Department of Mathematical Sciences
School of Science and Technology
B.A. in Mathematics Education
CIP Code: 13.1311Program Code: 155
1Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
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
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 3
• 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
• 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.
44Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
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 University, School of Science and Technology, and the Department of Mathematical Sciences
• 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
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 6
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 Direct Measures of Student Learning
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 7
• 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 8
Shortfalls in Student Learning When It Occurs Major Assessments Recommended Remediation
During MATH 2613 Foundations of Mathematics
Mid-level Assessment Exam (passing score required)
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 in Assessment and Instruction
Teacher Work Sample (passing the class 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)
Meet with mathematics instructor for tutoring and guidance.Rework lesson plans and resubmit to instructor.
During Math 4772 Mathematical Proof Portfolio (score of Meets Standards or higher required)
Meet with mathematics faculty member who graded the proofs. Rework and resubmit.
During Math 4772 Technology Portfolio (score of Meets Standards or higher required)
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)
Meet with math education faculty committee for career counseling and guidance.Possibly repeat student teaching.
Midway Check
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 9
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 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 ProofLearning 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 ProofAssessments
• Oklahoma Subject Area Test in Advanced Mathematics
• Mid-level Assessment Exam
• Mathematical Proof Portfolio
• Technology Portfolio
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 12
* 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 1Oklahoma Subject Area Test (OSAT) scores, Advanced Mathematics
NCTM Standard 2Total 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
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 14
TABLE 2Results of Oklahoma Subject Area Test
NCTM Standard 2Total Number of OSATs scored: n = 2
Does Not Meet Standards
Meets Standards
Exceeds Standards
Total*
0-239 240-269 270-300 TotalMathematical Processes and Number Sense
0% 0% 100% 100%
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 15
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 16
TABLE 3Results of Mid-level Assessment Exam
NCTM Standard 2Total Number of Mid-level Assessment Exams Scored: n = 5
Does Not Meet Standards – 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards – 5
Total
NCTM Standard 2Fall 2007 (n=2) 50% 0% 50% 100%Fall 2008 (n=1) 0% 100% 0% 100%
Fall 2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100%Total (n=5) 20% 40% 40% 100%
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 17
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.
* percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 18
TABLE 4Results of Mathematical Proof Portfolio
NCTM Standard 2Total Number of Proof Portfolios Scored: n = 2
Does Not Meet Standards – 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards – 5
Total*
Proof by Contradiction2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Total (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%Direct Proof
2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100%2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Total (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100%Proof by Induction
2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 100% 0% 100%2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Total (n=2) 0% 100% 0% 100%Proof by Induction (Recursive Relation) added Fall 2009
2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NAProof Evaluation
2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Total (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%All Proofs 2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 38% 63% 100%
2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal (n=2) 0% 38% 63% 100%
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 19
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 20
TABLE 5Results of Technology Portfolio
NCTM Standard 2Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0
Does Not Meet Standards – 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards – 5
Total
Triangle Worksheet (College Geometry)2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Total NA NA NA NARecursive Worksheet (Discrete Mathematical Structures)
2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal NA NA NA NA
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 21
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.
Standard 6: Knowledge of TechnologyLearning 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 TechnologyAssessments
• Lesson Plans
• Student Teaching Evaluation
• Teacher Work Sample
• Technology Portfolio
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 23
* percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 24
TABLE 6Results of Lesson Plans
NCTM Standard 6Total Number of Lesson Plans Scored: n = 6 (two for each of the three assigned lesson plans)
Does Not Meet Standards - 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards - 5
Total*
NCTM Indicator 6.12008-2009 (n=6) 0% 83% 17% 100%2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 25
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 26
TABLE 7Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Education Portion
NCTM Standard 6Total Number of Assessments: n = 12 Total Number of Candidates: N=2
Mean
Min
Max
# of Not Observed
Does Not Meet Standards – 1*
Meets Standards - 2*
Exceeds Standards – 3*
E3 NCTM Indicator 6.12009-2010 (n=4) 2.75 2 3 0 0% 25% 75%
M10 NCTM Indicator 6.12009-2010(n=8) 2.7 2 3 1 0% 29% 71%
Total (n=12) 2.72 2 3 1 0% 27% 73%
* percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 27
Table 21Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Mathematics Addendum
NCTM Standard 6
Total Number of Assessments: n = 8 Total Number of Candidates: N=2
Mean Min
Max
# of Not
Observed
Does Not Meet Standards – 1
Meets Standards -2
Exceeds Standards – 3
M10 (NCTM 6.1)
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%
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 28
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 29
TABLE 8Results of Teacher Work Sample
NCTM Standard 6Total Number of Teacher Work Samples Scored: n = 2
Does Not Meet Standards - 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards - 5
Total
Factor 4 (36 points) 0-10 11-28 29-362008-2009 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%2009-2010 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%
Total (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 30
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 31
TABLE 9Results of Technology Portfolio
NCTM Standard 6Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0
Does Not Meet Standards – 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards – 5
Total*
Real-World problem worksheet (Graphing Calculator)
2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal NA NA NA NA
Statistics worksheet (Graphing Calculator)
2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal NA NA NA NA
Triangle Worksheet (College Geometry)2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Total NA NA NA NARecursive Worksheet (Discrete Mathematical Structures)
2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal NA NA NA NA
NLVM Worksheet (Teaching of Secondary Mathematics)
2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal NA NA NA NA
All Items2009-2010 NA NA NA NA
Total NA NA NA NA
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 32
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.
Standard 13: Knowledge of Discrete MathematicsLearning 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 MathematicsAssessments
• 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
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 35
*Weighted Mean for tests given on 4/18/2009 and 5/30/2009. Total state tests given = 59
TABLE 10Results of Oklahoma Subject Area Test (OSAT) scores, Advanced Mathematics
NCTM Standard 13Total number of OSATs scored: n=2
Academic Year
Mean State Score on Probability, Statistics, and Discrete Mathematics
Mean Score on Probability, Statistics, and Discrete Mathematics (NCTM Standard 13)
2008-2009 (n=2)
259* 252
2009-2010 (n=0)
NA NA
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 36
TABLE 11Results of Oklahoma Subject Area Test
NCTM Standard 13Total Number of OSATs scored: n = 2
Does Not Meet Standards
Meets Standards
Exceeds Standards
Total
0-239 240-269 270-300 Total
Probability, Statistics, and Discrete Mathematics
50% 0% 50% 100%
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 37
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 38
* percentage may not add up to 100 due to rounding
TABLE 12Results of Major Field Achievement Test
NCTM Standard 13Total Number of Major Field Achievement Tests Scored: n = 3
Does Not Meet Standards - 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards - 5
Total
120-135 136-170 171-200 Total2007-2008 (n=1) 0% 100% 0% 100%2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100%2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Total (n=3) 0% 67% 33% 100%
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 39
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 40
* percentage may not add up to 100 due to rounding
TABLE 13Results of Mathematical Proof Portfolio
NCTM Standard 13Total Number of Proof Portfolios Scored: n = 0
Does Not Meet Standards – 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards – 5
Total
Proof by Induction (Recursive Relation) added Fall 2009
2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 41
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 42
* percentage may not add up to 100 due to rounding
TABLE 14Results of Technology Portfolio
NCTM Standard 13Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0
Does Not Meet Standards – 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards – 5
Total
Recursive Worksheet (Discrete Mathematical Structures)
2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal NA NA NA NA
Trend Analysis of Assessment Data
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 43
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 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
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
CURRICULUM AREA OR TARGET AUDIENCE
MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
Measurements
Methods used to determine validity of measurement instruments
Methods used to determine reliability of measurements
Schedule for measurements
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.
Required Courses:MATH 1001MATH 2215MATH 2235MATH 3013MATH 3302MATH 3333MATH 3413MATH 4423MATH 4772STAT 3013EDUC 4313EDUC 4965EDUC 4975
OSAT (direct)
MFT (direct)
Student Teaching Evaluation (direct)
State wide test
National norm
Developed by Department of Education
Determined by Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation (OCTP)
Norm reference scores
Developed by Department of Education
Recommended that students take after completing 30 or more hours of their mathematical course work
Every Spring semester
Assessed in EDUC 4965 and EDUC 4975
4646Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
Program objective and measurement (Create separate chart or table for each priority objective)
PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 1: Knowledge of Mathematical Problem Solving
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
CURRICULUM AREA OR TARGET AUDIENCE
MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
Measurements
Methods used to determine validity of measurement instruments
Methods used to determine reliability of measurements
Schedule for measurements
1.3 Build new mathematical knowledge through problem solving.
1.4 Monitor and reflect on the process of mathematical problem solving.
Elective Courses:MATH 2244MATH 3213MATH 3253MATH 4113MATH 4483
TWS (direct)
Technology Portfolio (direct)
Developed by Department of Education
Portfolio graded using standardized rubric
Developed by Department of Education
Faculty using rubric discuss rubric before grading begins
Assessed in EDUC 4313
Collected during MATH 4772
4747Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 48
Display of Assessment Data – OSAT
TABLE 16OSAT scores
NCTM Standard 1
Total number of OSATs scored: n=2Academic
YearMean OSAT score
Mean Score on
Mathemati-cal Processes and Number
Sense
Mean Score on Relations,
Functions, and Algebra
Mean score on
Measure-ment and Geometry
Mean score on
Trigonome-try and Calculus
Mean score on
Probability, Statistics,
and Discrete
Mathema-tics
Mean Score on
Con-structed
Res-ponse
2008-2009 (n=2)
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 49
Display of Assessment Data – OSAT (continued)
*Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
TABLE 17Results of OSAT
NCTM Standard 1
Total Number of OSATs Scored: n = 2
Does Not Meet Standards Meets Standards
Exceeds Standards
Total*
0-239 240-269 270-300 TotalOSAT – Advanced Mathematics 2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NAMathematical Processes and Number Sense 2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NARelations, Functions, and Algebra 2008-2009 (n=2) 50% 0% 50% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NAMeasurement and Geometry 2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATrigonometry and Calculus
2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NAProbability, Statistics, and Discrete Mathematics
2008-2009 (n=2) 50% 0% 50% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NAConstructed Response
2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 50
Display of Assessment Data – MFT
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
TABLE 18Results of Major Field Achievement Test
NCTM Standard 1
Total Number of Major Field Achievement Tests Scored: n = 3
Does Not Meet Standards - 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards - 5
Total*
120-135 136-170 171-200 Total2007-2008 (n=1) 0% 100% 0% 100%2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100%2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Total (n=3) 0% 67% 33% 100%
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 51
Display of Assessment Data – Student Teaching Evaluation
Table 21Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Mathematics Addendum
NCTM Standard 1
Total Number of Assessments: n = 8 Total Number of Candidates: N=2
Mean Min
Max
# of Not
Observed
Does Not Meet Standards – 1
Meets Standards - 2
Exceeds Standards – 3
M1 (NCTM 1.1, 8.8)Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%
Spring 2010 (n=4) 2.67 2 3 1 0% 33% 67%Total (n=8) 2.57 2 3 1 0% 43% 57%
M2 (NCTM 1.4, 8.8)Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%
Spring 2010 (n=4) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%Total (n=8) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%
M16 (NCTM 1.1, 1.2, 4.2, 5.3)Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.25 2 3 0 0% 75% 25%
Spring 2010 (n=4) 2.33 2 3 1 0% 67% 33%Total (n=8) 2.29 2 3 1 0% 71% 29%
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 52
Display of Assessment Data - TWS
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
TABLE 22Results 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
Total*
Factor 6 (50 points)(NCTM 1.4, 7.3, 7.4) 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%
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 53
Display of Assessment Data – Technology Portfolio
TABLE 25Technology Portfolio
NCTM Standard 1
Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0
Does Not Meet Standards – 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards – 5
Total*
Real-World problem worksheet (Graphing Calculator)
2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal NA NA NA NA
Triangle Worksheet (College Geometry)2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Total NA NA NA NANLVM Worksheet (Teaching of Secondary Mathematics)
2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal NA NA NA NA
All Items2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Total NA NA NA NA
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
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE 1
CURRICULUM AREA OR TARGET AUDIENCE
MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
Measurements
Methods used to determine validity of measurement instruments
Methods used to determine reliability of measurements
Schedule for measurements
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.
Required courses:MATH 2613MATH 3013MATH 3302MATH 3333MATH 3413MATH 4423MATH 4772EDUC 4313EDUC 4653EDUC 4965EDUC 4975
OSAT (direct)
Student Teaching Evaluation (direct)
TWS (direct)
State wide test
Developed by Department of Education
Developed by Department of Education
Determined by OCTP
Developed by Department of Education
Developed by Department of Education
Recommended that students take after completing 30 or more hours of their mathematical course work
Assessed in EDUC 4965 and EDUC 4975
Assessed in EDUC 4313
5656Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
Program objective and measurement (Create separate chart or table for each priority objective)
PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 3: Knowledge of Mathematical Communication
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE 1
CURRICULUM AREA OR TARGET AUDIENCE
MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
Measurements
Methods used to determine validity of measurement instruments
Methods used to determine reliability of measurements
Schedule for measurements
3.3 Organize mathematical thinking through communication.
3.4 Analyze and evaluate the mathematical thinking and strategies of others.
Elective courses:MATH 3213MATH 4113MATH 4483STAT 3113
Mid-level Assessment Exam (direct)
Technology Portfolio (direct)
Developed by subcommittee of faculty
Portfolio graded using standardized rubric
Test is multiple choice –answers are right or wrong; questions are aligned with indicators
Faculty using rubric discuss rubric before grading begins
Every Fall semester
Collected during MATH 4772
5757Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 58
Display of Assessment Data – OSAT
TABLE 16OSAT scores
NCTM Standard 3
Total number of OSATs scored: n=2Academic Year Mean OSAT
scoreMean Score on Mathematical Processes and Number Sense
Mean Score on Con-structed
Response
2008-2009 (n=2) 269.5 280.5 281.5
State Mean*260 260 267
2009-2010 (n=0)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 59
Display of Assessment Data – OSAT (continued)
*Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
TABLE 17Results of OSAT
NCTM Standard 3
Total Number of OSATs Scored: n = 2
Does Not Meet Standards Meets Standards
Exceeds Standards
Total*
0-239 240-269 270-300 TotalOSAT – Advanced Mathematics 2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NAMathematical Processes and Number Sense 2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NAConstructed Response
2008-2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100% 2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 60
Display of Assessment Data – Student Teaching Evaluation
Table 20Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Education Portion
NCTM Standard 3
Total Number of Assessments: n = 4 or 8**Total Number of Candidates: N=2
Mean Min
Max
# of Not
Observed
Does Not Meet Standards – 1
Meets Standards - 2
Exceeds Standards – 3
**E24 (NCTM 3.1, 3.2, 4.3, 7.1, 7.3, 7.4, 8.1, 8.4)Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.25 2 3 0 0% 75% 25%
Spring 2010 (n=4) 2.25 2 3 0 0% 75% 25%Total (n=8) 2.25 2 3 0 0% 75% 25%
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.*Items found on Education University Supervisor Form
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 61
Display of Assessment Data – Student Teaching Evaluation (continued)
Table 21Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Mathematics Addendum
NCTM Standard 3
Total Number of Assessments: n = 8 Total Number of Candidates: N=2
Mean Min
Max
# of Not
Observed
Does Not Meet Standards – 1
Meets Standards - 2
Exceeds Standards – 3
M3 (NCTM 3.1)Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.25 2 3 0 0% 75% 25%
Spring 2010 (n=4) 2.75 2 3 0 0% 25% 75%Total (n=8) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%
M4 (NCTM 3.2)Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.25 2 3 0 0% 75% 25%
Spring 2010 (n=4) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%Total (n=8) 2.38 2 3 0 0% 63% 37%
M5 (NCTM 3.3) Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.25 2 3 0 0% 75% 25%
Spring 2010 (n=4) 3.0 3 3 0 0% 0% 100%Total (n=8) 2.63 2 3 0 0% 37% 63%
M6 (NCTM 3.4) Fall 2009 (n=4) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%
Spring 2010 (n=4) 2.0 2 2 1 0% 100% 0%Total (n=8) 2.29 2 3 1 0% 71% 29%
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 62
Display of Assessment Data - TWS
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
TABLE 22Results of Teacher Work Sample
NCTM Standard 3
Total Number of Teacher Work Samples Scored: n = 2
Does Not Meet Standards - 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards - 5
Total*
Factor 3 (45 points)(NCTM 3.4, 7.4, 7.5, 8.3) 0-20 21-37 38-45
2008-2009 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%2009-2010 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%
Total (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%Factor 5 (14 points)(NCTM 3.4, 7.4, 7.5, 8.3, 16.3) 0-4 5-11 12-14
2008-2009 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%2009-2010 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%
Total (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 63
Display of Assessment Data – Mid-level Assessment Exam
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
TABLE 23Mid-level Assessment Exam
NCTM Standard 3
Total Number of Mid-level Assessment Exams Scored: n = 5
Does Not Meet Standards – 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards – 5
Total*
NCTM Standard 3Fall 2007 (n=2) 0% 50% 50% 100%Fall 2008 (n=1) 100% 0% 0% 100%Fall 2009 (n=2) 50% 50% 0% 100%
Total (n=5) 40% 40% 20% 100%
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 64
Display of Assessment Data – Technology Portfolio
TABLE 25Technology Portfolio
NCTM Standard 3
Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0Does Not Meet Standards – 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards – 5
Total*
Triangle Worksheet (College Geometry)2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Total NA NA NA NARecursive Worksheet (Discrete Mathematical Structures)
2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal NA NA NA NA
All Items2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Total NA NA NA NA
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 student-learning 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)
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 66
• 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).
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
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE 1
CURRICULUM AREA OR TARGET AUDIENCE
MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
Measurements
Methods used to determine validity of measurement instruments
Methods used to determine reliability of measurements
Schedule for measurements
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
Required courses:MATH 1001MATH 2215MATH 3001MATH 3013MATH 3413MATH 4772STAT 3013EDUC 3673EDUC 4313EDUC 4965EDUC 4975
Elective courses:MATH 4113STAT 3113
Lesson Plans (direct)
Student Teaching Evaluation (direct)
TWS (direct)
Technology Portfolio (direct)
Developed by Department of Education
Developed by Department of Education
Developed by Department of Education
Portfolios graded using standardized rubric
Developed by Department of Education
Developed by Department of Education
Developed by Department of Education
Faculty using rubric discuss rubric before grading begins
Assessed in MATH 4772
Assessed in EDUC 4965 and EDUC 4975
Assessed in EDUC 4313
Collected during MATH 4772
6868Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 69
Display of Assessment Data – Lesson Plans
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
TABLE 19Results of Lesson Plans
NCTM Standard 6
Total Number of Lesson Plans Scored: n = 6 (two for each of the three assigned lesson plans)
Does Not Meet Standards - 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards - 5
Total*
NCTM Indicator 6.12008-2009 (n=6) 0% 83% 17% 100%2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 70
Display of Assessment Data – Student Teaching Evaluation
Table 20Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Education Portion
NCTM Standard 6
Total Number of Assessments: n = 4 or 8**Total Number of Candidates: N=2
Mean Min
Max
# of Not
Observed
Does Not Meet Standards – 1
Meets Standards - 2
Exceeds Standards – 3
E3 (NCTM 6.1, 7.6, 8.9)Fall 2009 (n=2) 3.0 3 3 0 0% 0% 100%
Spring 2010 (n=2) 2.5 2 3 0 0% 50% 50%Total (n=4) 2.75 2 3 0 0% 25% 75%
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.*Items found on Education University Supervisor Form
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 71
Display of Assessment Data – Student Teaching Evaluation (continued)
Table 21Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Mathematics Addendum
NCTM Standard 6
Total Number of Assessments: n = 8 Total Number of Candidates: N=2
Mean Min
Max
# of Not
Observed
Does Not Meet Standards – 1
Meets Standards - 2
Exceeds Standards – 3
M10 (NCTM 6.1)
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%
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 72
Display of Assessment Data - TWS
*Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
TABLE 22Results of Teacher Work Sample
NCTM Standard 6
Total Number of Teacher Work Samples Scored: n = 2
Does Not Meet Standards - 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards - 5
Total*
Factor 4 (36 points)(NCTM 6.1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.6, 8.3, 8.7, 8.9) 0-10 11-28 29-36
2008-2009 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%2009-2010 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 100%
Total (n=2) 0% 0% 100% 100%
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 73
Display of Assessment Data – Technology Portfolio
TABLE 25Technology Portfolio
NCTM Standard 6
Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0
Does Not Meet Standards – 1
Meets Standards - 3
Exceeds Standards – 5
Total*
Real-World problem worksheet (Graphing Calculator)
2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal NA NA NA NA
Statistics worksheet (Graphing Calculator)
2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal NA NA NA NA
Triangle Worksheet (College Geometry)2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Total NA NA NA NARecursive Worksheet (Discrete Mathematical Structures)
2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal NA NA NA NA
NLVM Worksheet (Teaching of Secondary Mathematics)
2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NATotal NA NA NA NA
All Items2009-2010 (n=0) NA NA NA NA
Total NA NA NA NA
Action Plan
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 74
• 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.
Action Plan(continued)
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 75
• 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.
Action Plan(continued)
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 76
• 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).
Ancillary Actions
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010 77
• 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 student-friendly atmosphere should promote more positive student learning experiences.
Published information on graduates
78
Academic Year 09-10 Entered Working in Discipline OtherSummer 2009 0 0 0Fall 2009 0 0 0Spring 2010 0 1 0Total 0 1 0
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
Questions?
79Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010