assess/rec assessment report 2014.d… · web vie

STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT PROGRAMSUMMARY FORM AY 2013-2014

Degree andProgram Name:

Submitted By:

Please use size 10 font or larger.

PART ONE

What are the learning objectives?

How, where, and when are they assessed?

What are the expectations?

What are the results? Committee/ person responsible? How are results shared?

1.) Students graduating from the program shall demonstrate the following entry-level knowledge: a) the nature and scope of the relevant park, recreation, tourism or related professionals and their associated industries; b) techniques and processes used by professionals and workers in these industries; and c) the foundation of the profession in history, science and philosophy (NRPA 7.01 Standard).

a.) REC 1780 (Exam I)b.) REC 1780 (Agency

Interview)c.) REC 3910 (Exam)d.) REC 3910 (Website

Project)e.) REC 4274 (Portfolio Self-

Evaluation)f.) REC 4740 (Exam I)g.) REC 4830 (Exam)

100% of majors will meet performance standards (earn a “C” or 70% on project, assignment, and/or exam) or exceed standards (earn an “A” or “B” or 80% on project, assignment, and/or exam).

a.) REC 1780 (Exam I) Fall 2013: # Exceeding Expectations: 29# Meeting Expectations: 1# Did Not Meet Expectations: 1# Exempt: 0

b.) REC 1780 (Agency Interview) Fall 2013:

# Exceeding Expectations: 12# Meeting Expectations: 8# Did Not Meet Expectations:11# Exempt: 0

c.) REC 3910 (Exam) Spring 2014:

# Exceeding Expectations: 14# Meeting Expectations: 1# Did Not Meet Expectations: 1# Exempt: 0

d.) REC 3910 (Website Project) Spring 2014:

# Exceeding Expectations: 14

Course Instructors review the results and share with Department Chair and Assessment Committee during Departmental (bi-annual) assessment data review meetings. Results will also be shared with the NRPA, the accrediting agency through periodic written reports.

B.S. in Recreation Administration

Please complete a separate worksheet for each academic program (major, minor) at each level (undergraduate, graduate) in your department. Worksheets are due to CASA this year by June 13, 2014. Worksheets should be sent electronically to [email protected] and should also be submitted to your college dean. For information about assessment or help with your assessment plans, visit the Assessment webpage at http://www.eiu.edu/~assess/ or contact Karla Sanders in CASA at 581-6056.

Michael Mulvaney, Ph.D., CPRP

http://www.eiu.edu/~assess/

mailto:[email protected]

# Meeting Expectations: 1# Did Not Meet Expectations: 1# Exempt: 0

e.) REC 4274 (Portfolio Self- Evaluation) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:


f.) REC 4740 (Exam I) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:


g.) REC 4830 (Exam) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:

# Exceeding Expectations: 24# Meeting Expectations:4# Did Not Meet Expectations:4# Exempt: 0

2.) Students graduating from the program shall demonstrate the ability to design, implement, and evaluate services that facilitate targeted human experiences and that embrace personal and cultural dimensions of diversity (NRPA 7.02 Standard).

a.) REC 1320 (Observation Activity)

b.) REC 2250 (Gym Rec Recreation Plan)

c.) REC 2250 (Quizzes)d.) REC 2290 (Group

project)


a.) REC 1320 (Observation Activity) Spring 2014:


b.) REC 2250 (Gym Rec Recreation Plan) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:



c.) REC 2250 (Quizzes) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:

# Exceeding Expectations: 24# Meeting Expectations: 0# Did Not Meet Expectations:2# Exempt:

d.) REC 2290 (Group Project) Spring 2014:

# Exceeding Expectations: 15# Meeting Expectations: 5# Did Not Meet Expectations:5# Exempt: 0

3.) Students graduating from the program shall be able to demonstrate entry-level knowledge about operations and strategic management/administration in parks, recreation, tourism and/or related professions (NRPA 7.03 Standard).

a.) REC 3900 (Exam I)b.) REC 3900 (Exam II)c.) REC 4600 (Exam)d.) REC 4600 (Intro, Needs

Analysis, & Agency Profile)

e.) REC 4600 (Physical Resource Assessment)

f.) REC 4700 (Work Schedule Assignment)

g.) REC 4700 (Job Description)

h.) REC 4700 (Mock Interview)

i.) REC 4700 (Performance Appraisal Assignment)

j.) REC 4700 (Exam)k.) REC 4830 (Mission,

Goals, & Objectives Assignment)

l.) REC 4830 (Job Description)


a.) REC 3900 (Exam I) Fall 2013: # Exceeding Expectations: 17# Meeting Expectations: 3# Did Not Meet Expectations: 0# Exempt: 0

b.) REC 3900 (Exam II) Fall 2013: # Exceeding Expectations: 20# Meeting Expectations: 0# Did Not Meet Expectations: 0# Exempt: 0

c.) REC 4600 (Exam) Fall 2013: # Exceeding Expectations: 23# Meeting Expectations: 6# Did Not Meet Expectations:2# Exempt:0

d.) REC 4600 (Intro, Needs Analysis, & Agency Profile) Fall 2013:

# Exceeding Expectations: 10# Meeting Expectations: 21# Did Not Meet Expectations:# Exempt:


e.) REC 4600 (Physical Resource Assessment) Fall 2013:

# Exceeding Expectations: 31# Meeting Expectations: 0# Did Not Meet Expectations: 0# Exempt:0

f.) REC 4700 (Work Schedule Assignment):

Course not taught during 2013-2014 academic year.

g.) REC 4700 (Job Description): Course not taught during 2013-2014 academic year.

h.) REC 4700 (Mock Interview): Course not taught during 2013-2014 academic year.

i.) REC 4700 (Performance Appraisal Assignment):

Course not taught during 2013-2014 academic year.

j.) REC 4700 (Exam): Course not taught during 2013-2014 academic year.

k.) REC 4830 (Mission, Goals, & Objectives Assignment) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:

# Exceeding Expectations: 28# Meeting Expectations: 2# Did Not Meet Expectations:2# Exempt:0

l.) REC 4830 (Job Description) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:

# Exceeding Expectations: 20# Meeting Expectations: 7# Did Not Meet Expectations:5

# Exempt:04.) Students graduating

from the program shall demonstrate, through a comprehensive internship of not less than 400 clock hours and no fewer than 10 weeks, the potential to succeed as professionals at supervisory or higher levels in park, recreation, tourism, or related organizations (NRPA 7.04 Standard).

a.) REC 4275 (Internship Performance Appraisal Etiquette Measure completed by agency-site supervisor)

b.) REC 4275 (Internship Performance Appraisal Professional Aptitude Measure completed by agency-site supervisor)


a.) REC 4275 (Internship Performance Appraisal Etiquette Measure) Spring 2014:


b.) REC 4275 (Internship Performance Appraisal Professional Aptitude Measure) Spring 2014:


The content from the appraisal instruments are directly aligned with the Certified Park and Recreation Professional (CPRP) content. The results of the appraisal measures (that are completed by the agency-site supervisor) are reviewed by the academic (internship) supervisor. A meeting between the academic supervisor, agency-site supervisor, and student is completed to review the results and formulate a student development plan as needed. Results will also be shared with the NRPA, the accrediting agency through periodic written reports.

5.) Students graduating from the program shall demonstrate the ability to question, examine, evaluate, and respond to problems or arguments related to the operations and strategic management/administration in parks, recreation,

a.) REC 1780 (Issues Paper)b.) REC 4830 (Case-Based

Ethical Analysis)c.) REC 4830 (Risk

Management Evaluation)d.) REC 4850 (Line-Item

Budget Analysis & Development)

100% of majors will meet performance standards (earn a “C” or 70% on project, assignment, and/or exam) or exceed standards (earn an “A” or “B” or 80% on project, assignment, and/or

a.) REC 1780 (Issues Paper) Fall 2013:

# Exceeding Expectations:27# Meeting Expectations: 0# Did Not Meet Expectations:4# Exempt:0

b.) REC 4830 (Ethics Problem Assignment) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:

Course Instructors review the results and share with Department Chair and Assessment Committee during Departmental (bi-annual) assessment data review meetings. Results will also be

tourism and/or related professions (EIU Critical Thinking Undergraduate Learning Goal).

exam). # Exceeding Expectations: 15# Meeting Expectations: 1# Did Not Meet Expectations:16# Exempt:

c.) REC 4830 (Risk Management Evaluation) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:

# Exceeding Expectations: 21# Meeting Expectations:9# Did Not Meet Expectations:2# Exempt:0

d.) REC 4850 (Line-Item Budget Analysis & Development) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:


shared with the NRPA, the accrediting agency through periodic written reports.

6.) Students graduating from the program shall demonstrate the ability to comprehend and evaluate varied sources and write purposively and critically on topics related to the operations and strategic management/administration in parks, recreation, tourism and/or related professions (EIU Writing & Critical Reading Undergraduate Learning Goal).

a.) REC 1320 (Filmed Leadership Self-Evaluation Paper)

b.) REC 1780 (Leisure Philosophy Paper)

c.) REC 2290 (Quizzes 1-5)d.) REC 3900 (Operations &

Maintenance Manual)e.) REC 4274 (EIU

Reflection Paper)f.) REC 4700 (Recruitment,

Selection, & Placement Plan)

g.) REC 4740 (Research Report)

h.) REC 4830 (Paper on Recreation Topic)


a.) REC 1320 (Filmed Leadership Self-Evaluation Paper) Spring 2014:


b.) REC 1780 (Leisure Philosophy Paper) Fall 2013:


c.) REC 2290 (Quizzes 1-5) Spring 2014:



d.) REC 3900 (Operations & Maintenance Manual) Fall 2013:


e.) REC 4274 (EIU Reflection Paper) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:


f.) REC 4700 (Recruitment, Selection, & Placement Plan)

Course not taught during 2013 – 2014 academic year.

g.) REC 4740 (Research Report) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:


h.) REC 4830 (Paper on Recreation Topic) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:


7.) Students graduating from the program shall demonstrate the ability to comprehend and evaluate varied sources

a.) REC 3910 (Multimedia Presentation)

b.) REC 4600 (Facility Plan/Proposal Presentation)

100% of majors will meet performance standards (earn a “C” or 70% on project, assignment, and/or

a.) REC 3910 (Multimedia Presentation) Spring 2014:

# Exceeding Expectations: 14# Meeting Expectations: 1# Did Not Meet Expectations: 1

Course Instructors review the results and share with Department Chair and Assessment

and prepare and deliver presentations and other formal speaking activities related to the operations and strategic management/administration in parks, recreation, tourism and/or related professions (EIU Speaking & Listening Undergraduate Learning Goal).

c.) REC 4740 (Research Presentation)

d.) REC 4830 (Oral Management Presentation)

exam) or exceed standards (earn an “A” or “B” or 80% on project, assignment, and/or exam).

# Exempt: 0

b.) REC 4600 (Facility Plan/Proposal Presentation) Fall 2013:

# Exceeding Expectations:31# Meeting Expectations: 0# Did Not Meet Expectations:0# Exempt:0

c.) REC 4740 (Research Presentation) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:


d.) REC 4830 (Oral Management Presentation) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:


Committee during Departmental (bi-annual) assessment data review meetings. Results will also be shared with the NRPA, the accrediting agency through periodic written reports.

8.) Students graduating from the program shall demonstrate the ability to produce, analyze, interpret, and evaluate quantitative material related to the operations and strategic management/administration in parks, recreation, tourism and/or related professions (EIU Quantitative Reasoning Undergraduate Learning Goal).

a.) REC 3910 (Special Event Budget)

b.) REC 4740 (Exam II – Descriptive & Inferential Statistics)

c.) REC 4850 (Fundraising Assignment)

d.) REC 4850 (Performance Budget Assignment)

e.) REC 4850 (Budget Analysis Development)


a.) REC 3910 (Special Event Budget) Spring 2014:


b.) REC 4740 (Exam II – Descriptive & Inferential Statistics) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:


c.) REC 4850 (Fundraising


Assignment) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:


d.) REC 4850 (Performance Budget Assignment) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:


e.) REC 4850 (Budget Analysis Development) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:


9.) Students graduating from the program shall demonstrate the ability to be active, responsible citizens in diverse personal, professional, and civic contexts related to the operations and strategic management/administration in parks, recreation, tourism and/or related professions (EIU Responsible Citizenship Undergraduate Learning Goal).

a.) REC 1320 (After School Planning Activity)

b.) REC 2250 (Gym Rec Recreation Plan)

c.) REC 3551 (Fieldwork Performance Appraisal Professional Aptitude Measure)

d.) REC 3900 (Practicum Experience)

e.) REC 4600 (Facility/Park Area Agency-Integrated Project)


a.) REC 1320 (After School Planning Activity) Spring 2014:


b.) REC 2250 (Gym Rec Recreation Plan) Fall 2013 & Spring 2014:


c.) REC 3551 (Fieldwork Performance Appraisal Professional Aptitude Measure) Summer 2013, Fall


2013, & Spring 2014:# Exceeding Expectations: 2# Meeting Expectations: 0# Did Not Meet Expectations: 0# Exempt: 0

d.) REC 3900 (Practicum Experience) Fall 2013:


e.) REC 4600 (Facility/Park Area Agency-Integrated Project) Fall 2013:


(Continue objectives as needed. Cells will expand to accommodate your text.)

PART TWODescribe your program’s assessment accomplishments since your last report was submitted. Discuss ways in which you have responded to the CASA Director’s comments on last year’s report or simply describe what assessment work was initiated, continued, or completed.

The Department of Recreation Administration’s assessment plan is a process with updates and revisions completed or in progress during the past 2013-2014 academic year. Considered to be within the 3rd year of a multi-year redevelopment plan, the department’s 2013-2014 assessment activities have centered on the following tasks/activities:

The Department of Recreation Administration continues to be mission-driven in their approach to all departmental activities, including assessment. In 2009-2010, the department engaged in a strategic planning process that resulted in a 5-year roadmap for future activities and directives for the department. One of the themes that emerged from this process was the desire to focus curricular efforts on the recreation field’s most desired (generalist) certification, the Certified Park and Recreation Professional (CPRP). In particular, the department identified the CPRP as a primary focus for the program. Courses were reviewed and updated to ensure the curriculum was directly aligned with the CPRP content. Subsequently, learning outcomes were reviewed and updated to ensure their alignment with the

CPRP content. This process resulted in multiple course revisions/updates and the development of 51 learning objectives. The 51 learning objectives were included in the 2012-2013 CASA Assessment Report.

Although the 2012-2013 CASA Assessment Report included 51 learning objectives the long-range plan included collapsing these 51 learning objectives into 8-9 objectives that were broader in scope. This plan and direction was further supported by the CASA Director’s recommendations (from the 2012-2013 Report) to reduce/consolidate the number of objectives. This review and consolidation of similar learning objectives occurred in the late fall/early spring semesters of the 2013-2014 academic year. This process resulted in 9 learning objectives being developed. These objectives include the four COARPT Standards (required by the NRPA’s COARPT accreditation) and five university learning goals (writing, speaking, global citizenship, critical thinking, and quantitative reasoning). While some overlap exists between aspects of a few of these newly developed learning objectives (see objective #2 and #9 as an example), the department did not view this as overly problematic; rather they felt the overlap could provide an opportunity for additional triangulation of data sources. The newly developed objectives and corresponding measures also remain directly aligned with the content outline for the CPRP.

Further refinement and preparation for the 2014-2015 accreditation report and visit from the National Recreation and Park Association’s Council on Accreditation of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism (COARPT). The Department of Recreation Administration is currently in the drafting stages of the COARPT report that will be submitted during the month of November 2014. The site visitors will be on campus during the spring 2015 semester. As the accreditation standards continue their evolvement to an outcome-based format with additional expectations and requirements, departmental representatives continue attending COARPT meetings and workshops to remain current with the expectations and process. Representatives from the department attend annual NRPA Accreditation Standards update meetings to receive details regarding these changes. William Higelmire, Department Chair, attended the annual fall (October 2013) accreditation standards meeting in Houston (TX) and the department plans to have representatives attend the 2014 meeting in Charlotte (NC).

Examples of several rubrics utilized by faculty in their assessment of some of the learning objectives are included in the report (see Appendix A). Many of these rubrics have been modified from the CASL/EIU-developed rubrics. Furthermore, these rubrics were reviewed by a panel of subject matter experts (i.e., departmental faculty) for content validity during the annual assessment plan meetings.

Consistent with the previous year (and in response to the CASA’s Director’s 2012 report feedback), data from students minoring in Recreation Administration was no longer viewed independently and has been integrated into this report.

The department’s online assessment dashboard continues to be fully operational. Concerns regarding any potential confidentiality issues were also explored as the Department’s Assessment Committee met with EIU’s Legal Counsel to share the dashboard concept and implementation plans. The Legal Counsel was supportive of the dashboard and did not identify any concerns regarding its planned implementation. As noted in last year’s report, the “dashboard” serves as a clearinghouse for departmental assessment data. The interactive nature of the “dashboard” provides students (and faculty) with the opportunity to review their performance across multiple learning objectives, aiding the student in recognizing the connections across courses and potential areas in need of development. This information was also utilized by faculty during the bi-annual assessment meetings to aid them in their planning and instruction functions. Nathan Atkinson and Scot Chapman in the CATS Office continue to play a key role in helping the department in the ongoing development and management of the site. The log-in page of the site can be found at https://eiu.edu/apps/rec_admin_outcomes/login.php. A few images from the site are also provided in Appendix B.

https://eiu.edu/apps/rec_admin_outcomes/login.php

PART THREE

Summarize changes and improvements in curriculum, instruction, and learning that have resulted from the implementation of your assessment program. How have you used the data? What have you learned? In light of what you have learned through your assessment efforts this year and in past years, what are your plans for the future?

Initiated in 2012, bi-annual meetings were scheduled in January/February and May/June each year to review the assessment data from the previous semester(s). Guided by this plan for bi-annual assessment data review meetings, a full departmental review of Part I of this report occurred on May 22, 2014 (fall 2013 & spring 2014 data). The intent of this meeting was to review the assessment instruments, processes, and student performance (i.e., results) for each of the learning objectives. During the meeting, data for each objective was presented to the department by the faculty assigned to the measurement of the particular objective. Specifically, faculty discussed the objective, the assessment process, their established expectations, the actual performance (i.e., student results), and strategies for moving forward – objective revision, assessment issues, future changes, performance improvement ideas, etc. Notes were taken by the department’s assessment committee chair during the meeting. Following the faculty presentations for each objective, the notes (prepared by the assessment chair) were shared, reviewed, and discussed by the department. Based upon this discussion, a thematic analysis was employed by the department’s assessment committee to identify themes or priority areas. These themes guided the development of 4 (annual) assessment goals. The four goals for 2014-2015 are provided below:

Goal #1: Continue discussion of managing student dispositional issues. For the second year, concerns over student motivational issues and failure to submit course projects and assignments were identified. Discussions on how to address this issue as well as other potential student dispositional behaviors (i.e., attendance, inattentive in class, initiative, time on task, etc.) ensued. The need for more intentional and collaborative efforts by the department to manage these issues was identified. It is expected that a series of meetings will be held by the department to further orientate and review the existing resources available on campus (i.e., Early Alert program, counseling, etc.) as they relate to managing various student dispositional issues.

Goal #2: Improve critical thinking performance/ability by our students. During our review of the assessment data, concerns emerged over the results of learning objective #5 (critical thinking focus). Discussions ensued on strategies and methods to improve student performance in this area. During this brainstorming session, multiple ideas were shared, including: increased focus on this area, further infusion of critical thinking across the curriculum and course projects, discussing possible inconsistencies in how critical thinking is taught across courses, possible reduction of excessive assignment instructions (i.e., “are we making the assignment instructions too specific/detailed with no room for reflection and/or critical thinking?”), etc. The department plans to establish a formalized list of strategies and activities to tackle this deficiency.

Goal #3: Examine and discuss the implementation of “group work/projects” across courses. A theme of “group work/projects” also emerged during the 2013-2014 academic year. In particular, faculty discussed and shared examples of student group work and assignments. Faculty recognized the value of having students work in groups or teams, but also expressed concerns over certain students “hiding” within these working environments. As a result, the department plans to continue this discussion to ensure an optimal level of student group work is occurring across all courses. It is expected a series of discussions related to this topic will be held during the 2014-2015 academic year.

Goal #4: Improve writing skills of students. While historically, recreation administration students have performed at or above university averages in the area of oral communication, the department and assessment data identified students need further development with their writing skillsets. The department plans to discuss and identify strategies to support further student development in this area.

The Departmental Assessment Committee will work towards the achievement of these goals during the 2014-2015 academic year. It is expected a series of meetings and activities will be held by the assessment committee to meet these five goals (see proposed 2014-2015 assessment calendar for specifics). A proposed 2014-2015 assessment calendar for the department is provided in Appendix C of this report.

APPENDIX A: A SAMPLE OF ASSESSMENT RUBRICS UTILIZED

Eastern Illinois UniversityDepartment of Recreation Administration

REC 4274: Pre-Internship

Department Portfolio Evaluation (To Be Completed By Student)

IncludedExceeds

Standard(3 pts)

Meets Standard

(2 pts)

Below Standard

(1 pt)

Have not completed the

course yetREC 1780: Philosophy PaperREC 1780: Agency InterviewREC 1780: Professional Issues Article SummaryREC 1320: Self-Evaluation of Leading VideotapeREC 2250: Gym Rec Program PaperREC 2290: Program PlanREC 4600: ReportREC 4740: Research PaperREC 4830: Written Assignments/Oral PresentationREC 4850: Cost/Volume Profit Analysis Assignment

Overall organization and neatness (circle one): Very Good Good Fair Needs Work

Discretionary Items: Present (circle one): Yes No

Are these discretionary items pertinent to career goals (circle one): Yes No

Student can verbally tie portfolio items to 11 goals to student learning (circle one): Yes No

Overall Comments:

Assessment Tool for REC 4740 Student Presentation

Highly Competent Competent Minimally Competent Not Competent

Organization(8 points)

Arrangement of ideas clearly related to topic; well organized; exceeding presentation requirements; good transitions; introduction includes attention-getter, statement of thesis, credibility information; conclusion includes summary and closure.

Conveyed a central idea or topic; most information presented in logical structure; adequate introduction, body, conclusion; adequate transitions. All of the presentation requirements met.

Attempted to focus on an idea or topic; ideas were loosely connected to topic; structure unclear; introduction, body, conclusion detectable but not comprehensive; transitions unclear. Most of the presentation requirements met.

Had little or no focus on central idea or topic; no apparent logical structure; introduction, body, or conclusion absent; lacked transitions. Few of the presentation requirements met.

Language(1 points)

Appropriate standards of usage for situation and audience; consistently used varied sentence structure and word choice; evidence of precise and vivid language; unfamiliar terms defined.

Used some varied sentence structure and word choice; unfamiliar terms easily interpreted; adequate standards of usage employed.

Unfamiliar terms not easily interpreted; little varied sentence structure and word choice; minimal evidence of appropriate standards of usage.

Inadequate standards of usage; no varied sentence structure and word choice; unfamiliar terms not defined.

Material/Content(4 points)

Content highly specific, credible, relevant, sufficient, interesting; evidence supported topic; connection between support and main points is clear; content was appropriate to situation and audience; information source accurately cited.

Content adequately specific, credible, relevant, sufficient, interesting; lacked support for some points; partial audience adaptation of content; some information sources cited.

Content minimally specific, credible, relevant, sufficient, interesting; minimal support; few information sources cited; little audience adaptation of content.

Content not specific, credible, relevant, sufficient, interesting; ideas not supported; information sources not cited; lacks audience adaptation of content.

Analysis(4 points)

Presentation clearly adapted to the audience and situation; approach and structure highly consistent with overall purpose; strong evidence of critical thinking.

Some evidence of adaptation to the audience and situation; approach and structure consistent with overall purpose; some evidence of critical thinking.

Inconsistent adaptation to audience and situation; approach and structure inconsistent with overall purpose; inconsistent evidence of critical thinking.

Limited adaptation to audience and situation; approach and structure not appropriate for the overall purpose; lacks evidence of critical thinking.

Nonverbal Delivery(4 points)

Did not read from notes and/or audio visual materials; clearly engaged audience through consistent eye contact and gestures; responsive to audience reaction.

Referred occasionally to notes and/or audio visual materials; engaged audience through eye contact and gestures; aware of audience reaction.

Relied heavily on notes and/or audio visual materials; exhibited minimal awareness of audience; infrequent eye contact or gestures; some distracting mannerisms.

Read directly from notes and/or audio visual materials; exhibited little or no audience awareness, gestures, or eye contact; frequent, distracting mannerisms.

Verbal Delivery(4 points)

Voice varied in pitch, volume, rate, and emphasis; appropriate enthusiasm; free of fillers (ahs, uhms, ers); highly effective articulation and pronunciation.

Some variation in pitch, volume, rate, and emphasis; some fillers (ahs, uhms, ers); effective articulation and pronunciation.

Limited variation in pitch, volume, rate, and emphasis; some distracting fillers (ahs, uhms, ers); minimally effective articulation and pronunciation.

No variation in pitch, volume, rate, or emphasis; fillers (ahs, uhms, ers) detract from the presentation; lack of clear articulation.

Total (out of 25):

REC 4740: Research & Evaluation in Leisure ServicesResearch Project Evaluation Framework

Group Names: Highly Competent Competent Minimally Competent Not Competent

Focus(2 points)

Clear focus established and maintained; evidence of distinctive voice and/or appropriate tone

Consistent focus or purpose; evidence of voice and/or suitable tone

Some focus; evidence of attempt to communicate with an audience

Limited or no awareness of purpose and/or audience

Organization(2 points)

Careful organization that enhances presentation.

Logical organization. Some organization; lapses in focus and/or coherence

Random and/or weak organization

Content(2 points)

Clear command of content. An in-depth understanding of the key concepts

Adequate command of content. Key concepts are described

Basic understanding of content. Underdeveloped discussion of key concepts

Little or no understanding of content

Development(2 points)

Depth and complexity of ideas supported by rich, engaging, and/or pertinent details

Depth of idea development supported by developed, relevant details

Basic idea development; repetitious and/or underdeveloped details

Little or no idea development; few and/or unrelated details

Style(2 points)

Sophisticated and varied sentence structure and length that enhance effect; precise and/or rich language

Controlled and varied sentence structure; appropriate, effective language

Correct sentence structure that is simplistic and/or awkward at times; simplistic and occasionally imprecise language

Incorrect and/or ineffective sentence structure; incorrect and/or ineffective syntax and diction

Mechanics(2 points)

Virtually no errors in mechanics

Few errors in mechanics relative to length and complexity

Some errors in mechanics, but not enough to interfere with communication

Errors in mechanics that are disproportionate to length and complexity and interfere with communication

Preliminary Pages/Appendices( 3 points)

Well developed title page, table of contents & research instrument (if applicable)

title page, table of contents, & research instrument included (if applicable)

Preliminary pages do not include title page, table of contents, and/or research instrument (if applicable)

No preliminary pages and appendices present

Ch. 1: Introduction(7 points)

Sophisticated introduction leading to research question. Complete list of definitions and limitations

Adequate introduction leading to developed research question. Definitions and limitation sections complete with few errors

Introduction included. Appropriate research question with few errors. Incomplete list of definitions and/or limitations

Incomplete introduction that is disjointed from the scope of the project. Errors present in research question, definitions, and limitations

Ch. 2: Lit. Review(7 points)

Detailed and thorough review of literature relating to research question/topic. Literature presented in alphabetical order.

Adequate review of literature relating to research question/topic with few errors. Literature presented in alphabetical order.

Review of literature relating to research question/topic incomplete and/or contains several errors.

Review of literature relating to research question/topic incomplete and/or contains several errors. Literature not presented in alphabetical order.

Ch. 3: Methods(7 points)

Complete sophisticated methodology including a detailed description of the study’s population, sample, research design, instrument and data collection procedures.

Adequate methodology including a description of the study’s population, sample, research design, instrument and data collection procedures with few errors.

Methodology incomplete but does not interfere with identifying the primary components of the study’s population, sample, research design, instrument and data collection procedures.

Methodology inconsistent with several errors. Study population, sample, research design, and/or instrumentation/data collection not identified

Chapter 4: Results (7 points)

Detailed and thorough review of the results relating to research question/topic. Results organized in a logical order.

Adequate review of the results related to research question/topic with few errors. Results organized in a logical order.

Review of the results related to research question/topic incomplete and/or contains several errors.

Review of the results related to research question/topic incomplete and/or contains several errors. Results not organized in logical order.

Chapter 5: Conclusion (7 points)

Sophisticated conclusion highlighting main findings and suggestions for implementation. Complete review of findings and recommendations.

Adequate conclusion highlighting most of the main findings and suggestions for implementation. Complete review of findings and recommendations with few errors

Conclusion included. Appropriate summary of some of the main findings with few errors.

Incomplete conclusion that is disjointed from the scope of the project. Errors present in summaries and implementation strategies.

Total (out of 50):

Date evaluated:___Course:___REC 4830________________Assignment:__Ethical Analysis______________Instructor:___Higelmire______________Student:___________________

CRITICAL THINKING ASSESSMENT RUBRIC

Criteria Absent 0 Proficient 1 Advanced 2

Student expresses theoretical frameworks with precision and clarity.

Does not identify theories.

Theories are expressed with some precision and clarity

Theories are concrete and specific.

Student Applies relevant questions in order to draw a conclusion.

Conclusions are unsupported

Relevance is unclear; incomplete questions.

Conclusions are supported by relevant questions.

Criteria Developing 1 Proficient 2 Advanced 3

Student synthesizes evidence in order to draw a conclusion.

Evidence is disconnected from conclusion

Relationships among points of evidence are unclear.

Evidence is combined into logical relationships.

Student differentiates his or her knowledge and thought processes from other sources.

No boundaries present.

Boundaries are unclear on points.

Boundaries are clearly understood.

Total:______/10_

Date evaluated:______________

Course:____________________Assignment:________________Instructor:__________________Student:___________________

Job Description Assignment


Student identifies title of position that matches job description.

Does not provide title. Title is provided but does not match job description

Title provided matches job description

Student expresses a clear general definition of the job and its overall scope of responsibility.

Does not provide general definition of position

General definition is present but does not cover scope of position

General definition is present and covers the scope of the position

Student details the supervision the position receives and exercises.

Does not provide supervision statements

Supervision only identifies either receiving or exercising for position

Supervision identifies both receiving and exercising for position

Student provides broad job segments and describes the specific functions in each segment

Does not identify job functions

Job segments are identified but not described specifically or specifics are provided but not grouped to a segment

Job segments are identified and specifics are provided

Student includes conditions the employee is required to work under

Working conditions are not provided

Working conditions do not reflect those of position

Working conditions accurately describe conditions of position

Student identifies minimal qualifications necessary, both required and desired.

Does not provide qualifications for position

Identifies qualifications but does not indicate if required

Identifies qualifications and indicates if required

Student indicates compensation and benefits for position

Compensation and benefits are not identified

Information regarding compensation or benefits associated with position is missing

Both compensation and benefits associated with position are listed

Student identifies specific attributes need to fulfill essential job functions in SKA format.

Competencies are not indicated

Competencies are identified but not in SKA format

Competencies are identified in SKA format

Job description is organized and structured

Does not organize material into major categories; little or no focus

Frequently does not organize material, no use of headings, structure is unsophisticated

Clear consistent organization, effective structure, use of headings

Mechanics

Makes frequent grammar, punctuation, or spelling errors; these are distracting

Makes occasional grammar, punctuation, or spelling errors

Virtually no grammar, punctuation, or spelling errors

Total:_________/20

Date evaluated:___ ___________Course:____REC 4830________________Assignment:__Risk Evaluation______________Instructor:__Higelmire________________Student:___________________

Vision, Mission, Values and Goals, and Objectives Assignment


Student expresses vision statement with precision and clarity. Does not identify vision.

Vision is unclear, incomplete

Vision provides ideal look at the future

Student expresses a clear statement of organizations purpose.

Does not identify mission

Mission is not developed or is inappropriate.

Concise statement of what the organization does.

Criteria Developing 1 Proficient 2 Advanced 3

Student fully develops broad goal statements with objectives written in a "SMART" format.

Goals are unclear and inappropriate

Goals are broad statements but objectives lack "SMART" format

Goals are broad and objectives are in "SMART" format

Student expresses principles, qualities, and beliefs regarding and organization. No values present.

Values are stated but not appropriate for organization

Values are acceptable and appropriate for organization

Total:______/10

Date evaluated:___Course:_REC 4830__________________

Assignment:__Risk Evaluation_____________Instructor:_Higelmire_________________Student:___________________

Risk Evaluation Assignment

Criteria Absent 0 Proficient 1-3 Advanced 4-5

Student develops rating scale for checklist

Does not develop rating scale.

Rating scale developed is not appropriate for all items found on evaluation tool

Rating scale is appropriate for all items found on the evaluation tool

Student evaluates all appropriate areas for chosen activity

Does not evaluate appropriate areas for chosen activity

Areas are reviewed for potential hazards but potential harm is not noted

All areas are reviewed for potential hazards and their potential for harm is noted

Student summarizes each area evaluated

Does not summarize each area

Summaries are found for each area evaluated but lack detail and support by evidence

Summaries are found for each area evaluated that are detailed and supported by evidence

Student identifies potential risks

Does not identify potential risks

Risks are identified but without importance and/or rational

Risks are listed in importance order with rational provided

Student provides treatment option for each identified risk

Does not provide treatment option for identified risks

Treatment option is provided but no rational for selection is given

Treatment option with rational for selection is provided for each identified risk

Total: /25

Assessment Tool for REC 4830 Student Presentation

Highly Competent4 POINTS

Competent3 POINTS

Minimally Competent2 POINTS

Not Competent1 POINT

Organization Arrangement of ideas clearly related to topic; well organized; exceeding presentation requirements; good transitions; introduction includes attention-getter, statement of thesis, credibility information; conclusion includes summary and closure.

Conveyed a central idea or topic; most information presented in logical structure; adequate introduction, body, conclusion; adequate transitions. All of the presentation requirements met.

Attempted to focus on an idea or topic; ideas were loosely connected to topic; structure unclear; introduction, body, conclusion detectable but not comprehensive; transitions unclear. Most of the presentation requirements met.

Had little or no focus on central idea or topic; no apparent logical structure; introduction, body, or conclusion absent; lacked transitions. Few of the presentation requirements met.

Language Appropriate standards of usage for situation and audience; consistently used varied sentence structure and word choice; evidence of precise and vivid language; unfamiliar terms defined.

Used some varied sentence structure and word choice; unfamiliar terms easily interpreted; adequate standards of usage employed.

Unfamiliar terms not easily interpreted; little varied sentence structure and word choice; minimal evidence of appropriate standards of usage.

Inadequate standards of usage; no varied sentence structure and word choice; unfamiliar terms not defined.

Material/Content

Content highly specific, credible, relevant, sufficient, interesting; evidence supported topic; connection between support and main points is clear; content was appropriate to situation and audience; information source accurately cited.

Content adequately specific, credible, relevant, sufficient, interesting; lacked support for some points; partial audience adaptation of content; some information sources cited.

Content minimally specific, credible, relevant, sufficient, interesting; minimal support; few information sources cited; little audience adaptation of content.

Content not specific, credible, relevant, sufficient, interesting; ideas not supported; information sources not cited; lacks audience adaptation of content.

Analysis Presentation clearly adapted to the audience and situation; approach and structure highly consistent with overall purpose; strong evidence of critical thinking.

Some evidence of adaptation to the audience and situation; approach and structure consistent with overall purpose; some evidence of critical thinking.

Inconsistent adaptation to audience and situation; approach and structure inconsistent with overall purpose; inconsistent evidence of critical thinking.

Limited adaptation to audience and situation; approach and structure not appropriate for the overall purpose; lacks evidence of critical thinking.

Nonverbal Delivery

Did not read from notes and/or audio visual materials; clearly engaged audience through consistent eye contact and gestures; responsive to audience reaction.

Referred occasionally to notes and/or audio visual materials; engaged audience through eye contact and gestures; aware of audience reaction.

Relied heavily on notes and/or audio visual materials; exhibited minimal awareness of audience; infrequent eye contact or gestures; some distracting mannerisms.

Read directly from notes and/or audio visual materials; exhibited little or no audience awareness, gestures, or eye contact; frequent, distracting mannerisms.

Verbal Delivery Voice varied in pitch, volume, rate, and emphasis; appropriate enthusiasm; free of fillers (ahs, uhms, ers); highly effective articulation and pronunciation.

Some variation in pitch, volume, rate, and emphasis; some fillers (ahs, uhms, ers); effective articulation and pronunciation.

Limited variation in pitch, volume, rate, and emphasis; some distracting fillers (ahs, uhms, ers); minimally effective articulation and pronunciation.

No variation in pitch, volume, rate, or emphasis; fillers (ahs, uhms, ers) detract from the presentation; lack of clear articulation.

Oral /24 Writin /35 Turnitin /11 Total /70

REC 4850: Object Classification Budget Assignment Evaluation Form

Student Name(s): 1 Numerical Coding, Name Classification, & Definitions

0 points: None created1-4 points: Numerical coding, name classifications and/or definitions missing with several errors and/or missing information.5-8 points: Numerical coding, name classifications and/or definitions established but the information is not thorough or complete. Portions of the (6) Agency functions, (4) Organizational units for the Parks and Recreation Agency function, (26) programs, (16) revenue and (36) objects of expenditure are missing or incomplete.9-10 points: Numerical coding, name classifications and/or definitions established providing thorough information with good overview of ALL of the (6) Agency functions, (4) Organizational units for the Parks and Recreation Agency function, (26) programs, (16) revenue and (36) objects of expenditure.

2 Budget Section0 points: No description; none created.1-4 points: A line item budget has been created but not thorough and/or incomplete; coding is not consistent with established numerical coding and classifications.5-8 points: A line item budget has been created but provided is not thorough or complete (i.e., missing portions of the previous year, current year, and proposed year (i.e., next fiscal year) and/or at least (15) expenditures and (4) revenues).9-10 points: A line item budget has been created providing thorough information about the previous year, current year, and proposed year (i.e., next fiscal year) and/or at least (15) expenditures and (4) revenues). fundraising project.

3 Grammar/Professional Quality0 points: Errors in mechanics, incorrect sentence structure, and/or ineffective syntax and diction that interferes with communication and flow of budget. Several excel formatting issues exist.1-2 points: Some errors in mechanics, but not enough to interfere with communication; simplistic excel formatting employed.3-4 points: Few errors in mechanics with sound excel formatting employed.5 points: Virtually no errors in mechanics; sophisticated and varied excel formatting employed.

8 TOTAL SCORE (out of 25)Other comments:

REC 4850: Fundraising Proposal Evaluation Form

Student Name(s): 1 Executive Summary

0 points: No description1-3 points: A description but not thorough; grammatical errors4-5 points: A narrative description but the information is not thorough or complete6-7 points: A narrative description providing thorough information with good overview of contents of proposal

2 Overview Section0 points: No description;1-3 points: A narrative description but not thorough and/or incomplete; grammatical errors4-5 points: A narrative description provided but the information provided is not thorough or complete6-7 points: A narrative description providing thorough information about the fundraising project.

3 Fundraising Process Section0 points: No information provided1-3 points: Only a discussion about the type of fundraising campaign, but not thorough or complete. Identification of the types of gifts missing.4-5 points: The discussion identifies the type of fundraising campaign and types of gifts, but it is not thorough or complete6-7 points: A thorough discussion about the type of fundraising campaign and types of gifts

4 Goal Setting Section0 points: No description; no figure1-3 points: Only a narrative description but not thorough or only an incomplete figure presented; grammatical errors4-5 points: Only a narrative description and/or a figure are provided but the information provided is not thorough or complete6-7 points: A narrative description and a figure provide thorough information with good information for the goal setting process.

5 Fundraising Sources/Strategies Section0 points: No information provided1-3 points: Only a brief overview of the major fundraising sources or a summary of general fundraising sources, but pyramid and description is missing; grammatical errors4-5 points: The discussion relates to the major fundraising sources and a summary of general fundraising sources provided, but pyramid and/or description is missing or incomplete6-7 points: A thorough discussion of the major fundraising sources and a summary of general fundraising sources provided; pyramid and description also provided with good description of the process.

6 Timeline Section0 points: No information provided1-4 points: The information provided is not thorough5-7 points: A thorough discussion with good insight into timeline and steps involved.

7 Grammar/Professional Quality0 points: Errors in mechanics, incorrect sentence structure, and/or ineffective syntax and diction that interferes with communication and flow of report1-4 points: Some errors in mechanics, but not enough to interfere with communication; simplistic sentence structure5-6 points: Few errors in mechanics with controlled and varied sentence structure7-8 points: Virtually no errors in mechanics; sophisticated and varied sentence structure that enhance report’s presentation

8 TOTAL SCORE

Other comments:

REC 4275: Internship Site Supervisor Dispositional Items Evaluation (Online)

REC 4275: Internship Site Supervisor Professional Aptitude in Recreation Field Items Evaluation (online)

APPENDIX B: DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION ADMINISTRATION ONLINE ASSESSMENT DASHBOARD (IMAGES OF SITE AS SITE IS PASSWORD PROTECTED)

APPENDIX C: 2014-2015 DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION ADMINISTRATION ASSESSMENT CALENDAR (PROPOSED)

2014-2015 Department of Recreation Administration Assessment Calendar: Proposal

January 2014: Fully implement recently developed student exit survey

January – February 2014: Review & revise departmental learning objectives

August 2014 – September 2014: NRPA Accreditation Report draft completed and reviewed by department

September 2014 – October 2014: Critical thinking discussion - problem identification & strategy development

September – November 2014: Continued discussion of indirect measures of student learning (CTRS/CPRP exam data, exit survey, & student portfolio assessment)

October 2014- November 2014: Written communication discussion - problem identification & strategy development

November 2014: NRPA Accreditation Report submitted to COARPT

January 15, 2015: Fall assessment data due to Assessment Chair

January 2015: Review fall 2014 assessment data

January 2015 – February 2015: Discussion of student dispositional issues – problem identification & strategy development

March 2015 – April 2015: Discussion of “group work” projects – review current practices and formulate plan

April 2015: NRPA’s COARPT Accreditation Review Team visit to EIU

May 20, 2015: Spring assessment data due to Assessment Chair

May/June 2015: Review spring 2015 assessment data & formalize plan for 2015-2016

academic year

assess/rec assessment report 2014.d… · web vie

Documents