University of La VerneUndergraduate Child Development Program

Biennial Report

I. Contextual InformationGeneral information to help reviewers understand the program, the context in which it operates including the number candidates and completers or graduates, and what has changed significantly since the Commission approved the current program document.

The University of La Verne Undergraduate Child Development Program has been offered on the main campus since 1971 and at regional campuses since 2001. Main campus students are comprised of traditional-aged students (ages 18-23) and returning adult students (through the Campus Accelerated Program for Adults, CAPA). With few exceptions, regional campus students are employed full-time in the field of early childhood education and have completed a minimum number of general education and child development units at a community college. Main campus students enroll in 16-week semesters, whereas, regional campus students enroll in 10-week terms. However, course content, program policies, and guidelines are consistent for all students, regardless of where the program is delivered.

It is the mission of the undergraduate Child Development program at the University of La Verne to deliver a high quality degree program at the central and regional campuses. The Child Development program leads thefield in educating students in the dynamic integration of theory, research and practice in early education. Faculty and students are committed to the following core concepts as the basis of excellence in the field of Child Development:

• Caring relationships are the foundation of healthy human development.• Lifelong learning is the cornerstone of excellence in teaching.• Celebrating diversity enriches and strengthens individuals, families, and

communities.

The undergraduate Child Development program is aligned with the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Standards for Early Childhood Professional Preparation Programs (revised, 2009). Through a crosswalk of NAEYC standards and course goals and objectives, courses were redesigned in 2006 (and again in 2010 after the revised standards came out) to ensure that all standards are met through the coursework in the program. Each course syllabus details which NAEYC standards are met and students participate in reflection activities related to the standards covered in the course.

The themes of diversity and developmentally appropriate practices are interwoven into each course. Course content falls primarily into five categories, though the interdisciplinary nature of the field of child development necessitates that there is cross-over between categories:

• Content/theory: Educ 253, Educ 350, Educ 451, Educ 452• Curriculum: Educ 251, Educ 448, Educ 449• Practicum: Educ 354A, Educ 454F• Administration/Supervision: Educ 445, Educ 453A, Educ 453B• Skills: Educ 352, Educ 354B, Educ 499, SpEd 455

Students move through the undergraduate Child Development Program in a pre-determined sequence in the regional campus program; however CAPA and traditional-aged students may take courses in a slightly different order based on course availability on campus. All students are required to meet the following admission requirements:

A GPA of 2.5 or more in college coursework Clear fingerprints Interview with Child Development faculty Assessment of writing ability

Additionally, all students are required to meet the following prerequisites:

• 2nd semester course of college writing (or equivalent)• Educ 251 (or equivalent curriculum course)• Educ 253 (or equivalent Child, Family, and Community course)

While main campus students do not have a minimum number of units to complete beyond those state above, regional campus students must complete a minimum of 28 units before transferring into the undergraduate Child Development Program. The difference in admission unit requirement is based on availability of general education and upper division courses at the regional campuses.

All undergraduate Child Development students complete the following courses (or their equivalents) for a total of 50-52 units in the major:

EDUC 251 - Curriculum Development for Early Childhood EducationOverview of types of curricula and various techniques used to develop and implement programs for young children.

EDUC 252 - Early Childhood EnvironmentsExamines relationships of growing child to family, school, community, and society by studying culture, support groups, safety, family structure, and social policy.

EDUC 350 - Child Psychology and DevelopmentPhysical, cognitive, social, and emotional development of the child from conception through adolescence.

EDUC 352 - Writing for Child DevelopmentStudents will improve writing skills, use APA writing style, and write summaries of empirical research in order to understand the processes and uses of research in Child Development.

EDUC 354A - Child Observation PracticumPractical experience for the child development student, including observing and participating in an environment that serves young children. Requires 80 hours of observation.

EDUC 354B - Assessment in Early Childhood Aligning with NAEYC's Standards for Programs, this course covers a broad range of early childhood assessments, culturally, linguistically and ethically responsible practices, and the role assessment plays in influencing sound decisions about children, teaching and program improvement. Includes 10 hours of fieldwork.

EDUC 445 - Supervision and Communication in Early Childhood EducationExamines supervision and communication on an experiential basis. Includes supervising techniques, skill development, communications, leadership, and ethics in early childhood programs.

EDUC 448 - Math for Young ChildrenTeaches math curriculum for children ages 3 to 8. Students will explore math phobia, and improve their own math skills. Can be taken for letter grade only. 15 hours of fieldwork required.

EDUC 449 - Early Childhood LiteracyThis course provides students with the opportunity to explore the emergent literacy process. The course outlines the research-based principles and practices of providing children from birth to age 8 a strong foundation of language and literacy within a developmentally appropriate approach. Incorporates strategies for young children to practice language, reading, and writing development.

EDUC 451 - Infant and Toddler Group Care and CurriculumReviews history and current methods of infant and toddler group care through interactive learning experiences. Fulfills education requirements of California Infant Regulations for childcare providers and administrators.

EDUC 452 - Parenting for Early Childhood EducatorsDescribes psychological theory behind parenting approaches. Analyzes cross-cultural parenting styles, single parenting, step parenting, and other current issues. For parent educators.

EDUC 453A - Supervision and Administration of Programs for Young ChildrenAssists the administrator of programs for young children in the organization, administration, and evaluation of programs currently in operation.

EDUC 453B - Advanced Supervision and Administration of Programs for Young ChildrenReviews local and state regulations pertaining to supervision of programs for young children, both private and public, and presents federal regulations. Covers budget and center management, and grant writing.

EDUC 454F - Early Childhood TeachingStudent teaching experience. Includes curriculum planning and presentation, and classroom management. Requires 180 practicum hours.

EDUC 499 - Senior ProjectCulminating activity required by majors in all departments. Papers/theses/projects researched, prepared, and written under the guidance of a faculty member.

SPED 455 - Introduction to Early Childhood Special Education: Policies & PracticesCurrent practices and procedures in early childhood special education, birth through 8 years of age.

Academic Year

Students in Program Program CompletersMain Campus RCA Main Campus RCA

2008/2009 29 179 18 1122009/2010 39 135 15 177

II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information

a) What are the primary candidate assessment(s) the program uses up to and through recommending the candidate for a credential?

There are 4 transition points throughout the Child Development undergraduate program:

Transition Point 1: Admission to the Program• 2.5 grade point average• writing sample• interview• clear fingerprints

Transition Point 2: Assessment of Knowledge and Readiness for Fieldwork Developmental Knowledge Exam Supervisor Evaluation

Transition Point 3: Assessment of Growth Over Time Portfolio Development and Final Evaluation of Teaching Performance

Transition Point 4: Assessment of Program Upon Graduation

End-of-Program Survey

UNDERGRADUATE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM KEY ASSESSMENTS

KeyAssessments

Description EvaluationTool

Knowledge 1) Developmental Knowledge ExamEvidence of preparation of candidates’ understanding of the most important concepts in child psychology and development. Passing the DKE with a score of 70% or better indicates that a candidate possesses the knowledge necessary to complete upper-division coursework at the University of La Verne. The exam consists of multiple choice and essay questions.

2) Supervisor EvaluationEvidence of candidates’ readiness to apply their knowledge of child development and developmentally appropriate practices to their work with young children. Candidates are observed and evaluated by an overseeing supervisor within their organization, or a faculty member within the Child Development Department, who assesses candidates’ interactions and dispositions towards children and adults. Evaluation of candidates’ organizational skills is included in the evaluation.

1) Developmental Knowledge Exam

2) Supervisor Evaluation

Use of Assessment

Evidence of preparation of candidates’ understanding and application of a broad range of early childhood assessments including questions about quality of tests and research literature from test source and outside sources. Understanding of the role that assessment plays in influencing sound decisions about children and teaching. Utilizing APA guidelines for Poster Sessions, candidates prepare a 15-minute presentation on a screening or assessment tool.

Assessment Presentation

Planning Evidence of its preparation of candidates to serve as curriculum instructors for young children. Candidates plan, implement, and present a developmentally appropriate (as identified in Developmentally Appropriate Practices) lesson that meets the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) teaching expectations identified for Pre-K through 2nd grade. Additionally, candidates self-assess their implementation of the planned lesson.

Math Lesson Plan and Implementation

Diversity Evidence of preparation of candidates to function effectively in diverse early childhood environments. Candidates interview a family with children under the age of 18 still living in the home and who are of a culture different from their own. A prepared list of questions covering cultural attitudes and practices is taken to the interview; however the family members are

encouraged to share their specific cultural parenting practices in their own way. The candidate also spends unstructured time with the family to observe

Ethnography Interview and Research Paper

cultural norms and practices. Candidates complete research on the cultural background of their chosen family and integrate knowledge of culture with their observations and results of the interview to write a comprehensive ethnography.

Technology Evidence of preparation of candidates to create a PowerPoint demonstrating effective technology skills. The PowerPoint presentation includes basic elements as well as at least one advanced element (picture, video, audio, etc.). The PowerPoint must also include proper APA citations for all quotes and multimedia effects. The candidate is expected to practice effective oral communication skills while showing the PowerPoint presentation.

PowerPoint Presentation

Upon Graduation The End-of-Program Survey asks students for basic demographic information, employer information, and program effectiveness information.

End-of-Program Survey

b) What additional information about candidate and program completer performance or program effectiveness is collected and analyzed that informs programmatic decision making?

Additional candidate performance indicators include:

• Evaluation of dispositions • Portfolio evaluation• Exit surveys

Additional program effectiveness indicators include:

• Yearly advisory committee meetings• Course specialists• Tri-annual adjunct support meetings

Table 1: Summary of Transition Point 1: Admission Data (For students active from Fall 2007 to Spring 2010)

Main Campus & RCA Combined

Average of GPA

Count of GPA

Average of Writing Score

Count of Writing Score

Average of Interview

Score

Count of Interview

Score

2007-2008 3.09 70.00 2.92 66.00 3.18 66.002008-2009 3.12 107.00 3.17 97.00 3.27 104.002009-2010 3.06 75.00 3.15 58.00 3.29 60.00

*yellow highlights represent statistically significant differences

Average of GPA

Count of GPA

Average of Writing Score

Count of Writing Score

Average of Interview

Score

Count of Interview

ScoreMain Campus            

2007-2008 3.29 20.00 3.09 17.00 3.50 17.002008-2009 3.28 45.00 3.25 34.00 3.50 42.002009-2010 3.16 28.00 3.37 16.00 3.46 26.00

RCA            2007-2008 3.00 50.00 2.87 49.00 3.06 49.002008-2009 3.01 62.00 3.12 63.00 3.12 62.002009-2010 3.01 47.00 3.06 42.00 3.16 34.00

yellow highlights represent statistically significant differences

Table 2: Summary of Key Assessments and Associated Course Grades (For courses completed from Fall 2008 to Spring 2010)

Key Assessment 1 (Knowledge)

Main Campus & RCA Combined

Average of Grade

352*

Count of

Grade 352*

Average of Supervisor

Evaluations*

Count of Supervisor

Evaluations*

Average of Grade

350

Count of

Grade 350

Average of Knowledge

Key Assessment

Count of Knowledge

Key Assessment

Average of Knowledge

Key Assessment

- non passing

Attempts

Count of Knowledge

Key Assessment

- non passing

Attempts2007-2008 3.07 69.00 3.35 27.00 2.99 97.00 76.29 28.00 55.30 10.002008-2009 3.35 84.00 3.51 23.00 3.32 84.00 82.13 39.00 52.80 5.002009-2010 2.92 62.00 3.40 18.00 3.02 71.00 79.37 38.00 55.75 8.00

 

Average of Grade

352*

Count of

Grade 352*

Average of Supervisor

Evaluations*

Count of Supervisor

Evaluations*

Average of Grade

350

Count of

Grade 350

Average of Knowledge

Key Assessment

Count of Knowledge

Key Assessment

Average of Knowledge

Key Assessment

- non passing

Attempts

Count of Knowledge

Key Assessment

- non passing

AttemptsMain                    2007-2008 3.24 10.00 4.00 1.00 3.19 18.00 77.00 5.00 64.00 1.002008-2009 3.06 16.00     2.88 10.00 74.67 3.00 49.00 2.002009-2010 2.86 9.00     3.24 17.00 75.50 2.00 68.00 1.00RCA                    2007-2008 3.05 59.00 3.33 26.00 2.94 79.00 76.13 23.00 54.33 9.002008-2009 3.41 68.00 3.51 23.00 3.37 74.00 82.75 36.00 55.33 3.002009-2010 2.93 53.00 3.40 18.00 2.94 54.00 79.58 36.00 54.00 7.00

yellow highlights represent statistically significant differences*Data is based on year of admission versus year the course was completed

Table 2 (Cont) Key Assessment 2 (Planning)Main Campus & RCA Combined

Average of Grade 448

Count of Grade 448

Average of Planning Key Assessment

Count of Planning Key Assessment

2007-2008 3.33 86.00    2008-2009 3.36 86.00 2.96 14.002009-2010 3.57 72.00 3.63 55.00

 Average of Grade 448

Count of Grade 448

Average of Planning Key Assessment

Count of Planning Key Assessment

Main        2007-2008 2.91 20.00    2008-2009 3.14 5.00 2.86 5.002009-2010 3.95 13.00 3.90 13.00RCA        2007-2008 3.45 66.00    2008-2009 3.37 81.00 3.02 9.002009-2010 3.49 59.00 3.55 42.00

yellow highlights represent statistically significant differences

Table 2 (Cont) Key Assessment 3 (Assessment)Main Campus & RCA Combined

Average of Grade 354B

Count of Grade 354B

Average of Assessment Key Assessment

Count of Assessment Key Assessment

2007-2008 3.11 51.00    2008-2009 3.69 57.00    2009-2010 3.45 67.00 3.45 43.00

 Average of Grade 354B

Count of Grade 354B

Average of Assessment Key Assessment

Count of Assessment Key Assessment

Main        2007-2008 3.51 9.00    2008-2009 3.53 14.00    2009-2010 3.34 17.00 3.28 12.00RCA        2007-2008 3.02 42.00    2008-2009 3.75 43.00    2009-2010 3.49 50.00 3.52 31.00

Table 2 (Cont) Key Assessment 4 (Diversity) & Key Assessment 5 (Technology)

Main Campus & RCA Combined

Average of Grade

452

Count of Grade 452

Average of Diversity Key Assessment - Ethnography

Count of Diversity Key Assessment - Ethnography

Average of Technology Key

Assessment - PowerPoint

Count of Technology

Key Assessment

- PowerPoint

2007-2008 3.40 97.00        2008-2009 3.50 100.00 3.45 15.00 3.68 15.002009-2010 3.37 45.00 3.22 33.00 3.55 26.00

 

Average of Grade

452

Count of Grade 452

Average of Diversity Key Assessment - Ethnography

Count of Diversity Key Assessment - Ethnography

Average of Technology Key

Assessment - PowerPoint

Count of Technology

Key Assessment

- PowerPoint

Main            2007-2008 2.93 12.00        2008-2009 3.14 10.00 3.41 9.00 3.75 9.002009-2010 3.26 9.00 3.40 9.00 3.43 7.00RCA            

2007-2008 3.47 85.00        2008-2009 3.54 90.00 3.50 6.00 3.58 6.002009-2010 3.40 36.00 3.15 24.00 3.59 19.00

Table 3: Child Development B.S. Correlation Table – Main Campus (Data inclusive of 2007-2008 through 2009-2010); Pearson r

  Writing Score

Grade 352

Interview Score

Knowledge Key

Assessment

Knowledge Key

Assessment - non

passing Attempts

Supervisor Evaluations

Grade 448

Planning Key

Assessment

Grade 354B

Assessment Key

Assessment

Grade 452

Diversity Key Assessment - Ethnography

Technology Key

Assessment - PowerPoint

GPA 0.459 0.375 0.357 0.544 0.109 -0.980 -0.015 0.086 0.215 0.303 0.031 -0.069 -0.260 Writing Score 0.554 0.634 0.685 -0.094 0.064 0.294 -0.088 0.520 0.400 0.475 0.349 0.324

 Grade 352 0.206 0.557 0.168 0.993 -0.083 -0.274 0.268 0.388 0.432 0.590 0.168

  Interview Score 0.128 0.131 1.000 0.172 -0.533 0.312 -0.342 0.704 0.645 0.569

   Grade 350 -0.082 0.974 #DIV/0! 0.653 -0.321 0.474 0.844 0.716 -0.080 0.340

     

 Knowledge Key Assessment #DIV/0! #DIV/0! -0.024 0.123 0.494 1.000 0.539 0.582 0.321

        Supervisor Evaluations

#DIV/0! -0.731 1.000 #DIV/0! 1.000 0.982 1.000

          Grade 448 0.902 0.549 #DIV/0! 0.812 -0.130 -0.017

           

 Planning Key Assessment 0.249 1.000 0.082 -0.029 -0.084

              Grade 354B 0.673 0.479 0.621 0.227

               

 Assessment Key Assessment -1.000 1.000 #DIV/0!

                  Grade 452 0.634 0.791

                   

 Diversity Key Assessment - Ethnography 0.584

yellow highlights represent moderate to high correlation values

Table 4: Child Development B.S. Correlation Table – RCA (Data inclusive of 2007-2008 through 2009-2010); Pearson r

  Interview Score

Grade 350

Knowledge Key

Assessment - non passing

Attempts

Grade 448

Planning Key

Assessment

Grade 354B

Assessment Key

Assessment

Grade 452

Diversity Key Assessment - Ethnography

Diversity Key Assessment - PowerPoint

Writing Score 0.501 0.305 -0.191 0.170 0.335 0.266 0.489 0.256 0.343 0.096

Grade 352 0.253 0.695 -0.066 0.378 0.425 0.442 0.370 0.535 0.697 0.115Grade 350   0.052 0.415 0.016 0.559 0.593 0.371 0.772 0.469Knowledge

Key Assessment   0.469 0.377 0.439 0.342 0.582 0.116 0.242 -0.131Knowledge

Key Assessment

- non passing

Attempts       -0.314 -0.473 0.338 0.655 -0.226 0.219 -0.711Grade 448         0.831 0.358 -0.061 0.339 0.578 -0.440Planning

Key Assessment         0.315 -0.231 0.523 0.218 -0.367Grade 354B           0.774 0.374 0.749 0.007Grade 452               0.681 0.450yellow highlights represent moderate to high correlation values

Table 5: Child Development B.S. End of Program Survey Results (Data inclusive of 2007-2008 through 2009-2010)

Child Development BS End of Program SurveyTo what degree do you believe that you can demonstrate the knowledge and/or skills learned through this program? Select the appropriate number: 4 = Maximum Degree 3 = Average Degree 2 = Minimum Degree 1 = Cannot Demonstrate I CAN DEMONSTRATE:

Answer OptionsCannot

Demonstrate (1)

Minimum Degree

(2)

Average Degree

(3)

Maximum Degree

(4)

Rating Average

Response Count

Knowledge of meeting the needs of young learners through knowledge of inter-relationships among family, child, community, child development

0 1 6 73 3.90 80

Knowledge of types of curricula and various techniques used to develop and implement programs for young children

0 0 13 65 3.83 78

Knowledge of Title V and Title 22 regulations, how to evaluate employers and programs, how to apply for grants

1 10 35 33 3.27 79

Knowledge of the role that early childhood assessments play in influencing sound decisions about children, teaching and program improvement

0 0 11 68 3.86 79

Knowledge of how to intentionally incorporate classroom strategies and curriculum to support young children’s math development

0 0 7 71 3.91 78

Knowledge of how to intentionally incorporate language and literacy curriculum and emergent literacy classroom strategies to support young children’s language, reading, and writing development

0 0 14 65 3.82 79

Knowledge of the physical, cognitive, social, and emotional development of the child from infancy

0 0 4 74 3.95 78

11

through early adolescenceKnowledge of working with children with special needs 0 3 29 45 3.55 77

Knowledge of working with families who have children with special needs 0 4 25 47 3.57 76

Knowledge of psychological theory behind parenting approaches 0 0 22 56 3.72 78

Knowledge of the history and current methods of infant and toddler group care 0 2 26 50 3.62 78

Knowledge of developmentally appropriate curriculum planning 0 0 5 73 3.94 78

Knowledge of developmentally appropriate curriculum implementation 0 0 3 76 3.96 79

answered question 83skipped question 2

Now we would like to rank how helpful the program has been in providing you with skills and confidence. Please use the following scale by circling your response: 4 = Extremely Helpful 3 = Somewhat Helpful 2 = Minimally Helpful 1 = Not Helpful

Answer OptionsNot

Helpful (1)

Minimally Helpful

(2)

Somewhat Helpful

(3)

Extremely Helpful

(4)

Rating Average

Response Count

Overall, this program has provided me with the skills and confidence to succeed in the field of Child Development.

0 1 7 68 3.88 76

Overall, this program has provided me with the skills and confidence to assume leadership role curriculum planning, staff development, and administrative assignments.

0 1 15 62 3.78 78

Overall, program fieldwork observation components provided me with practical application of course content material that will be utilized in my profession.

0 1 9 68 3.86 78

Overall, the program’s design around the NAEYC standards will be useful in advancing my career in this field.

0 3 9 66 3.81 78

answered question 79skipped question 6

Now we would like to rank the usefulness of the content of each course you took. Please use the following scale by circling your response: 4 = Very Helpful 3 = Helpful 2 = Not Helpful N/A = Not applicable – did not take course at ULV

Answer Options 1Not

Helpful (2)

Helpful (3)

Very Helpful

(4)N/A Rating

AverageResponse

Count

EDUC 251 - Curriculum Development for Early Childhood Educators 1 1 5 27 42 3.71 76

EDUC 253 - Child, Family & Community 1 1 5 25 45 3.69 77EDUC 453A - Supervision & Administration of Programs for Young Children 1 0 9 26 42 3.67 78

EDUC 350 - Child Psychology & Development 0 4 11 56 7 3.73 78

EDUC 352 - Writing for Child Development 1 9 18 37 13 3.40 78

EDUC 354A - Child Observation/Practicum 0 0 9 32 35 3.78 76

EDUC 354B - Assessment in Early Childhood 0 0 16 53 9 3.77 78EDUC 445 - Supervision & Communication in Early Childhood Ed. 1 1 6 40 30 3.77 78

EDUC 448 - Math for Young Children 0 0 3 68 6 3.96 77

EDUC 449 - Early Childhood Literacy 0 1 12 60 5 3.81 78

EDUC 451 - Infant/Toddler Group Care & Curriculum 1 0 6 19 50 3.65 76

12

EDUC 452 - Parenting for Early Childhood Educators 0 1 14 55 7 3.77 77EDUC 453B - Advanced Supervision & Administration of Programs for Young Children 1 2 9 36 29 3.67 77

EDUC 454F - Early Childhood Teaching 0 0 9 65 4 3.88 78SPED 457 - Introduction to Exceptional Individuals & their Families 0 1 9 44 22 3.80 76

EDUC 499 - Senior Project 0 3 16 56 3 3.71 78

answered question 79skipped question 6

Please tell us what strengths you found in your program:Answer Options Response Count  69

answered question 69skipped question 16

Response TextI like that teachers are always willing to help and are detailed when explaining a lecture or when students have questions.

The biggest strength was having the same classmate that bevame a support group for 2 years. We learned from eachothers presentations, cooperation and q&aThe program is research based. The instructors are knowledgable of theory and appropriate practices. The instructors are respectful of diverse views. ULV has gained a reputable reputation in the ECE field!The strengths of the program were the child development foundations such as theories and curriculum planning.The program had many strengths. One strength was the professors that were involved in the program. They were all passionate and extremely knowledgeable about child development. Another strength was the focus on developmentally appropriate practices. Each class brought this important topic into focus and made each student understand its importance.Math for Young Children, Statistics, Communication, Leadership, Advanced Administration were all outstanding courses & helped me immensely to further my career in C.D. Networking with other students already working in field. Invaluable!Math for young children, Communication and Leadership, Statistics, Adv Administration, ECE Teaching, Instructors from preschool field, Knowledge of theorists in CDOverall, it helped me in becoming a better teacher and allow me to have a better understanding in the development of young childeren, and Appropriate best practicies for young children.Some strengths that I found in my program were the ability to talk to our professors at any time we needed to. Another strength was the material we learned in class was very useful when working with the children and also in our student teaching class.All of the classes that were offered gave me a strong foundation to help and work with young children. I could not have completed my BA if the classes had not been offered at night. Most of the teachers were very knowledgeable and insightful.Availability of classes and time offeredWorking with the same classmates for two years and build a support groupI like how the program was done once or twice a week, and we stayed with the same group of students that was really nice.

Another strength was when you had a teacher in the field of ECE they really loved teaching at the University level and it really made a difference in the learning that took place in the classroom.Some knowledgable teachers - very encouragingI like the smaller class sizeLoved Gloria and Renne! I learned more from then then anyone else. Great teachers.Some really great Teachers. Gloria and Renne were the best!All professors are advocates or working in the child development field, for me I felt the professors knew more and taught well because it seemed out of passion and all wanted us to succeed.ProfessionalismI enjoyed the teachers and curriculum. The program allows you to be in a classroom a lot to observe and learn which really helped me see real life situation.having the same peers through out the programThe cluster we had was great all the students helped each other outthe teachers cared

13

I found the program to offer a variety of lessons, facts, knowledge in the field of Child Development. While some instructors seemed more informed then others, overall they got their points across. I feel I personally improved my writing skills, time management skills, and gained more confidence in myself and my knowledge of child development.that we were in the same group all the time. That the teachers came to us. The calss size and time.The convenience of having the same group of students and having the teachers come to us.The small group of students in the program, and the individual support provided from the instructors.Having an advisor

All classes held at the same locationI think having small classes with the same students help me finished the programThe strengths I found in this program was the Group activities we had in each class and the program related to the NAEYC CD Standards.They find ways to meet the need of all students to become professionals in the filed.Class size and teachers who are willing to help.HAving an advisor, having it at the same place, great program

Learned how to be more divers and respects family values and traditions of children and their families. I also learned how to plan curriculm for children appropriately. I aal so learned how to be an effective administrator and how to use effective communicatino skills. I also like how the program met only on saturdays.That the professors provided us with complete thorough information to succeedI have become more knowledgeable and confident in the field of earl childhood education.flexible schedule, ample opportunities of being in the field and practice skills learned in courses, and very knowledgeable teachers that demonstrated legitimate interest in helping us students attain the most of the course.I found that my instructors were the strength of the program. Professors with PHD's such as Maureen Aschoff and Steven Dierking were the most human, humble, down to earth people. A perfect pick to instruct us, they are people I will NEVER forget. They were by no means easy on us, the work had to get done and deadlines had to be met. They simply made the learning process a wonderful experience though we were burdened with the massive coursework load. There are also wonderful instructors who I learned so much from and admire such as, Liza Hardwell, Dorie Nuttall, Kim Matzanganian, and Holly Buckey. All of them very professional and respectable. These instructors made my higher education journey a true Joy. However there was one Instructor who made it a mission to be the total opposite of every one of these instructors I mentioned. She came across very military. A very cold, and distant person, who didn't show a human side. She was however very professional and I learned valuable leadership skills and management skills from her. And no, it wasn't that she was strict. Three of the professors mentioned earlier were extremelly "No change to the syllabus" driven, and didn't play when it came to deadlines, nor were they flexible, yet they projected a warm human side towards us.Most teachers were very helpful and understanding. Most of my instructors were very knowledgeable and provided me with excellent resources and skills.Small cohort groups, advisers on site, convenience location, and courses that tailored students' individual needs.better understand the development of childrenMost instructors were very understanding and and very knowledgable in the class they taught. Available and ready to be of help when needed.Most instructors were available and willing to help. Most were very understanding and knowledgable.I learned a lot of new information in the math class for young children. I enjoyed the teacher and I got a lot of new ideas.

The strength I found in the program was the way the instructors were helpful in most of my classes. I feel confident when given a child development topic, and feel like I have become a much better writer

So of the strengths that i found in my program were that some of the instructors were very helpful in meeting my needs. Also the camaraderie between my fellow classmates made it a successful program to complete.Most instructors were awesome! They were very understanding and knowledgable throughout the course.With the exception of one instructor and academic coordinator, The instructors' level of organization, student raport, and material presentation was excellent. All material was presented in a clear and understandable manner, the instructors were always open for assistance and my level of knowledge in the field has been enlightened to a level that will benefit my future. I see everything in a much more clear manner.The cohort was a strength because work with the same group of people and the teachers were great.The strenghths that I found were in the group. I found that being in a group really helped me and other encourage each otherI found the teachers to be very helpful and supportive througout the whole program.The strenghts I found were the professors. Each professor I have had a ULV have been very knowleadgeable in their area of expertise. They have all been profession and always willing to help me by offering help outside of classroom hours or to offer encouragement. A big strength of ULV is the smaller class sizes so there is more individual attention and the professors seem to really get to know the students.

14

1. Supportive teachers-willing to help students after class

2. Hands on Implementation of Lesson Plans

3. Seminars supporting Early Childhood ResearchI feel more confident writing papers for my job.the programs were very helpfulsupport, motivation, profesionalismI think the overall program has extraordinary professor to clarify the information that is presented.this program helped me to improve my job with children and familiesBecoming a professionalbecome a professional educator

The individual attention from the instructors, progressing through the program in a cluster group, and class size are the strengths that I found in this program. In addition, the instructors are very knowledgeable about the course content.I loved the way the program put us in our cohorts. I love being in a small group. I feel that it was a great learning experience. I grew as a learner. I grew as an educator. I grew as a person. The teachers were all great and very knowledgeable. I loved the program.becoming professional in the fieldworking with children from differernt background and working with special aid childrenThe strenghs I found was the communication between the instructors and the studentsI found that the program facilitated much of my learning style. Professors well knowledgeable in the field of early childhood education and they were always willing to provide support for our learning.become a professional educator.all teachers were very knowledgeable about the courses. the program as a whole is extensive in the information given.The way the classes were tied into NAEYC standards.

Please tell us what was not included in your program that should have been:Answer Options Response Count  62

answered question 62skipped question 23

Response TextThe only thing that I didn't like was when we did our student teaching and that is for the reson that I was expecting to learn from someone and we got a really bad school were teachers were actually learning from the students.Graduate with your credentials w/degreeI think we should have more classes geared towards SE or social work in ECE! More online and weekend classes.Brain development. The brain development of children directly correlates with every aspect of teaching and learning. See Chaffey's Child Development program for more info...Nothing. This program was amazing and I would not change a thing.Please, you need to hire instructors who live close to the class site. Some instructors arrived exhausted and told us they lived near ULV. Many qualified persons can teach these courses that lived near our school site. Easy to remedy. Or put the whole course online. Would solve many many problems. Still, it was an extraordinary education. But could have been superlative. Thanks for your consideration of these points.APA instruction, Safe Assign, instruction. Hire instructors who live near class site. Many arrive exhausted from living too far away. Many qualified and willing instructors live near our school site.One idea would be to have us visit several other preschools so that we could see other teaching techniques and strategies.I would have like to had grant writing which is no longer part of the program.Grant WritingNot being able to combine a credential program w/the BS or not recieving to much ino on Master programs

As I look at the classes that are being offered to other clusters of ECE students I wish we could have taken those classes. For example the Writing class for Child Develpment and I wish we would have had a different teacher for Child Psychology. The teacher we had did nothing for us. Which is unfortuate because this class is so important to the field of ECE.More meaningful projects I felt most of the assignments were busy workIt was hard to not have a teacher with daily office hours, or other amenities that a university campus should include

15

Working on portfolio requirements throughout the entire two years.This program needs to be more organized. The professors need to have or be told what is going to go on in a class before it starts! We have had so many changes through out classes it is been a nightmare!This program needs to be more organized. The professors need to have or be told what is going to go on in a class before it starts! We have had so many changes through out classes it is been a nightmare!A little more organization in structure of class, such as new agendas for the professors would help for the next classes.I was please with all that was includedGrant writingnot combining credentials w/ BS. and more info on Masters programHonesty from some of the instructors. Return our work on time.grant writingJob opportunities for someone with a BS in Child Development. Resume making or improving the resume you have. A writing class that shows you how to write in APA style, that is consistent with what every Instructor will expect, (we had a writing class but it did not prepare nor teach how the majority of instructors wanted us to write in the APA format). This class would be good at the beginning as well as, a computer class.more one on one with the advisor's.more one on one time with the advisors.

There should of been a library orientation since the first class for student's to get familiar on how to access the library system and the campus resources that are available to the student's.Needs to be more consistance in all classesThe one thing that was not included and would be very helpful is Career guidance geared to the Child Development B.S. Degree.I think that all aspects of the program where great with in the filed.Having more consistancy through the whole program.Critical thinking course should be in the beginning of the program to initiate critical thinking in students early on in the programA course specifically designed to teach teachers how to work with children with challenging behavior, so that we can all be on the same levelThere was not enough classes/courses based in especial education needs.I cannot think of anything that wasn't included.the portfolio check was helpful but we should have met more often to see if all students were on the right track. I would have liked for my counselor to come out and visit more often to answer all of my questions.I would have like to have a course on nutrition.I would have liked to learn how to write grants, which I did not learn. I would have liked to learn about different job opportunities that are available when you have a BS degree.

Perhaps internet access. Sometimes it would have been a good idea to be able to connect to the internet and be able to work on specific courses while the instructor was there to guide us thought the problem or issue.I feel that everything was fine.Have the books sell to us in class, when the advisor goes to gives us our information.I do not think the program is missing anythingThere should have been more internship hours required for special education. This is an area that everyone can benefit from and should be apart of the program. Especially since special education is a huge part of early childhood education now. There is a need for teachers and there are not enough people who know anything about speical education and are often scared of the whole concept. This should be changed.I think there should be some sort of requirement for us to visit or even complete a few of our required hours at other centers besides Fairplex Child Development Center. This semester I had to do some observation hours in a classroom for children with special needs and I was pleasantly surprised and grateful that I was able to have this experience. It was so different from Fairplex. I gained valuable ideas on what to do and what not to do when I was able to compare my experiences at Fairplex and at this other school. I feel others would benefit from observing at other sites rather than just Fairplex. Then students could compare and decide what type of school setting they best fit in.1. Field Trips to other Child Development Schools to see the different programs in teaching stylesall was includedEducation about child abuseI can't think of anything that I feel should have been included, but wasn't.some classes should be avalibale during the summer to make it easier for students to finish fasterI did not find anything that was lacking in the program. Facilities facilitate much of our needs and learning.a better writing course that was planned out with the child psychology class.

16

I think that the writing class would have been much more beneficial if principles of the class would have been applied to the developing child paper.

Other comments, if any:Answer Options Response Count  45

answered question 45skipped question 40

Response TextI really enjoyed this program and will recommend it to friends. I actually have recommended the program and I love it!

Thank you! I have gained so much confidence and knowledge. I love going to school because the environment is so welcoming. I am thankful to GOD that I heard the ULV radio commercial about 30 times as I want to Pismo Beach 2 years ago. If it wasn't for that commercial I would have never enrolled at ULV. All my teachers are so professional and such caring individuals. Thank you.some classes at ULV are a bit unnecessary. One might consider placement tests for certain classes like the writing class, math class, and literacy class.Also, get a more uniform course on APA. We got ten different explanations of APA. Very frustrating for students. Do not think instructors themselves are sure about APA style. That's the impression I got. Terrible experience with safe-assign. Could you deliver to future leopards a step by step power point presentation on the pitfalls and trouble-shooting for SAFE ASSIGN. All of these annoyances including your need to revamp your email delivery system kept this from being an awesome experience. Also, instructors who are too elderly or too young. OUr group was average 30 something years old. Finally, keep your instructors from preaching Christian bible explanations to us. Sometimes this was not appropriate or even connected to the course. Thanks for listening...thanks for an otherwise amazing and useful education. just fix these things so I can recommend to others in CD field who are hungry for this experience.I feel that my experience here at ULV has been a very good one and the professors have made it enjoyable.I wish we could have done our student teaching at the center we work at. I did mine durring the summer at Cal Poly, and there where so many teachers that it was hard to know what to do. It was hard to build a relationship with the children.

A set program that is understood by the teachers as well as the administrator. Each time I entered a class assignments curriculum were changed it made every class very confusing. The writing for young children was a big waste of time and I am not sure how I was graded. I wanted this to be a learning experience and it turned out to be two years of fustration!I had a wonderful two years, staff and admin were great. Meet some great friends that share the share common interests. Thank you for your encouragement and support.I had struggles and felt at times so did the program because of many changes during our cluster, however felt we all learned in the end. I know so much more and feel laverne has prepared me to continue to grad school.I would not recommend the program to other studentsthis program was not good because the requirements kept changingMy one concern or complaint, whichever you choose to call it, is that the instructors were not consistent with us. Meaning that some had us write in APA and some did not. Every instructor had their own "version" of APA style, which became confusing as the program went on. Some instructors in my opinion were not as 'knowledgable' as others. In our last class, Senior project, we had Ms. Holly. I wish I could of had her first, as she has taught me so much about APA style, researching and setting schedules and timelines for assignments. She would be a good instructor for that writing class i mentioned. I also want ULV to know that Ms. Watson and Ms. Marky were the most passionate, informative, and dedicated instructors I have ever had. Ms. Watson taught with an honest, open-minded approach that opened my eyes in a way that they have never been opened. She taught us to believe in ourselves and I will never forget the lessons learned in her class. Ms. Marky helped me to improve as a professional. She showed us so many ideas that we could take straight to our classrooms and use instantly. She is a very enthusiastic instructor. Overall, it was a good program and I am beyond glad that I was a part of it. Thank you to all at ULV and good luck to future Child Development students. Cerritos cluster #2 will ALWAYS have a place in my heart and mind.I felt that all my instructors throughout my two years in the program, were always creative and very knowledgeable in their subject of teaching and offered their support on a daily basis if needed to students. In EDUC 453B Advanced Supervision & Adminstration Programs for Young Children, the instructor lacked to create a quality interesting class to deliver her topic to the student's. This class needs to be re-evaluated and address the teachings approaches of the instructor to create an effective, inviting, and interesting subject for the student's.This program is great and I understand that it was changing to meet the accreditation standers and this is the reason why it was changing. My suggest is to make all teacher meet the APA format in the same order and teach it the same way. Other then that I believe this program made me become confident in myself and my career.Great program, great flexibility, great instructorsBased on research information, it seems as though courses/classes on especial education needs will generate a stronger quality program and consequently better prepared graduates.

17

I regret that I will not be persuing my Masters Degree with the University of LaVerne. Due to an administrator's decision to take the matter of an unanswered email very, very personal. Our cluster was put through true hardship over her decision to show us a lesson over not responding to an email.overall I very much enjoyed the structure of the program and the flexibilty with the schedule.Great program.this was a very informative program that help me become a better teacherI think that the literacy class should have focused more on activities that you could do with young children that promote early literacy. I feel that early literacy is very important for young children and the class did not express that enough or give any good teaching strategies.

My overall experience at La Verne was possitive. Most of the instructors that I had the pleasure to meet were knowledgeable and excellent teachers. I feel that towards the end of our program our cluster was not given enough credit by some of the faculty.Great program. will recommend to others.program is great, I learned so much education and experience.I really like the program. this program is great for anyone that is also has a full time job and has a family.Overall, I really loved and enjoyed the whole program and I feel that I am now a stronger more effective writer and educator for young children. The tools I have learned in the course of this program will forever be useful in my job as an educator.ULV has been a positive experience and I have learned so much information that I plan to use to help children. What I especially enjoyed was the way the professors encouraged us to be individuals and advocated for us to think for ourselves and to be advocates for what we believe in even if it is not the popular choice.I have visited other schools through observations and substituting but I think everyone would benefit by observing other preschool settings & elementary schools from preschool through second grade.

Also, it would benefit students if we could get support or connections for employment, for students completing the program.I learned to work with and implements programs for young childrenI enjoyed being part of la verne students, i found a lot of support from my peers and professors and also i found such a pleasant learning environment.This was a wonderful learning experience, and I would like to continue to achieve my M.S. in Child Development at the Burbank campus, but I have been told it is not available there.Thank YouOverall, a good programwe had very knowledgable teachers and i am so happy with my classes that i tookI like the program. I enjoy the clusters, I got to meet and get close to my classmates.

Allow students to do student teaching in other sites in order to see other programs and teaching ideas/techniques talked about in course curriculum. Also to provide fairness to other students who do not work at the fairplex since students who work there are placed in the same class they work in & hours won't be "double-dipped." Provide online courses. Inform new students admitted to the program regarding the developmental knowledge exam component of the program.I enjoyed the convenience of the satellite school and the attention I received in the small classes. I would recommend this program to other students.

18

III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data Each program provides an analysis of the information provided in Section II. Please do not introduce new types of data in this section. Note strengths and areas for improvement that have been identified through the analysis of the data. What does the analysis of the data demonstrate about: a) candidate competence and b) program effectiveness?

Analysis of Transition Point 1: Admission Data (Table 1, 3, & 4)The Child Development Program collects admission data consisting of candidates’ grade point average (GPA) at time of admission, rubric score from entry interview, and rubric score from entry writing assessment. In assessing candidates upon entry to the university, the Child Development program seeks to identify the significance of candidates’ writing skills, attitudes and aspirations, and previous academic performance in relation to successful completion of the program. The past three academic school years provided opportunities for programmatic changes based on collection of data in these three areas.

Grade Point Average (GPA) The GPA requirement in the Child Development program is 2.5. This requirement exceeds the university requirement of 2.0 and is an indicator of high expectations for candidate performance and program quality.

The average admission GPA recorded for main and regional campus candidates during Fall 2007 through Spring 2010 range from 3.00 (regional campuses, 2007-2008) to 3.29 (main campus, 2007-2008). Although the average GPA is significantly higher than the required program GPA of 2.5, there are fluctuations in the data. Over the course of the three academic years, the main campus candidates entered the university with an approximate .2 higher GPA than regional campus candidates. There are factors that contribute to this difference.

First, main campus candidates consist of primarily traditional age students. Upon admission, the GPA score may reflect only high school courses or may include some community college coursework. Additionally, main campus candidates may be admitted with minimal entry units; however, overall GPA’s tend to reflect fairly current coursework.

The regional campus candidates typically encompass the adult learner (age 25 and over). Many of these candidates transfer in the maximum allowable units. These GPA’s can be indicative of a broader range of coursework completed during a time-span of two or more decades of coursework.

During the 2007-2008 academic year, the lowest and the highest GPA’s are documented. The main campus average (3.29) consists of 20 candidate entries. The regional campus average (3.00) consists of 50 candidate entries. Although the number of candidates

19

increased the following two years, there is no significant explanation for the differences in GPA from year to year.

Writing and Interview ScoresThere is a notable relationship between movement in the GPA score and the writing and interview scores. In the years that show main campus candidates GPA’s higher, the writing and interview score is also higher. The year that shows the regional campus GPA’s the lowest, correlates with lower writing and interview scores for the same year. According to the combined main and regional campus data collected from 2007 through 2010, the higher a candidate’s GPA, the higher the candidates writing and interview scores. These observations are also supported by the correlation tables for on-campus and off campus (Tables 3 &4)

In comparing main and regional campus candidates writing and interview scores, several findings emerge. Main campus candidates enter the program with higher skills in writing than regional campus candidates. This may be due to differences in the percentage of bilingual learners, or, less opportunity for candidate academic writing due to the number of years since last attending school.

During the past three academic years, main campus candidates writing scores have progressively increased. Regional campus writing scores have also increased (with a very slight decline in 2009-2010). These increases may be the result of program refinement of the writing prompt and rubric based on inter-rater reliability training of faculty and adjunct, and intentional focus of program faculty on the importance of quality writing for candidate success.

In analyzing the interview data from main and regional campus candidates, the scores reflect a range from 3.06 (regional campus 2007-2008) through 3.50 (main campus 2007-2008 and 2008-2009). This difference may be the fact that a single evaluator assesses all main campus candidates whereas four individual evaluators assess regional campus candidates. The varied perspectives associated with the entry interview influences overall scores. Additionally, the interview questions have not been consistently implemented with main and regional campus candidates. It is the intent of the Child Development program to address this inconsistency during the up-coming academic year.

In conclusion, Transition Point 1: Admission Data serves as a starting point for gaining valuable information regarding candidates entering the Child Development program. As candidates progress through the program, the data can serve to be the initial measure needed to assess growth in writing ability and disposition qualities of candidates. It may also measure growth in grade point performance throughout the coursework and probability of success in the program. To ensure validity of the admission data, the Child Development program will focus on creating a consistent method of assessing candidate disposition through the interview process and implement applicable interview questions that can be evaluated with a consistent interview rubric.

20

Analysis of Transition Points 2 and 3: Key Assessments

Key Assessment 1 (Knowledge) Developmental Knowledge Exam and Supervisor Evaluation

The Developmental Knowledge Exam (DKE) assesses candidate’s theory-based knowledge of foundational concepts associated with the field of Child Development. This exam meets the performance criteria as defined by the unit-wide expectation for assessment of “knowledge”.

Overall, the data show the majority of the candidates achieve a passing DKE score (average 80%) on their first attempt, demonstrating competency in foundational knowledge needed for successful completion of the program (Child Development Group Performance; Key Assessments, Table 1) Few candidates (approximately 10%) require extended preparation through group study sessions, individual tutoring, and/or faculty counseling. Data show that all candidates either demonstrate the essential knowledge-base to continue in the program, or, are counseled into a more appropriate program of study based on their demonstrated strengths.

Through instruction and integrated application activities provided in EDUC 350, Child Psychology, candidates make connections between theory and application. Candidates are assessed for competency in application of basic child development knowledge through the Supervisor Evaluation, the second component of Key Assessment 1. The Supervisor Evaluation provides an initial evaluation of candidate’s demonstrated application of basic knowledge in the field. The data show fieldwork evaluations are conducive to gaining an overall “picture” of readiness for candidates’ success in the program. Candidates who do not report to an overseeing supervisor are evaluated by an instructor on similar competencies. As of spring, 2010, seventy-five candidates were evaluated by instructors or supervisors. Candidate performance measured an average rubric score of 3.42 of 4.00 (Child Development Group Performance; Key Assessments, Table 1.) As noted in the data, the candidates’ combined scores from the DKE and Supervisor Evaluation assessments provide an overall realistic measurement of candidates’ knowledge and ability.

(Child Development BS Correlation Table, Table 2) provides an overview of correlation measures associated with EDUC 350 candidates’ grades and Supervisor Evaluations. Due to the insignificant data count and the limited duration of time for data collection, the correlation between EDUC 350 grades and Supervisor Evaluation scores is weak. Continual data collection is required for further analysis in this area of Key Assessment 1 to determine reliability of measure.

EDUC 352, Child Develop Writing, focuses on strengthening candidates writing skills while incorporating Child Development theories and topics into writing instruction and assignments. Although there is not a key assessment associated with the writing course, there is a definite connection between EDUC 350, Child Psychology and EDUC 352, Child Development Writing. Currently, our regional-campus program (RCA) shows a strong positive correlation between the two courses (Child Development BS Correlation Table,

21

Table 2). Our main campus candidates (MC) show no significant correlation at this time. This is most probably attributed to low numbers in data entry for our main campus candidates. Because it is a program goal to strengthen candidates’ understanding of child development theory as evidenced through candidates’ written work, data collected from the DKE, Supervisor Evaluation, and grades in EDUC 350 and EDUC 352 will be evaluated for effectiveness on a regular basis.

Key Assessment 2 (Planning) Lesson Plan and Implementation

The Lesson Plan and Implementation assesses candidate’s ability to observe, plan, implement, assess, and evaluate within the context of the field of early child development. Seventy-three candidates were assessed in this area. Data shows candidates’ overall performance in “Planning” meet the achieved level (3.49) of competency for this key assessment. Few candidates require further preparation in skills associated with the cyclical process essential for understanding the “Planning” component as defined by the unit-wide expectation for assessment of planning. Performance scores reported across time varied widely (from 2.8 – 3.79) resulting from inconsistent implementation and low author enrollment in Fall 08 and Summer 09 terms (Child Development Group Performance; Key Assessments, Table 1) Through instructor training, inconsistent implementation and low enrollment have been resolved. (See Section IV.)

In analyzing data associated with Key Assessment 2 (Planning) two significant correlations are evident. First, in comparing the Key Assessment grade to the grade earned in EDUC 448, Mathematics for Teachers of Young Children, the course associated with Key Assessment 2, data suggest a strong correlation (Pearson r = .902 main campus and .831 regional-campus programs.) This measure indicates the compatibility between course content and follow up assessment for demonstrated competency in planning (Table II).

Second, the grade earned in EDUC 350, Child Psychology and the grade earned in EDUC 448, Mathematics for Teachers of Young Children (the course associated with the key assessment) show moderate correlation (r =.415 main campus and .683 regional-campuses). Course content in EDUC 350 supports course content in EDUC 448. Knowledge of child development and theory are needed to plan developmentally appropriate activities for children (TableII).

The grade earned in EDUC 350 and the score earned in Key Assessment 2 showed a negative correlation. EDUC 350 grades remain insignificant to candidates’ performance in Planning. This can be attributed to the structured format required in the lesson plan. EDUC 350 does not emphasize the creation of structured lesson plans.

Key Assessment 3 (Use of Assessment) Assessment Presentation

The Assessment Presentation evaluates candidates’ ability to understand and apply a broad range of early childhood assessments to benefit children and families. Forty-four

22

candidates were assessed in this area. Data shows candidates overall performance in Key Assessment 3 meet the achieved level (3.45) of competency (Child Development Group Performance; Key Assessments, Table 1.) The initial collection of data included an inconsistent addition of group performance scores to the data. The group performance scores skewed data to reflect competencies of groups as well as individual candidates. Clarification was made to address the issue of submitting group scores versus individual scores. As of summer 2009, Key Assessment 3 assesses individual candidates. (See Section IV.)

Upon review of the assessment data, scores indicate candidates are equipped to implement various assessment tools into their work with children. Furthermore, their knowledge of assessment reinforces the skills needed to effectively implement the process of planning (Key assessment 2) throughout the coursework in the Child Development program.

In comparing the grade in EDUC 354B, Assessment in Early Childhood, the course associated with Key Assessment 3, the data (Child Development BS Correlation Table, Table 2) indicate a strong positive correlation (r = .673 main campus, .774 regional-campus). This is a result of intentional integration of course content into applicable fieldwork experiences required in the course. Course content is compatible with follow-up assessment which demonstrates candidates’ competency in Use of Assessment as defined by the “unit-wide” expectation criteria.

In analyzing the data further, EDUC 350, Child Psychology and EDUC 354B, Assessment in Early Childhood show moderate positive correlations in main and regional-campus programs (.474 and .559) and moderate to strong positive correlation between EDUC 350 grades with Key Assessment 3 scores (.593 regional-campus and .840 main campus (Child Development BS Correlation Table, Table 2). The Child Psychology and Development course content provides foundational knowledge important in addressing child assessment from a developmentally appropriate perspective.

Candidates’ competency in Use of Assessment is indicative of the solid connection between EDUC 354B, Assessment in Early Childhood and EDUC 350, Child Psychology course content, and the application of assessment knowledge.

Key Assessment 4 (Diversity) Ethnography Interview and Research Paper

The Ethnography Interview and Research Paper assesses candidates’ ability to recognize, understand, embrace, and reflect on cultural diversity within the early childhood environment. Fifty-one candidates were assessed in this area. Data shows candidates overall performance in “Diversity” meets the achieved level (3.29) of competency for this key assessment (Child Development Group Performance; Key Assessments, Table 1).

Upon review of the diversity data (Child Development BS Correlation Table, Table 2) analysis reveals the strong positive correlation between Key Assessment 4 and the course grade associated with the Key Assessment; EDUC 452, Parenting for Early

23

Childhood Educators (.634 main campus and .681 regional-campus.) Once again, this demonstrates the critical connection between the content knowledge gained in EDUC 452 and the ability for candidates to apply content knowledge successfully in the key assessment associated with the course.

In regards to the course grade associated with EDUC 350, Child Psychology and Development, regional-campus shows a strong positive correlation (.772) however, main campus data shows a weak negative correlation. Although the reason for this minimal negative correlation has not been determined, faculty agrees the number of main campus data entries does not substantiate a level for concern. This measure will continue to be monitored.

Key Assessment 5 (Technology) Power Point Presentation The Power Point Presentation assesses candidates’ ability to integrate up to date technology skills into learning and teaching. Forty-one candidates were assessed in this area. Data shows candidates’ overall performance in technology meets the achieved level (3.60) of competency for this key assessment (Child Development Group Performance; Key Assessments, Table 1). The initial collection of data included an inconsistent addition of group performance scores to the data. The group performance scores skewed data to reflect competencies of groups as well as individual candidates. Clarification was made to address the issue of submitting group scores versus individual scores. As of fall 2009, Key Assessment 5 assesses the technological ability of individual candidates. (See Section IV.)

Although the data suggests a strong positive correlation between Key Assessment 5 and EDUC 452 (the course associated with the key assessment) the discrepancy in the submission of group and individual scores along with the low numbers contributing to the input data lead to questions pertaining to “reliability” of this correlation.

As a result of clarifying the importance of individual assessment, faculty discussion led to the suggestion of a future program change. This change will move the Technology Key Assessment to the final course of the Child Development program. EDUC 499, Senior Project, will be the course associated with Key Assessment 5 beginning fall, 2010. This program change will ensure candidates have optimal time in the program to develop skills associated with the ever-changing world of technology. (See section IV.)

Analysis of data, specifically the correlation between each key assessment score and the corresponding course grade, reveals the consistent approach implemented in the Child Development program to ensure candidates’ understanding of course content and application of knowledge through measurable assessments. The added positive correlation between our Child Psychology and Development course in relation to all key assessments highlights our success in integrating child development theory throughout the coursework. The data supports the appropriateness of the assessment pieces in

24

relation to the cumulative course content in the Child Development program. These connections ensure candidates exit the program ready to apply their knowledge in the field of Early Childhood Education.

Although the correlations highlighted in this report are promising, our plan is to investigate further, other perspectives associated with the correlations between EDUC 350, Key Assessments 1 – 5, and candidates’ grades in key assessment coursework (Example – course grades are inclusive of key assessment scores.) Further data collection, discussion, and analysis are required to obtain a clearer picture of the breadth and depth of these correlations.Analysis of Transition Point 4: End-of-Program Survey

The End-of-Program survey assesses candidates’ beliefs about their demonstration of knowledge and skills gained in the Child Development program, the usefulness of the course content in the early childhood field, as well as anecdotal information on the strengths and weaknesses of the program. Seventy-eight candidates completed the two questions related to Child Psychology and Development (Educ 350), and the rating average was 3.95/4.0 and 3.73/4.0. This indicates that candidates believe that they are leaving the program with the necessary knowledge and skills in Child Psychology and Development to succeed in the field of early childhood education.

Data related to Educ 352, Writing for Child Development, shows a rating average of 3.40, significantly lower than the rating average for Educ 350. One possible explanation for this difference is that Educ 352 was introduced to the program in Fall, 2007, and was incorporating changes for the first two years of the data reporting period. Three course trainings were held during the data reporting period, but more training with Educ 350 and Educ 352 instructors is necessary.

Two areas of concern indicated in the anecdotal/comment section of the survey are the lack of grant writing experience in the program and the inconsistent use and teaching of APA style. Grant writing had been the main focus of one of the administration classes prior to 2008 when the course was significantly updated. Some students had heard about the grant writing component of the class and were disappointed that it was no longer part of the course. A separate non-degree grant writing course may be developed in the future to assist early childhood educators in their fund raising efforts.

Several students noted inconsistent use and teaching of APA style. Though all instructors and students used the same APA guide, personal interpretation of the guidelines resulted in inconsistent use of style as well as inconsistent grading practices regarding APA style. The program faculty decided to adopt the newest edition of the APA Manual for all faculty and students in hopes that the clarity of the manual will reduce student frustration over inconsistent use.

25

IV. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance Programs indicate how they use the data from assessments and analysis of that data to improve candidate performance and the program. If proposed changes are being made, please link the proposed changes to the data that support that modification as related to the appropriate Program and/or Common Standard(s). If preferred, programs may combine responses to Sections III (Analysis of the Data) with Section IV (Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance) so long as all the required aspects of the responses are addressed.

KeyAssessment

Data Source Suggesting

Needed Improvement

Proposed Program Change

Date of Implementation

ResultsOf Change

Admission CD Meeting

CD Meeting writing specialist recommendation

CD Meeting

CD Meeting

Assessment Committee recommendation

Review writing rubric for inter-rater reliability

Revise writing prompt and rubric (2x’s)

Re-visit inter-rater reliability issue with new rubric

Allow for coordinator discretion for GPA of 2.4 – 2,49

Discuss possibility of revising interview questions to include focus on dispositions

Fall 2007

Spring 2008 and Spring 2009 (writing prompt and new rubric)

Fall 2010

Spring 2008

Revision in progress

More consistent assessment

evaluates language and sentence structure separately

More consistent assessment(proposed)

Ability to accept borderline candidates with special circum-stances

N/A

Knowledge DKE Exam –10% of candidates retake DKE at least once

(data located in TaskStream)

Advisory Board

construct version 2 of DKE

clarify word usage in written questions on DKE

construction in progress

modification in progress

N/A

N/A

26

Meeting recommendations

CD Meeting Standardized method for observing students in the field

Fall 2009 Rubric-based evaluations for observation in field

Planning Lesson Plan – Average score of 2.8 in Fall 08 and 3.0 in Spring 09

Advisory Board Meeting recommendation

train EDUC 448 instructors on rubric criteria.

train all instructors in TaskStream use

make revisions to lesson plan rubric

Summer 09

September, 09

revisions in progress

more consistent grading among EDUC 448 instructors

increased instructor enrollment in Task

Stream

Assessments Course Specialist review of TaskStream candidate submissions

verbal clarification to adjunct instructors

Summer , 09 Consistent individual assessment data

Diversity Course Specialist recommendation

Revision to rubric

Spring 2009 Updated assignment to include historically oppressed cultures

Technology CD Meeting Technology assessment incorporated in EDUC 499

Will implement in Fall 2010

N/A

End of Program Survey

EOP TaskStream data

EOP TaskStream data

EOP TaskStream data

Addition of Survey Monkey to collect end-of-program information

EDUC 352 revised –

APA manual adopted

Fall 2009

Fall 2007 – Spring 2008

Fall 2010

Growing numbers of detailed responses

Better integration between EDUC 350 & EDUC 352

In Progress

27