Department of Mathematical Sciences School of Science and

Department of Mathematical Sciences School of Science and Technology B. A. in Mathematics Education CIP Code: 13. 1311 Program Code: 155 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 1

Student Learning Outcomes The following standards, as designated by the NCTM, are used for the Mathematics Education program: • Standard 1: Knowledge of Mathematical Problem Solving • Standard 2: Knowledge of Reasoning and Proof • Standard 3: Knowledge of Mathematical Communication • Standard 4: Knowledge of Mathematical Connections • Standard 5: Knowledge of Mathematical Representation Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 2

• Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology • Standard 7: Dispositions • Standard 8: Knowledge of Mathematics Pedagogy • Standard 9: Knowledge of Number and Operation • Standard 10: Knowledge of Different Perspectives on Algebra • Standard 11: Knowledge of Geometries Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 3

• Standard 12: Knowledge of Calculus • Standard 13: Knowledge of Discrete Mathematics • Standard 14: Knowledge of Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability • Standard 15: Knowledge of Measurement • Standard 16: Field-Based Experiences * All sixteen standards are mandated student-learning outcomes. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 4

Alignment with Cameron University’s Mission Statements • framework which students can acquire the skills and knowledge that will enable them to become highly qualified mathematics secondary teachers • promote and establish excellent working relations with all departments in the university • optimizes the goals from all the mission statements including the 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 Candidates will: • receive the highest quality education • become fully qualified to teach mathematics in the secondary schools • interact with the community in the form of field-based experiences • become effective teachers of mathematics • strengthen connections with the community Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 6

Program Direct Measures of Student Learning • Assessment # 1 Oklahoma Subject Area Test (OSAT) for Advanced Mathematics • Assessment # 2 Major Field Achievement Test (MFT) in Mathematics • Assessment # 3 Lesson Plans • Assessment # 4 Student Teaching Evaluations • Assessment # 5 Teacher Work Sample (TWS) • Assessment # 6 Mid-level Assessment Exam • Assessment # 7 Mathematical Proof Portfolio • Assessment # 8 Technology Portfolio Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 7

Shortfalls in Student Learning When It Occurs During MATH 2613 Foundations of Mathematics Major Assessments Mid-level Assessment Exam (passing score required) Recommended Remediation Retake after completing additional math classes After completing at least 30 of OSAT (Advanced Mathematics) (passing score 39 hours of required core required) mathematics courses Retake after completing additional math classes During EDUC 4313 Practicum Teacher Work Sample (passing the class in Assessment and Instruction required) Retake class Before completion of MATH 4772 Teaching of Secondary Mathematics Major Field Test (Mathematics) (passing score required) Meet with assigned mathematics instructor for tutoring and guidance. Retake. During Math 4772 Lesson Plans (passing score required on all lesson plans) During Math 4772 Mathematical Proof Portfolio (score of Meets Standards or higher required) During Math 4772 Technology Portfolio (score of Meets Standards or higher required) Meet with mathematics instructor for tutoring and guidance. Rework lesson plans and resubmit to instructor. Meet with mathematics faculty member who graded the proofs. Rework and resubmit. Meet with mathematics faculty member who graded the portfolio. Rework and resubmit. During Student Teaching Evaluation (passing scores required on both student teaching evaluation forms) Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 Meet with math education faculty committee for career counseling and guidance. Possibly repeat student teaching. 8

Midway Check candidates progress on the following: • Mid-level Assessment • Grade Point Average (at least 2. 5) • Grades of C or better in math courses • Oklahoma General Education Test (OGET) • Teacher education admission Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 9

Program Actions Since Fall 2009 Last year’s action plan: • Develop a technology portfolio • Add an induction proof of a recursive relation to the mathematical proof portfolio • Realign the lesson plan format • Develop a pretest for MATH 2215 Calculus I • Collect more data Last year’s PQIR presentation focused on three standards: • Standard 2: Knowledge of Reasoning and Proof • Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology • Standard 13: Knowledge of Discrete Mathematics Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 10

Standard 2: Knowledge of Reasoning and Proof Learning Outcomes 2. 1 Recognize reasoning and proof as fundamental aspects of mathematics. 2. 2 Make and investigate mathematical conjectures. 2. 3 Develop and evaluate mathematical arguments and proofs. 2. 4 Select and use various types of reasoning and methods of proof. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 11

Standard 2: Knowledge of Reasoning and Proof Assessments • Oklahoma Subject Area Test in Advanced Mathematics • Mid-level Assessment Exam • Mathematical Proof Portfolio • Technology Portfolio Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 12

TABLE 1 Oklahoma Subject Area Test (OSAT) scores, Advanced Mathematics NCTM Standard 2 Total number of OSATs scored: n=2 Academic Year Mean State Score on Mathematical Processes and Number Sense Mean Score on Mathematical Processes and Number Sense (NCTM Standard 2) 2008 -2009 (n=2) 260* 280. 5 2009 -2010 (n=0) NA NA * Weighted Mean for tests given on 4/18/2009 and 5/30/2009. Total state tests given = 59 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 13

TABLE 2 Results of Oklahoma Subject Area Test NCTM Standard 2 Total Number of OSATs scored: n = 2 Does Not Meet Standards 0 -239 Mathematical Processes and 0% Number Sense Meets Standards 240 -269 Exceeds Standards 270 -300 Total* 0% 100% Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 Total 14

Trend Analysis of Assessment Data OSAT • Two mathematics education majors took the OSAT during the AY 2008 -2009. • There were no mathematics education candidates who took the OSAT during the AY 2009 -2010. • Both candidates exceeded standards in Mathematical Processes and Number Sense. • No Trend Analysis can be done at this time. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 15

TABLE 3 Results of Mid-level Assessment Exam NCTM Standard 2 Total Number of Mid-level Assessment Exams Scored: n = 5 Does Not Meets Standards – 1 Standards - 3 NCTM Standard 2 Fall 2007 (n=2) 50% 0% Fall 2008 (n=1) 0% 100% Fall 2009 (n=2) 0% 50% Total (n=5) 20% 40% Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 Exceeds Standards – 5 Total 50% 0% 50% 40% 100% 16

Trend Analysis of Assessment Data Mid-level Assessment Exam • During the Fall semesters of 2007 -2009, the Mid-level Assessment Exam was administered to five mathematics education candidates. • For Standard 2, one candidate did not meet standards while the other candidate exceeded standards in the Fall 2007. • The mathematics education candidate taking the exam in the Fall semester of 2008 met only Standard 2. • For Standard 2, one mathematics education candidate met standards and one candidate exceeded standards in the Fall 2009. • Due to the small number (n = 5) of mathematics education candidates taking the Mid-level Assessment Exam, a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn at this time nor can trend analysis be conducted. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 17

TABLE 4 Results of Mathematical Proof Portfolio NCTM Standard 2 Total Number of Proof Portfolios Scored: n = 2 Does Not Meets Standards – 1 Standards - 3 Proof by Contradiction 2008 -2009 (n=2) 0% 0% 2009 -2010 (n=0) NA NA Total (n=2) 0% 0% Direct Proof 2008 -2009 (n=2) 0% 50% 2009 -2010 (n=0) NA NA Total (n=2) 0% 50% Proof by Induction 2008 -2009 (n=2) 0% 100% 2009 -2010 (n=0) NA NA Total (n=2) 0% 100% Proof by Induction (Recursive Relation) added Fall 2009 -2010 (n=0) NA NA Proof Evaluation 2008 -2009 (n=2) 0% 0% 2009 -2010 (n=0) NA NA Total (n=2) 0% 0% All Proofs 2008 -2009 (n=2) 0% 38% 2009 -2010 (n=0) NA NA Total (n=2) 0% 38% Exceeds Standards – 5 Total* 100% NA 100% 50% NA 50% 100% NA 100% 0% NA 0% 100% NA NA 100% NA 100% 63% NA 63% 100% NA 100% * percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 18

Trend Analysis of Assessment Data Mathematical Proof Portfolio • Two mathematics education candidates submitted mathematical proof portfolios for evaluation during the Spring 2009 semester. • In the proof by Contradiction and Proof Evaluation categories both candidates exceeded standards. • In the Proof by Induction category both candidates met standards • In the Direct Proof category one candidate exceeded standards and the other met standards. • There were no mathematics education candidates who completed the proof portfolio during the AY 2009 -2010. • The sample (n=2) is statistically insignificant, and a definite conclusion cannot be drawn nor can a trend analysis be completed. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 19

TABLE 5 Results of Technology Portfolio NCTM Standard 2 Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0 Does Not Meets Standards – 1 Standards - 3 Triangle Worksheet (College Geometry) 2009 -2010 (n=0) NA NA Total NA NA Recursive Worksheet (Discrete Mathematical Structures) 2009 -2010 (n=0) NA NA Total NA NA Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 Exceeds Standards – 5 Total NA NA 20

Trend Analysis of Assessment Data Technology Portfolio • The technology portfolio replaced the upper-level assessment during AY 2009 -2010. • No students were enrolled in MATH 4772 (Teaching of Secondary Mathematics) during AY 2009 -2010 thus no data was collected. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 21

Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology Learning Outcomes 6. 1 Use knowledge of mathematics to select and use appropriate technological tools, such as, but not limited to, spreadsheets, dynamic graphic tools, computer algebra systems, dynamic statistical packages, graphing calculators, data-collection devices, and presentation software. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 22

Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology Assessments • Lesson Plans • Student Teaching Evaluation • Teacher Work Sample • Technology Portfolio Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 23

TABLE 6 Results of Lesson Plans NCTM Standard 6 Total Number of Lesson Plans Scored: n = 6 (two for each of the three assigned lesson plans) NCTM Indicator 6. 1 2008 -2009 (n=6) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Does Not Meet Standards - 1 Meets Standards - 3 Exceeds Standards - 5 Total* 0% NA 83% NA 17% NA 100% NA * percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 24

Trend Analysis of Assessment Data Lesson Plans • There were no mathematics education candidates who completed lesson plans during AY 2009 -2010. • The sample (n=2) is statistically insignificant, and a definite conclusion cannot be drawn nor can a trend analysis be completed. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 25

# of Not Observed 2. 75 2 3 0 0% 25% 75% 2. 72 2 2 3 3 1 1 0% 0% 29% 27% 71% 73% Mean Max Exceeds Standards – 3* Min TABLE 7 Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Education Portion NCTM Standard 6 Total Number of Assessments: n = 12 Total Number of Candidates: N=2 Does Not Meets Standards – 1* Standards - 2* E 3 NCTM Indicator 6. 1 2009 -2010 (n=4) M 10 NCTM Indicator 6. 1 2009 -2010(n=8) Total (n=12) * percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 26

Table 21 Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Mathematics Addendum NCTM Standard 6 Max # of Not Observe d Does Not Meet Standards – 1 Fall 2009 (n=4) 2. 5 2 3 0 0% 50% Spring 2010 (n=4) 3. 0 3 3 1 0% 0% 100% Total (n=8) 2. 7 2 3 1 0% 29% 71% Mean Min Total Number of Assessments: n = 8 Total Number of Candidates: N=2 Meets Standards 2 Exceeds Standards – 3 M 10 (NCTM 6. 1) *Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 27

Trend Analysis of Assessment Data Student Teaching Evaluation • Two mathematics education candidates completed student teaching during AY 2009 -2010. • For Standards 6, candidates met standards approximately 28% of the time and exceeded standards approximately 72% of the time. • The sample (n=2) is statistically insignificant, and a definite conclusion cannot be drawn nor can a trend analysis be completed. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 28

TABLE 8 Results of Teacher Work Sample NCTM Standard 6 Total Number of Teacher Work Samples Scored: n = 2 Does Not Meets Standards - 1 Standards - 3 Factor 4 (36 points) 0 -10 11 -28 2008 -2009 (n=1) 0% 0% 2009 -2010 (n=1) 0% 0% Total (n=2) 0% 0% Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 Exceeds Standards - 5 29 -36 100% Total 100% 29

Trend Analysis of Assessment Data TWS • One mathematics education candidate completed a Teacher Work Sample during AY 2009 -2010. • The one mathematics education candidate who completed Standard 6 exceeded standards. • The sample (n=2) is statistically insignificant, and a definite conclusion cannot be drawn nor can a trend analysis be completed. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 30

TABLE 9 Results of Technology Portfolio NCTM Standard 6 Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0 Does Not Meets Standards – 1 Standards - 3 Real-World problem worksheet (Graphing Calculator) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total Statistics worksheet (Graphing Calculator) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total Triangle Worksheet (College Geometry) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total Recursive Worksheet (Discrete Mathematical Structures) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total NLVM Worksheet (Teaching of Secondary Mathematics) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total All Items 2009 -2010 Total Exceeds Standards – 5 Total* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 31

Trend Analysis of Assessment Data Technology Portfolio • The technology portfolio replaced the upper-level assessment during AY 2009 -2010. • No students were enrolled in MATH 4772 (Teaching of Secondary Mathematics) during AY 2009 -2010 thus no data was collected. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 32

Standard 13: Knowledge of Discrete Mathematics Learning Outcomes 13. 1 Demonstrate knowledge of basic elements of discrete mathematics such as graph theory, recurrence relations, finite difference approaches, linear programming, and combinatorics. 13. 2 Apply the fundamental ideas of discrete mathematics in the formulation and solution of problems arising from real-world situations. 13. 3 Use technological tools to solve problems involving the use of discrete structures and the application of algorithms. 13. 4 Demonstrate knowledge of the historical development of discrete mathematics including contributions from diverse cultures. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 33

Standard 13: Knowledge of Discrete Mathematics Assessments • Oklahoma Subject Area Test for Advanced Mathematics • Major Field Achievement Test in Mathematics • Mathematical Proof Portfolio • Technology Portfolio Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 34

TABLE 10 Results of Oklahoma Subject Area Test (OSAT) scores, Advanced Mathematics NCTM Standard 13 Total number of OSATs scored: n=2 Academic Mean State Score on Probability, Mean Score on Probability, Statistics, and Discrete Year Statistics, and Discrete Mathematics (NCTM Standard 13) 2008 -2009 259* 252 (n=2) 2009 -2010 NA NA (n=0) *Weighted Mean for tests given on 4/18/2009 and 5/30/2009. Total state tests given = 59 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 35

Total Number of OSATs scored: n = 2 Probability, Statistics, and Discrete Mathematics TABLE 11 Results of Oklahoma Subject Area Test NCTM Standard 13 Does Not Meet Standards Meets Standards Exceeds Standards Total 0 -239 240 -269 270 -300 Total 50% 0% 50% 100% Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 36

Trend Analysis of Assessment Data OSAT • Two mathematics education majors took the OSAT during the AY 2008 -2009. • One candidate exceeded standards in Probability, Statistics, and Discrete mathematics. • One candidate did not meet standards in Probability, Statistics, and Discrete mathematics. • There were no mathematics education candidates who took the OSAT during the AY 2009 -2010. • No Trend Analysis can be done at this time. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 37

TABLE 12 Results of Major Field Achievement Test NCTM Standard 13 Total Number of Major Field Achievement Tests Scored: n = 3 2007 -2008 (n=1) 2008 -2009 (n=2) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total (n=3) Does Not Meet Standards - 1 Meets Standards - 3 Exceeds Standards - 5 Total 120 -135 0% 0% NA 0% 136 -170 100% 50% NA 67% 171 -200 0% 50% NA 33% Total 100% NA 100% * percentage may not add up to 100 due to rounding Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 38

Trend Analysis of Assessment Data Major Field Achievement Test • There were no candidates who took the Major Field Achievement Test during AY 2009 -2010. • The sample (n=3) is statistically insignificant, and a definite conclusion cannot be drawn nor can a trend analysis be completed. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 39

TABLE 13 Results of Mathematical Proof Portfolio NCTM Standard 13 Total Number of Proof Portfolios Scored: n = 0 Does Not Meet Standards – 1 Meets Standards - 3 Exceeds Standards – 5 Total NA NA Proof by Induction (Recursive Relation) added Fall 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total (n=0) * percentage may not add up to 100 due to rounding Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 40

Trend Analysis of Assessment Data Mathematical Proof Portfolio • No data has been collected for Standard 13 for Proof by Induction (recursive relation was added Fall 2009). • There were no mathematics education candidates who completed the proof portfolio during the AY 2009 -2010. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 41

TABLE 14 Results of Technology Portfolio NCTM Standard 13 Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0 Does Not Meet Standards – 1 Meets Standards - 3 Exceeds Standards – 5 Total NA NA Recursive Worksheet (Discrete Mathematical Structures) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total * percentage may not add up to 100 due to rounding Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 42

Trend Analysis of Assessment Data Technology Portfolio • The technology portfolio replaced the upper-level assessment during AY 2009 -2010. • No students were enrolled in MATH 4772 (Teaching of Secondary Mathematics) during AY 2009 -2010 thus no data was collected. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 43

Program Priority Learning Outcomes for Current Year • Standard 1: Knowledge of Mathematical Problem Solving • Standard 3: Knowledge of Mathematical Communication • Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 44

Standard 1: Knowledge of Mathematical Problem Solving Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 45

Program objective and measurement (Create separate chart or table for each priority objective) PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 1: Knowledge of Mathematical Problem Solving MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVE 1. 1 Apply and adapt a variety of appropriate strategies to solve problems. 1. 2 Solve problems that arise in mathematics and those involving mathematics and other contexts. CURRICULUM AREA OR TARGET AUDIENCE Required Courses: MATH 1001 MATH 2215 MATH 2235 MATH 3013 MATH 3302 MATH 3333 MATH 3413 MATH 4423 MATH 4772 STAT 3013 EDUC 4313 EDUC 4965 EDUC 4975 Measurements Methods used to determine validity of measurement instruments Methods used to determine reliability of measurements OSAT (direct) State wide test Determined by Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation (OCTP) Recommended that students take after completing 30 or more hours of their mathematical course work MFT (direct) National norm Norm reference scores Every Spring semester Student Teaching Evaluation (direct) Developed by Department of Education Assessed in EDUC 4965 and EDUC 4975 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 Schedule for measurements 46

Program objective and measurement (Create separate chart or table for each priority objective) PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 1: Knowledge of Mathematical Problem Solving MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVE 1. 3 Build new mathematical knowledge through problem solving. 1. 4 Monitor and reflect on the process of mathematical problem solving. CURRICULUM AREA OR TARGET AUDIENCE Elective Courses: MATH 2244 MATH 3213 MATH 3253 MATH 4113 MATH 4483 Methods used to determine validity of measurement instruments Methods used to determine reliability of measurements TWS (direct) Developed by Department of Education Assessed in EDUC 4313 Technology Portfolio (direct) Portfolio graded using standardized rubric Faculty using rubric discuss rubric before grading begins Collected during MATH 4772 Measurements Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 Schedule for measurements 47

Display of Assessment Data – OSAT TABLE 16 OSAT scores NCTM Standard 1 Total number of OSATs scored: n=2 Academic Mean Score Year OSAT on score Mathematical Processes and Number Sense 2008 -2009 (n=2) Mean Score on Relations, Functions, and Algebra Mean score on Measure -ment and Geometry Mean score on Trigonometry and Calculus Mean score on Probability, Statistics, and Discrete Mathematics Mean Score on Constructed Response 269. 5 280. 5 253. 5 271 268 252 281. 5 State Mean* 260 267 256 259 267 2009 -2010 (n=0) NA NA *Weighted Mean for tests given on 4/18/2009 and 5/30/2009. Total state tests given = 5 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 48

Display of Assessment Data – OSAT (continued) TABLE 17 Results of OSAT NCTM Standard 1 Total Number of OSATs Scored: n = 2 Does Not Meet Standards OSAT – Advanced Mathematics 2008 -2009 (n=2) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Mathematical Processes and Number Sense 2008 -2009 (n=2) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Relations, Functions, and Algebra 2008 -2009 (n=2) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Measurement and Geometry 2008 -2009 (n=2) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Trigonometry and Calculus 2008 -2009 (n=2) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Probability, Statistics, and Discrete Mathematics 2008 -2009 (n=2) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Constructed Response 2008 -2009 (n=2) 2009 -2010 (n=0) 0 -239 NA NA 0% 0% 50% 0% Meets Standards 240 -269 NA NA 50% 0% 50% Exceeds Standards 270 -300 NA NA 50% 100% 50% 50% Total* Total NA NA 100% 100% *Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 49

Display of Assessment Data – MFT TABLE 18 Results of Major Field Achievement Test NCTM Standard 1 Total Number of Major Field Achievement Tests Scored: n = 3 Does Not Meet Standards Meets -1 Standards - 3 2007 -2008 (n=1) 2008 -2009 (n=2) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total (n=3) 120 -135 0% 0% NA 0% Exceeds Standards - 5 Total* 171 -200 0% 50% NA 33% Total 100% NA 100% 136 -170 100% 50% NA 67% *Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 50

Display of Assessment Data – Student Teaching Evaluation Table 21 Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Mathematics Addendum NCTM Standard 1 Max # of Not Observe d Does Not Meet Standards – 1 2. 5 2. 67 2. 57 2 2 2 3 3 3 0 1 1 0% 0% 0% 50% 33% 43% 50% 67% 57% 2. 5 2 2 2 3 3 3 0 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 50% 2. 25 2. 33 2. 29 2 2 2 3 3 3 0 1 1 0% 0% 0% 75% 67% 71% 25% 33% 29% Mean Min Total Number of Assessments: n = 8 Total Number of Candidates: N=2 M 1 (NCTM 1. 1, 8. 8) Fall 2009 (n=4) Spring 2010 (n=4) Total (n=8) M 2 (NCTM 1. 4, 8. 8) Fall 2009 (n=4) Spring 2010 (n=4) Total (n=8) M 16 (NCTM 1. 1, 1. 2, 4. 2, 5. 3) Fall 2009 (n=4) Spring 2010 (n=4) Total (n=8) Meets Standards - 2 Exceeds Standards – 3 *Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 51

Display of Assessment Data - TWS TABLE 22 Results of Teacher Work Sample NCTM Standard 1 Total Number of Teacher Work Samples Scored: n = 2 Does Not Meet Standards - 1 Meets Standards - 3 Exceeds Standards - 5 0 -21 22 -41 42 -50 2008 -2009 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% 2009 -2010 (n=1) 0% 0% 100% Total (n=2) 0% 0% 100% Factor 6 (50 points) (NCTM 1. 4, 7. 3, 7. 4) Total* *Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 52

Display of Assessment Data – Technology Portfolio TABLE 25 Technology Portfolio NCTM Standard 1 Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0 Does Not Meet Standards – 1 Meets Standards - 3 Exceeds Standards – 5 Total* NA NA NA NA 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total NA NA NA NA Real-World problem worksheet (Graphing Calculator) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total Triangle Worksheet (College Geometry) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total NLVM Worksheet (Teaching of Secondary Mathematics) All Items Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 53

Action Plan • Collect more data. • Redo the data tables for Assessment 4, Student Teaching. After speaking with the Dean of the School of Education and Psychology, the decision was made to rework the tables so the values for n are consistent with those in the Education Department’s tables, as well as within our Mathematics Education tables. Both departments continue to work toward displaying the data so they accurately and clearly tell the story of the candidates’ successes in their student teaching experiences (as well as any issues that may need attention). Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 54

Standard 3: Knowledge of Mathematical Communication Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 55

Program objective and measurement (Create separate chart or table for each priority objective) PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 3: Knowledge of Mathematical Communication MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVE 1 3. 1 Communicate their mathematical thinking coherently and clearly to peers, faculty, and others. 3. 2 Use the language of mathematics to express ideas precisely. CURRICULUM AREA OR TARGET AUDIENCE Required courses: MATH 2613 MATH 3013 MATH 3302 MATH 3333 MATH 3413 MATH 4423 MATH 4772 EDUC 4313 EDUC 4653 EDUC 4965 EDUC 4975 Measurements Methods used to determine validity of measurement instruments Methods used to determine reliability of measurements OSAT (direct) State wide test Determined by OCTP Recommended that students take after completing 30 or more hours of their mathematical course work Student Teaching Evaluation (direct) Developed by Department of Education Assessed in EDUC 4965 and EDUC 4975 TWS (direct) Developed by Department of Education Assessed in EDUC 4313 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 Schedule for measurements 56

Program objective and measurement (Create separate chart or table for each priority objective) PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 3: Knowledge of Mathematical Communication MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVE 1 3. 3 Organize mathematical thinking through communication. 3. 4 Analyze and evaluate the mathematical thinking and strategies of others. CURRICULUM AREA OR TARGET AUDIENCE Elective courses: MATH 3213 MATH 4113 MATH 4483 STAT 3113 Measurements Methods used to determine validity of measurement instruments Methods used to determine reliability of measurements Mid-level Assessment Exam (direct) Developed by subcommittee of faculty Test is multiple choice – answers are right or wrong; questions are aligned with indicators Every Fall semester Technology Portfolio (direct) Portfolio graded using standardized rubric Faculty using rubric discuss rubric before grading begins Collected during MATH 4772 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 Schedule for measurements 57

Display of Assessment Data – OSAT TABLE 16 OSAT scores NCTM Standard 3 Total number of OSATs scored: n=2 Academic Year Mean OSAT Mean Score on score Mathematical Processes and Number Sense 2008 -2009 (n=2) State Mean* 2009 -2010 (n=0) Mean Score on Constructed Response 269. 5 280. 5 281. 5 260 267 NA NA NA *Weighted Mean for tests given on 4/18/2009 and 5/30/2009. Total state tests given = 5 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 58

Display of Assessment Data – OSAT (continued) TABLE 17 Results of OSAT NCTM Standard 3 Total Number of OSATs Scored: n = 2 Does Not Meet Standards 0 -239 OSAT – Advanced Mathematics 2008 -2009 (n=2) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Mathematical Processes and Number Sense 2008 -2009 (n=2) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Constructed Response 2008 -2009 (n=2) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Meets Standards 240 -269 0% NA 50% NA 0% 0% Total 100% NA 50% NA Total* 50% NA NA NA Exceeds Standards 270 -300 100% NA 50% NA 100% NA *Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 59

Display of Assessment Data – Student Teaching Evaluation Table 20 Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Education Portion NCTM Standard 3 # of Not Observed 2. 25 Max **E 24 (NCTM 3. 1, 3. 2, 4. 3, 7. 1, 7. 3, 7. 4, 8. 1, 8. 4) Fall 2009 (n=4) Spring 2010 (n=4) Total (n=8) Min Mean Total Number of Assessments: n = 4 or 8** Total Number of Candidates: N=2 2 3 3 3 0 0 0 Does Not Meet Standards – 1 Meets Standards - 2 Exceeds Standards – 3 0% 0% 0% 75% 75% 25% 25% *Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. *Items found on Education University Supervisor Form Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 60

Display of Assessment Data – Student Teaching Evaluation (continued) Table 21 Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Mathematics Addendum NCTM Standard 3 Exceeds Standards – 3 2. 25 2. 75 2. 5 2 2 2 3 3 3 0 0% 0% 0% 75% 25% 50% 25% 75% 50% 2. 25 2. 38 2 2 2 3 3 3 0 0% 0% 0% 75% 50% 63% 25% 50% 37% 2. 25 3. 0 2. 63 2 3 3 3 0 0% 0% 0% 75% 0% 37% 25% 100% 63% 2. 5 2. 0 2. 29 2 2 2 3 0 1 1 0% 0% 0% 50% 100% 71% 50% 0% 29% Mean # of Not Observe d Meets Standards - 2 Max Does Not Meet Standards – 1 Min Total Number of Assessments: n = 8 Total Number of Candidates: N=2 M 3 (NCTM 3. 1) Fall 2009 (n=4) Spring 2010 (n=4) Total (n=8) M 4 (NCTM 3. 2) Fall 2009 (n=4) Spring 2010 (n=4) Total (n=8) M 5 (NCTM 3. 3) Fall 2009 (n=4) Spring 2010 (n=4) Total (n=8) M 6 (NCTM 3. 4) Fall 2009 (n=4) Spring 2010 (n=4) Total (n=8) *Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 61

Display of Assessment Data - TWS TABLE 22 Results of Teacher Work Sample NCTM Standard 3 Total Number of Teacher Work Samples Scored: n = 2 Factor 3 (45 points) (NCTM 3. 4, 7. 5, 8. 3) Does Not Meet Standards - 1 Meets Standards - 3 Exceeds Standards - 5 0 -20 21 -37 38 -45 2008 -2009 (n=1) 2009 -2010 (n=1) Total (n=2) Factor 5 (14 points) (NCTM 3. 4, 7. 5, 8. 3, 16. 3) 0% 0% 0% 100% 0 -4 5 -11 12 -14 2008 -2009 (n=1) 2009 -2010 (n=1) Total (n=2) 0% 0% 0% 100% Total* 100% 100% *Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 62

Display of Assessment Data – Mid-level Assessment Exam TABLE 23 Mid-level Assessment Exam NCTM Standard 3 Total Number of Mid-level Assessment Exams Scored: n = 5 Does Not Meet Standards – 1 NCTM Standard 3 Fall 2007 (n=2) Fall 2008 (n=1) Fall 2009 (n=2) Total (n=5) 0% 100% 50% 40% Meets Standards - 3 Exceeds Standards – 5 Total* 50% 0% 50% 40% 50% 0% 0% 20% 100% *Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 63

Display of Assessment Data – Technology Portfolio TABLE 25 Technology Portfolio NCTM Standard 3 Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0 Does Not Meet Standards – 1 Meets Standards - 3 Exceeds Standards – 5 Total* NA NA NA NA 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total NA NA Triangle Worksheet (College Geometry) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total Recursive Worksheet (Discrete Mathematical Structures) All Items Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 64

Action Plan • Collect more data. • Assessment 6, Mid-level Assessment Exam needs to be checked for face validity to determine if the twenty questions are appropriate to adequately evaluate students in relation to the courses completed and to determine if the instrument is measuring the studentlearning outcomes. A mathematics faculty member not previously involved with the Mid-level assessment will be asked to conduct this check. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 65

Action Plan (Continued) • Redo the data tables for Assessment 4, Student Teaching. After speaking with the Dean of the School of Education and Psychology, the decision was made to rework the tables so the values for n are consistent with those in the Education Department’s tables, as well as within our Mathematics Education tables. Both departments continue to work toward displaying the data so they accurately and clearly tell the story of the candidates’ successes in their student teaching experiences (as well as any issues that may need attention). Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 66

Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 67

Program objective and measurement (Create separate chart or table for each priority objective) PROGRAM GOAL: Standard 6: Knowledge of Technology MEASUREMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVE 1 6. 1: Use knowledge of mathematics to select and use appropriate technological tools, such as, but not limited to, spreadsheets, dynamic graphic tools, computer algebra systems, dynamic statistical packages, graphing calculators, datacollection devices and presentation software CURRICULUM AREA OR TARGET AUDIENCE Required courses: MATH 1001 MATH 2215 MATH 3001 MATH 3013 MATH 3413 MATH 4772 STAT 3013 EDUC 3673 EDUC 4313 EDUC 4965 EDUC 4975 Elective courses: MATH 4113 STAT 3113 Methods used to determine validity of measurement instruments Methods used to determine reliability of measurements Lesson Plans (direct) Developed by Department of Education Assessed in MATH 4772 Student Teaching Evaluation (direct) Developed by Department of Education Assessed in EDUC 4965 and EDUC 4975 TWS (direct) Developed by Department of Education Assessed in EDUC 4313 Portfolios graded using standardized rubric Faculty using rubric discuss rubric before grading begins Collected during MATH 4772 Measurements Technology Portfolio (direct) Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 Schedule for measurements 68

Display of Assessment Data – Lesson Plans TABLE 19 Results of Lesson Plans NCTM Standard 6 Total Number of Lesson Plans Scored: n = 6 (two for each of the three assigned lesson plans) NCTM Indicator 6. 1 2008 -2009 (n=6) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Does Not Meet Standards - 1 Meets Standards - 3 Exceeds Standards - 5 Total* 0% NA 83% NA 17% NA 100% NA *Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 69

Display of Assessment Data – Student Teaching Evaluation Table 20 Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Education Portion NCTM Standard 6 # of Not Observed 3. 0 2. 5 2. 75 Max E 3 (NCTM 6. 1, 7. 6, 8. 9) Fall 2009 (n=2) Spring 2010 (n=2) Total (n=4) Min Mean Total Number of Assessments: n = 4 or 8** Total Number of Candidates: N=2 3 2 2 3 3 3 0 0 0 Does Not Meet Standards – 1 Meets Standards - 2 Exceeds Standards – 3 0% 0% 50% 25% 100% 50% 75% *Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. *Items found on Education University Supervisor Form Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 70

Display of Assessment Data – Student Teaching Evaluation (continued) Table 21 Results of Student Teaching Assessment, Mathematics Addendum NCTM Standard 6 Max # of Not Observe d Does Not Meet Standards – 1 Fall 2009 (n=4) 2. 5 2 3 0 0% 50% Spring 2010 (n=4) 3. 0 3 3 1 0% 0% 100% Total (n=8) 2. 7 2 3 1 0% 29% 71% Mean Min Total Number of Assessments: n = 8 Total Number of Candidates: N=2 Meets Standards - 2 Exceeds Standards – 3 M 10 (NCTM 6. 1) *Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 71

Display of Assessment Data - TWS TABLE 22 Results of Teacher Work Sample NCTM Standard 6 Total Number of Teacher Work Samples Scored: n = 2 Factor 4 (36 points) (NCTM 6. 1, 7. 2, 7. 4, 7. 6, 8. 3, 8. 7, 8. 9) 2008 -2009 (n=1) 2009 -2010 (n=1) Total (n=2) Does Not Meet Standards - 1 Meets Standards - 3 Exceeds Standards - 5 0 -10 11 -28 29 -36 0% 0% 0% 100% Total* 100% *Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 72

Display of Assessment Data – Technology Portfolio TABLE 25 Technology Portfolio NCTM Standard 6 Total Number of Technology Portfolios Scored: n = 0 Does Not Meet Standards – 1 Meets Standards - 3 Exceeds Standards – 5 Total* 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total Statistics worksheet (Graphing Calculator) NA NA 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total Triangle Worksheet (College Geometry) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total Recursive Worksheet (Discrete Mathematical Structures) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total NLVM Worksheet (Teaching of Secondary Mathematics) 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total All Items 2009 -2010 (n=0) Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Real-World problem worksheet (Graphing Calculator) Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 73

Action Plan • Collect more data. • Ask the Dean of the School of Science and Technology to convert the remaining mathematics classrooms (that are not already smart classrooms) in Burch Hall to smart classrooms in order to enhance student learning. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 74

Action Plan (continued) • Ask the Dean of the School of Science and Technology to purchase TI Emulator software for the classrooms. According to the TI website, “This easy-to-use software complements the TI-83 Plus and TI-84 Plus families of graphing calculators, letting the educator project an interactive representation of the calculator’s display to the entire class. It is an ideal demonstration tool for leading classroom instruction of math and science concepts. ” Faculty who previously used this software agreed that it is very helpful to the students. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 75

Action Plan (continued) • Redo the data tables for Assessment 4, Student Teaching. After speaking with the Dean of the School of Education and Psychology, the decision was made to rework the tables so the values for n are consistent with those in the Education Department’s tables, as well as within our Mathematics Education tables. Both departments continue to work toward displaying the data so they accurately and clearly tell the story of the candidates’ successes in their student teaching experiences (as well as any issues that may need attention). Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 76

Ancillary Actions • Ask the Dean of the School of Science and Technology to have Room B 026 in Burch Hall redecorated. The atmosphere of this classroom in unfriendly and repressive. Students say that the classroom feels like a prison or a detention center. One student commented, upon having a class in a different room, that she was “glad to be out of the basement. ” A more studentfriendly atmosphere should promote more positive student learning experiences. Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 77

Published information on graduates Academic Year 09 -10 Entered Working in Discipline Other Summer 2009 0 0 0 Fall 2009 0 0 0 Spring 2010 0 1 0 Total 0 1 0 Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 78

Questions? Program Quality Improvement Report 2009 -2010 79