Graduate Degree Program Assessment Plan Cover Sheet (Rev

Graduate Degree Program Assessment Plan Cover Sheet (rev. 07):

University of Arkansas at Little RockPlan No. 72

Degree Program: Ed.D. - Educational Administration and Supervision

Department and College:Educational Leadership - College of Education

Degree Type (MA, MS, EdS, EdD, PhD, Certificate):_____Ed.D.______

Prepared by: Ibrahim Duyar, Ph.D.

Submitted to College Assessment Committee on______Approved on ______

Submitted to Provost Assessment Advisory Group on Approved on ______

Respond to all six questions, following the Degree Program Assessment Plan Form Instructions. Attach additional pages as needed.

1. WHAT ARE YOUR STUDENT LEARNING GOALS FOR THIS DEGREE PROGRAM?

1. Program Purposes and Goals:The Doctorate of Education (EdD) is an independently structured degree program in Educational Administration and Supervision (EDAS). The EdD program does not lead to licensure; therefore, it is not directly affiliated with any professional organizations such as NCATE or CAEP. Although the EdD Program is not aligned with any licensure requirements, when applicable, the curriculum, instruction, and assessment components of EdD Program are guided by the professional communities and their standards (i.e., ELCC 2011 Standards for School Leaders).

The EdD program is an advanced graduate experience for professional educators who wish to specialize in select aspects of educational administration and supervision as either scholars or scholarly practitioners. Accordingly, the two main purposes of the EdD Program are (A) to prepare scholarly leaders who have the knowledge, skills, values, and abilities to promote success of all students and (B) to develop the intellect and capacity by enhancing their knowledge and skills by discovery and dissemination of knowledge through authentic research. While the candidates who plan becoming a scholarly practitioner follow the first purpose, the candidates who wish to be scholars in higher education organizations pursue the later. The EdD Program of Study incorporates both purposes, thus, giving the candidates flexibility in making appropriate career changes in the future.

1. Purpose 1: To prepare scholarly leaders who have the knowledge, skills, values, and abilities to promote success of all students.

By following the guidance of recent changes in the ELCC standards (i.e., from ELCC 2008 to ELCC 2011), the EdD Program of Study has been revisited in Spring 2013. Stakeholder input was obtained about the programmatic expectations and changes at the annual stakeholders' meeting. A four-point Likert scale (ranging from "none" to "extensive") was used to identify the most appropriate key assessments for further use. Only those activities rated as "extensive" were chosen as key assessments (called significant activities). Please see the Appendix A: Analysis of Program of Study. The program goals and learning objectives are found throughout the program of study and woven across the courses with key assessments that program students must successfully complete.

The program of study is designed to achieve the following six goals (6) to realize the first purpose of the program.

Goal 1: Candidates who complete the EDAS Doctoral Program are educational leaders who have the knowledge, skills, values, and abilities to promote the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a school vision of learning supported by the entire school community.

Goal 2: Candidates who complete the EDAS program will be educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by promoting a positive school culture, providing an effective instructional program, applying best practice to student learning, and designing comprehensive professional growth plans for staff.

Goal 3:Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by managing the organization, operations, and resources in a way that promotes a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

Goal 4: Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by collaborating with families and other community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.

Goal 5: Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairly, and in an ethical manner.

Goal 6: Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by understanding and responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and structural context.

1. Purpose 2: To develop the intellect and capacity by enhancing their knowledge and skills by discovery and dissemination of knowledge through authentic research.

The EdD Program is designed to develop candidates' intellect by discovery and dissemination of knowledge through authentic research. This is achieved through coursework and dissertation research process.

Goal 7: Candidates are engaged in discovery and dissemination of knowledge through authentic research.

1. WHAT ARE YOUR LEARNING OBJECTIVES OR OUTCOMES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH STUDENT LEARNING GOAL?

1. 1. Candidates assess and evaluate the implementation of a school vision and the effectiveness of the leadership behaviors/ styles necessary for working with the larger educational/political community.

1.2. Candidates design data-based research strategies, strategic planning processes, and relevant information sources to communicate and implement the school vision with diverse community constituencies.

1.3. Candidates assess/evaluate programs and design research-based processes to effectively monitor and adjust the implementation and effectiveness of the stated district vision throughout an entire school district and community.

1.4. Candidates align local policies with state and national educational policies and practices using student performance data, organizational theory, and various information sources to assess progress toward a district’s vision, mission, and goals.

1.5. Candidates collaborate and communicate effectively with local, state, regional, national and international educational communities.

2.1. Candidates critically evaluate and synthesize research related to positively influencing school cultures related to multiple aspects of diversity to meet the learning needs of all students.

2.2. Candidates use qualitative and quantitative data, appropriate research methods, technology and information systems to evaluate long-range plans for districts that assess improvement and accountability systems and that appear most likely to sustain an effective instructional program.

2.3. Candidates facilitate and engage in activities that use best practices, sound educational research, and appropriate research strategies to improve instructional programs, to profile student performance, and to analyze differences among subgroups.

2.4. Candidates use adult learning theory, reflective practice and research; authentic problems and tasks; mentoring, coaching, and conferencing to evaluate comprehensive professional development programs committed to lifelong learning and best instructional practice.

3.1. Candidates critically analyze and review administrative practices and policies in the context of ethical and legal principles based on indicators of equity, effectiveness, safety, and efficiency.

3.2. Candidates design and implement appropriate and effective needs assessments, research-based data, and group process skills to develop staff communication plans for integrating districts’ skills and to promote community collaboration.

3.3. Candidates use their knowledge of finance structures and models to critique financial resource allocation plans.

4.1. Candidates critically appraise stakeholder involvement in decision making reflecting the diverse community interests and needs and community resource mobilization.

4.2. Candidates critically evaluate plans for diverse district and community conditions and dynamics, capitalizing on community diversity to improve educational performance and student achievement.

4.3. Candidates identify gaps in implementation of public resources and funds to encourage community stakeholders to provide new resources for addressing emergent student issues.

5.1. Candidates demonstrate the ability to critically analyze research-based models related to student success in schools which focus on impartiality and sensitivity to student diversity, and ethical considerations.

5.2. Candidates demonstrate the ability to evaluate models for student success, taking into account their impartiality, sensitivity to student diversity, and ethical considerations in their interactions with others.

5.3. Candidates evaluate decisions based upon ethical and legal principles.

6.1. Candidates analyze political platforms and apply an understanding of specific laws, policies, and regulations at the local, state, and federal levels that impact educational and social opportunities for the larger educational community.

6.2. Candidates analyze the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context by designing a regular communication plan with all segments of the district community concerning trends, issues, and policies affecting the district.

6.3. Candidates interact with local, state, and federal authorities and actively advocate for improved policies, laws, and regulations affecting a school district directly and through organizations representing schools, educators, and others with similar interests.

7.1. High quality of writing is assured.

7.2. University and college format expectations are met.

7.3. The study examines a significant P-12 educational issue and makes a significant contribution to the knowledge generation and professional application.

7.4. Exemplary work in the articulation of the problem, purpose, and the specific research questions.

7.5. Includes comprehensive current and relevant knowledge. Organized around the major themes, concepts or ideas. Defines the most important aspects of the theory andsubstantiates the rationale and conceptual framework for the study.

7.6. Exemplary work in the identification and justification of the selected research design, methodology, and research procedures.

7.7. Sustentative information. Commanding work in logically and sequentiallyinterpretation in relation to their importance to the research questions and hypotheses.

7.8. Implications are expressed in relation to problem situation identified by the study. Implications were expressed in terms of tangible improvements to educational system. Meaningful conclusions were drawn based on the findings.

7.9. Presented with logical clarity and exemplary Commanding subject knowledge as evidenced by the oral defense.

1. WHERE WILL THE OBJECTIVES BE ADDRESSED IN YOUR PROGRAM? IN WHICH COURSES ANDTHROUGH WHICH ACTIVITIES WILL THEY BE ASSESSED? (CURRICULUM ASSESSMENT MAP.)

TheCurriculum and Assessment Matrix(Appendix B)demonstrates the crosswalk between learning objectivesand key assessments in the program of study. Courses are only one of the several instruments for the assessment of program goals and objectives. A list of instruments for the data assessment is included in the following section.

The program goals and learning outcomes are woven across the required courses with “significant activities” that students must successfully complete. The significant activities are the select assessment within each course. The emphasis of each required program course is weighted based on a four-point-scale (none, little, somewhat, and extensive). Only the courses with "extensive" emphasis pertaining to learning outcomes are selected for assessments. All learning outcomes are accounted for the assessments and they are addressed by at least one course and its accompanying significant activity. Rubrics are created by the program faculty for the assessment of significant activities. The relevant data is gathered in the Chalk and Wire environment or manually.

4. HOW WILL YOU ASSESS EACH OBJECTIVE? (A) METHODS; (B) DESIGN; (C) ASSESSMENT CYCLE; (D) STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT.

The EDAS Doctoral Program goals and learning objectives for the academic year were assessed using the following instruments:

1. Significant Activity Assessments
2. Comprehensive Examinations
3. Doctoral Dissertation Assessments
4. End of Program Surveys
5. Praxis Assessments

Significant Activity Assessments: Program learning objectives are assessed through the use of a set of scoring rubrics. For this purpose, existing scoring rubrics were revisited and revised. The revisions will continue in 2014. Successfully developed rubrics are transported to the Chalk and Wire system for the use of program assessment. Since 2013 was the transition period, not all revised rubrics successfully entered in the Chalk and Wire system. The data collected in the Chalk and Wire span the entire time students are enrolled in the doctoral program. Students are required to develop e-portfolios that contain data on course significant activities. Assessment of student work is maintained in the Chalk and Wire e-portfolio as well as manual data gathering. Chalk and Wire data will be used to assess each doctoral candidate. The transition period is expected to be completed by spring 2015. Starting with spring 2015, the Chalk and Wire environment will be extensively used to assimilate data on program effectiveness and disaggregate specific areas of potential improvement regarding programmatic development. Each program faculty teaching a course has the responsibility for assuring data submission by the students and assessment of performance on the respective course significant activity.

Validity is an aspect of the program review addressed by faculty members in the creation and implementation of course syllabi and outlines. Validity has been assured through the consistent review and incorporation of appropriate ADE, ELCC, and NCATE standards. In this respect, the program faculty held a weeklong meeting to align content of all program courses to ADE, ELCC, and NCATE standards. Rubrics are used as validity and reliability measures. Program faculty recognize the importance of consistency in data collection and data analyses processes. Therefore, inter-rater reliability, pretest and posttest, and subsequent scoring of previous artifacts will be used for assessing reliability of the assessments.

Stakeholders are informed about the student coursework learning outcomes at the Annual Stakeholders Meeting. When applicable and appropriate, the program faculty considered the incorporation of suggestions articulated by stakeholders.

1. Comprehensive Examinations: Parallel with the efforts to increase the quality and rigor of the graduate program across the College of Education, EDAS doctoral program quality standards are increased through a variety of measures. As one of the two capstone experiences in the doctoral program, the comprehensive examination was restructured in fall 2010 to meet the program goals. The comprehensive examination results offer an overall assessment of content knowledge acquirement by eachprogram student. The comprehensive examination results also are and will be used extensively to assimilate data on program effectiveness and disaggregate specific areas of potential improvement regarding programmatic development. Comprehensive examinations areheld in fall and spring semesters if one or more eligible candidate-s applies. The Doctoral Program coordinator who chairs the comprehensive examinations is responsible for gathering relevant data.

The comprehensive examinations are structured in two main sections: (a) EDAS section and (b) Research and Statistics section. In cases where the student has a co-emphasis in Gifted Education or Special Education, the first section is equally divided between EDAS concentration and co-emphasis areas. The EDAS section consists of (a) Content Application and (b) Theoretical Foundations. The content application section measures candidates' knowledge, skills, and dispositions in (a) analysis of educational information; (b) evaluation of actions; and (c) problem solving skills. The theoretical foundations measures candidates' knowledge, skills, and dispositions in managing and leading educational organizations from the perspective of relevant literature as well as self-reflections of the candidates. The research and statistics sections measure candidates' knowledge of and readiness for running qualitative and quantitative research and analyzing data. A rubric was developed for the comprehensive examinations and relevant data is collected in the Chalk and Wire environment.

III. Doctoral Dissertation Evaluation: Improving dissertation quality has beenan ongoing initiative both by the College of Education and the EDAS program. Updated guidelines for doctoral students and faculty were the major outcomes of the most recent college-wide effort. Guided by the college and program level quality improvement efforts, the EDAS Doctoral Program developed Dissertation Evaluation Rubric to assess the student learning outcomes and performance. The assessments are carried out in the Chalk and Wireenvironment. The assessment reflects the collective evaluation of dissertation committees. Students' advisors chair the dissertation committees and are responsible for entering the assessment data in the Chalk and Wire environment.

IV. End of Program Survey: To identify program effectives from students' perspective an end of program (exit) survey was administered. The surveys were administered in the doctoral candidate’s last semester in the program. To prevent the confusion between program and college exit surveys, the college administration advised a manual application of EDAS exit surveys. The doctoral program faculty with the assistance of dissertation chairs gathers and stores the end of program survey for the EDAS Doctoral Program.

The results of this assessment areand will be used solely for the program improvement purposes. The end of program is composed of two sections which include Likert scale items on a five-point scale. The first section of the survey focuses on candidates' experience in the coursework. The second section is about candidates' experience in dissertation research under dissertation chairs. A rating of 1.0-2.0 for any item requires the program faculty to review course content and/or advising process. Based on the annual program assessment findings, the areas of improvement are identified and appropriate improvements are developed.

V. Praxis Assessment: This is a supplementary assessment for the doctoral program. The main reason for the supplementary status for this assessment is because of the fact that the doctoral program is not aligned with licensure requirements for practicing administrators.In EDAS program, the master's program is aligned with the school level praxis (principalship licensure) while the specialist program is aligned with district level praxis (superintend and director of curriculum licensures). Therefore, doctoral program candidates are expected to complete licensure requirements prior to the EDAS Doctoral Program. In cases where students have not completed licensure requirements are required to develop independent licensure program of studies for respective licensure area. The doctoral program has decided to track the praxis scores of doctoral studentswho are following any licensure program along with their doctoral program.