitment for diversity, and data on candidate successes. The Educational Psychology Program Committee adopted the criterion that 80% or more of its candidates would need to pass all course-embedded assessments in order to determine that the program was effective in preparing candidates to meet the expected outcomes. The assessments for the Educational Psychology Master s Program address (a) our program standards; (b) the Unit Guiding Principles; and (c) the several types of NCATE knowledge. We respond to the core questions using the Educational Psychology Program standards and provide examples of how these assessments address the above-mentioned three domains. Core Questions: 1. Is the program overall effective in preparing candidates to meet the expected outcomes? a. Program Standards Table 1 below provides descriptive statistics for scores achieved by candidates admitted in 2005, 2006, and 2007 on each indicator for the three Educational Psychology Master s Program standards. As can be seen in this table, all candidates admitted in 2005-2007 have met the 80% criterion levels established for each of the indicators (with the exceptions of the technical writing

Educational Psychology Program Committee Annual Report, 2007 2 exam indicator and the thesis completion indicator, where both are graded as pass/fail). Information from Table 1 is summarized by the Unit s Conceptual Framework Guiding Principles in Table 2 (section b below) and NCATE Types of Knowledge in Table 3 (section c below). Table 1 Master s Degree in Educational Psychology Assessment Results by Standard and Indicator for all Candidates Admitted 2005-2007 Descriptive Statistics Standards and Indicators N Mean SD Range Standard 1 Indicators 1.1 820 Theory Paper 16 98.32 2.98 90-100 1.2 701 Res. Proposal 21 97.00 3.36 86-100 1.3 820 Res. Project 16 96.44 4.29 90-100 1.4 Learn. Theory Comp 5 95.20 5.22 88-100 Standard 2 Indicators 2.1 831 Res. Proposal 13 92.69 3.75 87-99 2.2 728 Prev. Project 16 92.81 3.94 84-98 2.3 728 Theory Paper 16 92.62 4.21 84-98 2.4 831 Test 2 13 95.31 2.25 91-99 2.5 Hum. Dev. Comp 5 88.40 4.34 82-92 Standard 3 Indicators 3.1 701 Final Exam 21 91.76 5.00 83-100 3.2 704 Final Exam 20 91.55 5.48 82-98 3.3 823 Final Exam 11 85.27 4.90 80-96 3.4 Writing Exam 11 NA NA 11 Pass 3.5 Res/Stat/Meas Comp 5 86.00 3.67 81-90 3.6 Thesis Completion 2 NA NA 2 Pass

Educational Psychology Program Committee Annual Report, 2007 3 b. Conceptual Framework Guiding Principles Table 2 below provides a summary of pass rates on all assessment indicators as they relate to the College of Education s Conceptual Framework Guiding Principles. As Table 2 demonstrates, the pass rate on each assessment used to reflect relevant Unit Conceptual Framework proficiencies or dispositions are all at 100%, exceeding the 80% criterion rate program faculty judged would be acceptable. Indeed, mean percent correct scores for candidates who were admitted in 2005, 2006, or 2007 and who have completed these assessments range from 85% (Standard 3, Indicator 3: CESP 823 Final Exam) to 98% (Standard 1, Indicator 1: CESP 820 Theory Paper). As noted in footnote 1 for Table 2, Educational Psychology program faculty have approved an alternate scoring process for the Technical Writing Examination (Standard 3, Indicator 4) that incorporates 5-point rubric categories covering the areas (a) comprehension, (b) critical evaluation, (c) synthesis, (d) research idea generation, and (e) professional quality of writing. This Technical Writing Exam rubric can culminate in a maximum total score of 25 and will be used with candidates admitted in 2007, 2008 and beyond. Table 2 Pass Rates for Educational Psychology Master s Candidates Admitted 2005-2007 on Assessments Related to the College of Education s Conceptual Framework Guiding Principles Conceptual Framework Guiding Principle Professionalism and Reflection Human Development and Diversity Connection of Teaching Experiences and Assessment Conceptual Framework Proficiency/ Disposition Ed. Psy. Standards & Assessments Scores with Data Sta. Assess. Possible # of Scores Count Mean Pass Score Pass Rate PR1 NA NA NA NA NA NA PR2 2 5 12 5 88% 100% PR3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 2 23 21 97% 100% PR4 1 4 12 5 95% 100% 3 4 18 11 NA 1 100% PR5 2 4 23 13 95% 100% HDD1 2 3 23 16 93% 100% HDD2 NA NA NA NA NA NA HDD3 NA NA NA NA NA NA HDD4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3 5 12 5 86% 100% CTA1 3 6 11 2 NA 2 100% CTA2 NA NA NA NA NA NA CTA3 1 3 23 16 96% 100% 2 1 23 13 93% 100% CTA4 NA NA NA NA NA NA CTA5 NA NA NA NA NA NA CTA6 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Educational Psychology Program Committee Annual Report, 2007 4 Conceptual Framework Guiding Principle Technology Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Alignment with Standard Collaboration Conceptual Framework Ed. Psy. Standards & Possible Scores with Data Mean Proficiency/ Assessments # of Pass Pass Disposition Sta. Assess. Scores Count Score Rate T1 3 2 23 20 92% 100% T2 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 23 16 98% 100% CKS1 3 1 23 21 92% 100% 3 3 23 11 85% 100% CKS2 NA NA NA NA NA NA C1 2 2 23 16 93% 100% C2 NA NA NA NA NA NA C3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 Until 2008, the writing exam has been scored as a Pass/Fail (with retake option available). Currently the writing exam is being scored using a rubric and future data will reflect this change. 2 Thesis completion requires the approval of the candidate s thesis committee members. This is a Pass/Fail decision. c. NCATE Types of Knowledge Table 3 below provides a summary of pass rates on all assessment indicators as they relate to NCATE Types of Knowledge. As Table 3 demonstrates, the pass rate on each assessment used to reflect relevant NCATE Types of Knowledge proficiencies or dispositions are all at 100%, exceeding the 80% criterion rate program faculty judged would be acceptable. Indeed, mean percent correct scores for candidates who were admitted in 2005, 2006, or 2007 and who have completed these assessments range from 85% (Standard 3, Indicator 3: CESP 823 Final Exam) to 98% (Standard 1, Indicator 1: CESP 820 Theory Paper). As noted in footnote 1 for Table 3, Educational Psychology program faculty have approved an alternate scoring process for the Technical Writing Examination (Standard 3, Indicator 4) that incorporates 5-point rubric categories covering the areas (a) comprehension, (b) critical evaluation, (c) synthesis, (d) research idea generation, and (e) professional quality of writing. This Technical Writing Exam rubric can culminate in a maximum total score of 25 (candidates must score 3 or better in each area assessed) and will be used with candidates admitted in 2007, 2008 and beyond. In summary, Educational Psychology faculty are pleased with the level of competence candidates admitted in 2005, 2006, and 2007 have demonstrated on the assessments used as indicators of meeting program standards. As will be discussed later, the screening procedures in place at program Transition Point 1 seem well suited for identifying candidates who will continue to complete the Educational Psychology Master s Program at quality levels.

Educational Psychology Program Committee Annual Report, 2007 5 Table 3 Pass Rates for Educational Psychology Master s Candidates Admitted 2005-2007 on Assessments Completed Related to NCATE Types of Knowledge NCATE Types of Knowledge Content Knowledge Ed. Psy. Standards & Assessments Sta. Possible # of Candidates Scores with Data Mean Pass Score Assess. Count Pass Rate 2 3 23 16 93% 100% 2 5 12 5 88% 100% 3 1 23 21 92% 100% 3 2 23 20 92% 100% 3 3 23 11 85% 100% Dispositions 2 4 23 13 95% 100% Student Learning 1 1 23 16 98% 100% Pedagogical Content Knowledge NA NA NA NA NA NA Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills 1 2 23 21 97% 100% 1 3 23 16 96% 100% 1 4 12 5 95% 100% 2 1 23 13 93% 100% 2 2 23 16 93% 100% 3 4 18 11 NA 1 100% 3 5 12 5 86% 100% 3 6 11 2 NA 2 100% 1 Until 2008, the writing exam has been scored as a Pass/Fail (with retake option available). Currently the writing exam is being scored using a rubric and future data will reflect this change. 2 Thesis completion requires the approval of the candidate s thesis committee members. This is a Pass/Fail decision. 2. Are candidates performances at transition points predictive of their ultimate success/exit performance (i.e., predictive validity)? First, it needs to be made clear that once a candidate is admitted to the Educational Psychology Master s Program (Transition Point 1) faculty members strongly believe that the candidate will successfully complete the program and they monitor and assist candidates as needed to ensure successful completion. Candidates and faculty members are investing significant time, energy and resources in this process, and the primary goal of both groups is to see each candidate successfully complete the program. The first transition point is admission to the program. Educational Psychology faculty members require several pieces of information for this transition point. Information required includes an index score composed of the candidate s GRE verbal and quantitative subtest scores which are

Educational Psychology Program Committee Annual Report, 2007 6 combined with the candidate s GPA in their last 60 hours of undergraduate coursework using the following formula: Index = GPA + (GRE Verbal) + (GRE Quantitative) 400 Ordinarily, applicants scores on this index will equal or exceed 5.5. This index value can be achieved by a candidate who attains a combined verbal and quantitative score on the GRE of 1,000 and a B (3.00) GPA over the last 60 credit hours of undergraduate coursework. Educational Psychology faculty members have found that the index score is highly predictive of successful completion of the Educational Psychology Master s Degree. Thus, faculty members have been firm in maintaining the minimum index score as necessary for admission and thus completion of the first transition. A summary of GRE, GPA, and Index means score values is reported in Table 4. Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations of GRE Verbal and Quantitative Subtests, Grade Point Average in the Last 60 Hours Prior to Admission, and Educational Psychology Admission Index Scores for Candidates Admitted in 2005-2007 Transition I Assessment N Mean Standard Deviation GRE Verbal 23 509 84 GRE Quantitative 23 555 102 GPA in Prior 60 Hours 23 3.64.30 Admission Index Score 23 6.30 1.53 1 An index value of 5.5 or greater is expected for candidates to be admitted to the Educational Psychology Master s Program (see index formula in paragraph above Table 4). Transition Point 2 involves assessment as candidates make a decision between the thesis and the non-thesis option. The Technical Writing Exam, initiated in 2002, continues to be a good way to help program faculty counsel candidates into the thesis or non-thesis option of the program. In academic year 2008 program faculty decided to make the scoring of the Technical Writing Exam more specific and a scoring rubric was developed with candidates expected to score at least 3 or higher in each area assessed by the rubric. It is expected that the more specific scoring rubric will allow faculty to more carefully advise candidates into the thesis or non-thesis program options. Transition Point 3 consists of candidates exiting the thesis or non-thesis program components. For non-thesis candidates this means passing all sections of the comprehensive exam successfully (scores of 80% or higher). For thesis candidates it means successfully completing a Master s thesis. For 10 candidates admitted in 2005 [2006 and 2007 candidates are not yet at a point of completing one of these program options (thesis/non-thesis)], three have successfully completed their theses and five have successfully completed comprehensive exams for an 80% success completion rate. The remaining two candidates are in the thesis program and are expected to complete the program in the near future.

Educational Psychology Program Committee Annual Report, 2007 7 Transition Point 4 is passed when a candidate graduates. Of eleven candidates who entered the program in 2005, five have graduated (three thesis, two non-thesis), three are scheduled to graduate in spring 2008, two are working on theses, and one switched to the WSU Counseling Master s Program. Candidates admitted in 2006 and 2007 are not yet reaching Transition Point 4. Table 5 below summarizes the pass rates of admitted candidates at Transition Points 2, 3, and 4. Table 5 Pass Rates for Educational Psychology Master s Candidates Admitted 2005-2007 on Program Transition Points Transition Point Possible # of Candidates Scores with Data Count Pass Rate 2 23 15 (10 thesis/5 non-thesis) 100% 3 23 8 (3 thesis/5 non-thesis) 100% 4 23 5(3 thesis/2 non-thesis) 100% 3. What conclusions do data at transition points lead to concerning program effectiveness? Educational Psychology program faculty members are currently pleased with our candidates progress toward completing their Master s degrees. When a candidate applies and is admitted with an index score of 5.5 or greater we expect the candidate will succeed and our data to date for 2005, 2006 and 2007 indicate that they already have succeeded or are on their way to succeeding. Data collected at Transition Points 2-4 support the value of the screening criteria employed at Transition Point 1. 4. What differential program performance is there, if any, for candidates from different backgrounds (e.g., ethnicity, gender)? a. Gender Currently all candidates admitted in 2005-2007 are in the process of completing their programs or have graduated. Currently there are a total of 23 candidates active in the program who were admitted in 2005, 2006, or 2007. Of these 23, five are male (22%) and 18 are female (78%). Two of the five males have already graduated (both admitted in 2005--one thesis, one non-thesis) and two females have graduated (both admitted in 2005 one thesis, one non-thesis). Educational Psychology program faculty members do not feel that gender has any significant impact on program progress or completion. Both males and females admitted to the program are succeeding and at very similar rates in terms of course completion and thesis/non-thesis requirements.

Educational Psychology Program Committee Annual Report, 2007 8 b. Ethnicity Currently all candidates admitted in 2005-2007 are in the process of completing their programs or have graduated. Currently there are a total of 23 candidates active in the program who were admitted in 2005, 2006, or 2007. Of these 23, one (4%) is African-American female (admitted in 2005). Her progress through the program has been on schedule and she will graduate in spring 2008. Educational Psychology program faculty members are not satisfied with the ethnic composition of our candidate population. This issue was discussed in some length with the Educational Psychology Program Advisory Committee that met on June 6, 2007. Minutes from the meeting state the following: Recruitment for Diversity: The annual report notes that the Educational Psychology Program currently has three candidates from minority ethnic backgrounds (one Hispanic, one Native American, one African American). The Advisory Committee discussed possible options that might be attempted to increase candidate diversity. Among the suggestions made were: Meet with Wichita School District Program Coordinators to explain the program and its potential benefits to teachers. Contact Jeff Watkins who is the Wichita Public Schools Native American Program Coordinator to provide information about the Educational Psychology Program. Have University Computing generate a list of recent teacher education graduates and contact them directly about the program. Mail brochures/fliers describing the program out to schools for direct distribution to teachers and other school personnel. Re-look at our departmental surveys where we have asked our candidates how they found out about our program to see if new options for contacting potential candidates might be identified. Since that meeting, the Native American candidate has graduated and the Hispanic candidate (admitted in 2003 and thus not a part of this report) is completing her thesis but facing some family issues that are delaying the process. The African-American candidate mentioned in the minutes is scheduled to graduate in spring 2008. With respect to the suggestions made in the Advisory Council meeting, recruitment activities are in the planning stages due to several faculty and staff transitions during the 2007-2008 academic year. A PowerPoint presentation has been developed that highlights the many possible career opportunities Educational Psychology has to offer. This PowerPoint presentation is now awaiting approval from the College Dean. Once approved, it will be used in presentations designed to attract candidates to the Educational Psychology Master s Program, with special emphasis on diverse candidates. 5. Is the program effective in preparing graduates for state licensure exams (if required) in both total scores and the category scores? The Educational Psychology Master s Program does not have a state licensure exam, so this question is not applicable.

Educational Psychology Program Committee Annual Report, 2007 9 6. What changes, if any, do the results of assessments suggest for the Conceptual Framework (if any)? Our assessment data indicate that our program is working well with respect to the standards established for the program, the Unit Conceptual Framework, and NCATE knowledge types. No significant changes are proposed at this time. 7. What changes, if any, do data and/or information suggest for (a) the program, (b) the assessments and/or criteria/rubrics, and (c) operational elements advisement, instruction, assessments, faculty, field/clinical placements, field/clinical supervision, record keeping, or resource? The data indicate that the assessments used by the Educational Psychology program faculty members provide good information on the indicators and standards of the program. Tables 1-5 above indicate that most, if not all, candidates progress through the program in a timely and satisfactory manner. The assessments seem to be successful in determining candidate knowledge, understanding, and application of the constructs learned in their classes. Advisement of candidates also appears to be a strong point of Educational Psychology faculty members. The annual survey completed in fall 2007 to determine candidate satisfaction with the advising they receive is summarized in Table 6 according to three survey areas which reflect whether the candidates (a) found the advisement received was helpful, (b) felt faculty members provided them with respectful treatment, and (c) found their overall advisement adequate or better. Table 6 Mean and Standard Deviations of Advisement Ratings by Candidates Surveyed in Fall 2007 Advisement Survey Category N Mean 1 Deviation Standard Helpfulness of Advising Received 9 3.73.35 Respectful Treatment by Advisor 12 3.75.45 Adequacy of Advising Received 11 3.61.44 1 Items were rated on a 1-4 strongly disagree to strongly agree scale. The Educational Psychology program is not static, as Educational Psychology faculty members continue to refine both assessments and program requirements. With the replacement of a faculty member who retired in 2007, the program area currently has four faculty members (one of whom is currently chair of the Department of Counseling, Educational and School Psychology). These four faculty members have continued to improve their assessment plan and procedures (see section 15 of this report) and will continue to do so. We have developed our own Excel data base for tracking our candidates on all assessments and transition points and can monitor data and summarize data at any time.

Educational Psychology Program Committee Annual Report, 2007 10 8. Are the assessments in Table 2 administered by faculty in every section and every semester the course is taught? All assessments identified in the Master s in Educational Psychology Table 2 Assessments and Their Alignments (last revised 2/28/08) are administered by Educational Psychology program faculty members with few instances of adjunct faculty members conducting the assessments. The Educational Psychology faculty members maintain their own Excel data-base of program assessments and to-date have not relied on the Unit s data management system for this information. 9. During their program do all candidates have experiences (e.g., student/client, setting) in settings that meet the Unit s diversity requirements? The Educational Psychology Master s Program does not have a state licensure program and does not have clinical placement requirements as part of its program. Therefore this question is not applicable. 10. Is the program successful in preparing candidates for effective practice? (KSDE Template Section IV) Of candidates admitted in 2005-2007, five have already graduated. Two have been admitted to the School Psychology Specialist Program at WSU, one was admitted to a doctoral program at University of Illinois at Chicago, one is teaching in the Wichita Public Schools, and another is in a doctoral program at the University of Houston. Among other candidates we have had contact with and who were admitted to Educational Psychology one or two years prior to 2005-2007, but who graduated during that time period, three are pursuing the School Psychology Specialist Program from WSU, one has taken a position as a grants developer for the College of Fine Arts at Wichita State University, and one is teaching in Japan. Another indicator of success can be determined when Educational Psychology Master s degree graduates apply to become candidates for the School Psychology Specialist Program at WSU. When candidates apply for this Specialist degree they are required to take a 100 item assessment covering 10 of the Kansas State Department of Education Standards for School Psychologists (which are also aligned with the National Association of School Psychologists domains). Candidates take 10 items covering each of the 10 KSDE standards and must achieve at least 70% correct for an acceptable rating on each standard. Out of 100 possible standards rated (10 candidates times 10 standards assessed), only 16 unacceptable scores occurred on the first administration of the test. All of the 16 unacceptable ratings were removed when candidates were re-examined on their unacceptable standard(s). Thus, of 10 graduates from the Educational Psychology Master s Program who applied for the School Psychology Specialist Program all have successfully completed this entry examination. A follow-up survey of 2006 program graduates was conducted in the spring of 2007 and the results are reported in Table 7. Open-ended comments were also solicited to two questions and the results are reported in Table 8.

Educational Psychology Program Committee Annual Report, 2007 11 Table 7 Means and Standard Deviations of Items Completed by Candidates Graduating in 2006 (N=6) 2006 Items Mean 1 SD The WSU Educational Psychology Program: 1. prepared me to understand, critique, and design research using accepted professional standards. 4.17.41 2. prepared me to select or develop, administer, and interpret assessment instruments using accepted professional standards. 3.67 1.03 3. prepared me to select appropriate procedures for analyzing data. 4.00.63 4. prepared me to write research reports in accordance with professional standards. 4.67.52 5. failed to prepare me to make decisions that are informed by research. 1.33.52 6. prepared me to understand the processes of change in children and adults. 4.67.52 7. prepared me to understand the core commonalities across all human beings and simultaneously understand their individual differences. 4.50.55 8. prepared me to understand the processes of learning and memory in humans. 4.67.52 9. prepared me to work collaboratively with peers and others in professional settings. 4.00.89 10. prepared me to understand theories of social psychology that apply to educational settings. 4.17.98 11. failed to prepare me to apply theory and research to my professional setting. 1.33.52 1 Graduates responded to each item using a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) Table 8 Open-Ended Responses by Candidates Graduating in 2006 (N=6) Items and Responses What are the strengths of the WSU Educational Psychology program? Attentive and knowledgeable faculty Quantitative course are great The professors are the main strength of the program. You are intelligent, supportive of students needs and help everyone to be successful. Another strength lies in the appropriate curriculum being chosen. The books were right in alignment with the real world of education. I think the professors are very well-informed about their subjects, and the class sizes are small and facilitate discussions well. I ve especially found the learning and memory classes to be helpful. A caring faculty and staff dedicated to adequately prepare students continuing in the Ed.S. program or for daily work life. Professor encouragement of students progress Questions encouraged Written suggestions for thesis and non-thesis options What aspects of the WSU Educational Psychology preparation program need to be strengthened? If possible, please be specific in how this might be accomplished. It would be helpful if a qualitative research class was offered in addition to the quantitative classes. I would also like to see it have more interaction with the public schools, especially in opportunities for grad students. The most frustrating thing for me was feeling that classes were being held back by lower-level students. For instance, I took a higher-level class in my final term. Often, we would be unable to discuss new material because the teacher would be forced to explain previously learned concepts, or because some students didn t understand the basics. It was very frustrating to be forced to go over material that had been learned in sometimes two or three previous classes, and I often felt cheated because we would not have time to get to the new information. This class often became a review session. This was especially true of anything involving statistics, but was not limited to it. Passing through the lower classes should show an understanding of the concept, so I never understood how students for along in the program could seem to have such a lack of basic understanding. I can understand an occasional

Educational Psychology Program Committee Annual Report, 2007 12 Items and Responses concept, but often the same few students were failing to understand most concepts, and I think I can speak for at least others in those classes when I say that was highly frustrating. Having an equally informed staff with regards to graduation requirements, time lines, etc. 11. How are data used by candidates and faculty to improve candidate performance? Have changes made by the Program Committee in prior years led to desired improvements? Over time, Educational Psychology program faculty members have made a number of program changes designed to improve candidate performance and facilitate their timely degree completion. As noted in earlier annual reports (e.g., 2004, 2005, 2006) the implementation of a Technical Writing Exam to help counsel candidates into a thesis or non-thesis program option has proved quite successful. We have also altered the course rotation schedule so that candidates can complete the four basic core courses (CESP 701, 704, 728, and 820) early in their program and can then complete the Technical Writing Exam and make the thesis/non-thesis choice. 12. How are data shared with candidates and faculty, and other stakeholders? All Educational Psychology faculty members participate in the development of the annual assessment report and contribute assessment information directly to the program data base. Candidates receive direct feedback on all of their own assessments related to program standards and indicators as well as any assessments associated with the four program candidate transition points. Annual reports are shared with the program s advisory council which includes a candidate representative and representatives from the community representing the fields of counseling, educational psychology, and school psychology. WSU School Psychology Specialist faculty members also have direct access to Educational Psychology assessment data when candidates indicate a commitment to pursue the Educational Psychology master s degree track leading to the School Psychology Specialist Program. 13. Is the Program Committee consulting with the Advisory Council in appropriate ways? Annual Advisory Council meetings take place where the results of this annual review are discussed (council members receive a copy of this report in advance of the meeting). 14. Is the Program Committee following Unit procedures for making changes in the Program s Approved Assessment Plan? Educational Psychology s initial Table 2 describing program assessments and their alignments with program standards, conceptual framework proficiencies/dispositions, and NCATE standards was initially approved 3/30/04 and revised and approved 6/27/05. Recently the Educational Psychology Program Committee went through a review iteration that resulted in several changes in Table 2 assessments and criteria designed to reduce some assessment redundancies and streamline the assessment process. The following changes were proposed and submitted to the Unit Assessment Coordinator with the most recent Unit level approval occurring 2/28/08:

Educational Psychology Program Committee Annual Report, 2007 13 Standard 1: The graduate candidate project in CESP 704: Introduction to Education Statistics was dropped. This assessment overlapped considerably with the CESP 820 Learning Theories and Instruction research project and was dependent to some extent on whether CESP 704 classes contained any undergraduate students. The Comprehensive Exam subsection in Learning Theories had its criterion changed from pass to an 80% criterion level for consistency with other assessments. In addition it is noted that this assessment is appropriate only for non-thesis candidates. Standard 2: CESP 819: Social Psychology of Education was renumbered to CESP 831. The Comprehensive Exam subsections in Human Development and Social Psychology had their criterion levels changed from pass to 80% criterion level for consistency with other assessments. In addition it is noted that this assessment is appropriate only for non-thesis candidates. Standard 3: The Test #1 (Application Exam) in CESP 704: Introduction to Educational Statistics was dropped. This assessment overlapped considerably with the CESP 704 final examination since the final examination is a cumulative exam. The Test 1 and 2 assessments in CESP 823: Experimental Design in Educational Research was reduced to Test 2 and relabeled Final Examination in CESP 823. Again, Test 2 (or the final exam) is a cumulative exam and including Test 1 was redundant. The Technical Writing Examination criterion of pass was changed to a criterion of Score of 3 or higher on each of five rated traits. The Comprehensive Exam subsection in Research/Statistics/Measurement had its criterion changed from pass to an 80% criterion level for consistency with other assessments. In addition it is noted that this assessment is appropriate only for nonthesis candidates. The Master s Thesis assessment criterion level was changed from pass to Thesis Committee Approval to more completely define the criterion. In addition it is noted that this assessment is appropriate only for thesis candidates. 15. Are any faculty development needs apparent from faculty performance assessments (e.g., from SPTE reports, advisement evaluations, faculty technology use surveys, student technology use surveys)? (Unit Assessment Committee only faculty development activities are undertaken by departments and/or a college, not individual program faculty groups.) Program Committees are not responsible for Core Question 15. 16. Are there similarities among program-level reviews/recommendations that suggest issues or factors that maybe generalized to the Unit? (Unit Assessment Committee only a single program committee sees results for one program only so cannot detect this.) Program Committees are not responsible for Core Question 16.

Educational Psychology Program Committee Annual Report, 2007 14 Summary of Changes: 1. Observation: Lack of a sufficient number of Educational Psychology faculty members. Relevant Core Question: Core Question #7 Cause/Background: Retirements and movement to administrative positions have reduced the number of Educational Psychology faculty members in recent years. Change: A new assistant professor was hired in fall 2007. Her specialty is in Developmental Psychology. 2. Observation: Enrollment in the Educational Psychology Master s Program has fluctuated over the past three years and is not as diverse as desired. Relevant Core Question: Core Question #7 Cause/Background: Fluctuating admissions to the Educational Psychology Master s Program may reflect lack of knowledge of potential candidates about potential careers where an educational psychology background is helpful. Change: Greater emphasis is being placed on candidate recruitment including the development of a PowerPoint presentation that can be used with potential candidates emphasizing career opportunities using a degree in educational psychology. Special emphasis will be placed on making presentations that may result in the recruitment of a more diverse group of candidates. 3. Observation: Several candidates have had life crises that cause either temporary or permanent loss to the program. Relevant Core Question: Core Question # 2 Cause/Background: We have adult students with multiple life commitments and some of these life commitments occasionally interfere with the completion of a graduate degree. Change: Educational Psychology faculty members make special attempts to stay in contact with their advisees, and when crises occur, try to make special program arrangements that will allow candidates to complete their degrees.