Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

  • PSLO
  • Data Sheet
  • Program Review
  • Assessment Report

Program Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
(AY 2013-2014)

Program Student Learning Outcomes(PSLOs)

At the completion of the Teacher Preparation-Elementary (3rd Year) Certificate, the student will be able to:

  1. Demonstrate comprehension and application of the FSM elementary school curriculum standards.
  2. Apply a variety of teaching approaches to meet learning needs of FSM elementary school students.
  3. Assess and evaluate learning of the elementary student at both the formative and summative levels.
  4. Organize and manage an elementary classroom environment for learning.
  5. Demonstrate comprehension and application of learning theories and principles, human development, language development, educational foundations, socio cultural issues, technology and strategies for teaching students with special needs.
  6. Demonstrate professionalism.

PSLO Assessment Report Summary

What we looked at:

The Education Division’s assessment focused on all six PSLOs. Listed below are the assessment plans for each of the PSLOs.

  • PSLO #1: Lesson plans produced by the students in the ED 392 Practicum course were reviewed using a rubric to determine comprehension and application of the FSM elementary school curriculum standards. (Target = 70%)
  • PSLO #2: The lesson delivery of the ED 392 Practicum course at one of the elementary schools was rated using an observation instrument. (Target = 70%)
  • PSLO #3: The assessment component of the lesson plans produced by students in the ED 392 Practicum course were reviewed using a rubric. (Target = 70%)
  • PSLO#4: The classroom management skills of the ED 392 Practicum students during lesson delivery were reviewed using an observation instrument. (Target = 70%)
  • PSLO#5: Students were administered the FSM Teacher Competency Examination (test of pedagogical knowledge including comprehension and application of learning theories and principles, human development, language development, educational foundations, socio cultural issues, technology, and strategies for teaching students with special needs). (Target=90%)
  • PSLO#6: Third-year course instructors evaluated professionalism through the use of a professionalism rubric at midterm and final for each student. (Target=70%)

What we found:

  • For PSLO #1, Spring 2014 7/10 (70%) of the students scored 70% or higher on the lesson plan rubric.
  • For PSLO #2, Spring 2014 9/10 (90%) of the students scored 70% on the performance rubric.
  • For PSLO #3, Spring 2014 9/10 (90%) of the students scored 70% or higher on the lesson plan rubric.
  • For PSLO#4, Spring 2014 10/10 (100%) of the students scored 70% or higher on the performance rubric.
  • For PSLO#5 Fall 2013 8/9 students (89%) of the third-year graduates passed the FSM Teacher Competency Exam with a score of 53/75 or higher. Spring 2014 10/10 (100%) of the third-year graduates passed the FSM Teacher Competency Exam with a score of 53/75 or higher.
  • For PSLO#6 Fall 2013 Of the 10 third-year courses offered, professionalism rubric scores ranged from 63-93%. Spring 2014 Of the 10 third-year courses offered, professionalism rubric scores ranged from 67-91%

What we are planning to work on:

  • Division faculty teaching 300-level courses will meet at the beginning of the Fall 2014 semester to review the data for PSLO 1-4 with the ED 392 primary instructor and develop a plan to improve student performance.
  • Division faculty teaching 300-level courses will meet at the beginning of the Fall 2014 semester to review the item analysis from the Spring 2014 administration of the Teacher Competency Exam to ensure that the noted weaknesses are adequately stressed in their respective classes.
  • Continue to offer study sessions using the TCE Preparation Manual in the weeks prior to the administration of the TCE to pending third-year graduates.
  • Faculty will review the results of the Professionalism Rubrics to determine strategies to improve areas of weakness. The instrument itself will also be reviewed for improvement.

Recommendations for students:

  • Students planning to enroll in Teacher Preparation – Elementary (3rd Year) program must fulfill the admission requirements for the program. A student will be admitted to full status if he/she possesses an association degree in an education program (excluding Early Childhood), has earned a CumGPA of 2.75 or above, and has a score of at least 20 on the entrance essay with no individual score below a three (3).
  • Third-year students should plan to take ED 301a, ED 301b, ED 303, and ED 330 in the first semester of the program as these courses are prerequisite for ED 305 and ED 338. Also, it is recommended that students take ED/PY 300 during the first semester, if possible, as it is a foundation course for the other courses in the program.
  • Students in the two-year Pre-Teacher Preparation program should try to learn as much as they can in ED/PY 201 to help them succeed in ED/PY 300.
  • Students planning to enroll in the Teacher Preparation-Elementary (3rdYear) program should plan ahead to compete the Pre-Teacher Preparation requirements in a timely manner to ensure continued eligibility of Pell Grant.

Program Data Sheet
Spring 2014

Download PDF Version of the Data Sheet

Enrollment by Major and Campus

Major:

Degree

Term

Chuuk

Kosrae

National

Pohnpei

Yap

Students

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Fall 2011

16

 

62

 

 

78

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Fall 2012

 

 

34

 

 

34

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Fall 2013

 

 

27

 

 

27

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Spring 2011

9

7

59

 

 

75

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Spring 2012

 

 

48

 

 

48

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Spring 2013

 

9

35

 

 

44

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Spring 2014

 

2

37

 

 

39



Credits by Major and Campus

Major:

Degree

Term

Chuuk

Kosrae

National

Pohnpei

Yap

Credits

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Fall 2011

173

 

748

 

 

921

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Fall 2012

 

 

420

 

 

420

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Fall 2013

 

 

387

 

 

387

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Spring 2011

66

33

742

 

 

841

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Spring 2012

 

 

593

 

 

593

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Spring 2013

 

33

408

 

 

441

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Spring 2014

 

9

434

 

 

443



Credits by Program and Campus

Program

Term

Chuuk

Kosrae

National

Pohnpei

Yap

Credits

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Fall 2011

173

 

596

 

 

769

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Fall 2012

 

 

482

 

 

482

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Fall 2013

 

 

351

 

 

351

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Spring 2011

70

33

702

 

 

805

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Spring 2012

 

 

365

 

 

365

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Spring 2013

 

27

405

 

 

432

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Spring 2014

 

 

378

 

 

378



Credits Enrolled, Attempted and Earned(averages)

Major

Degree

Term

CredEnrollAvg

CredAttAvg

CredEarnAvg

TermGPAAvg

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Fall 2011

11.8

11.1

10.8

3.05

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Fall 2012

12.4

12.1

12.1

3.29

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Fall 2013

14.3

14.1

13.8

3.07

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Spring 2011

11.2

10.7

10.2

3.09

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Spring 2012

12.4

12.3

12.3

3.32

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Spring 2013

10.0

9.9

9.6

2.98

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Spring 2014

11.4

10.3

10.1

2.78



Program Sections, Enrollment Ratio and Average Class Size

Program

Term

Section

EnrollMax

Enrollment

EnrollRatio

AvgClassSize

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Fall 2011

17

385

217

56.4%

12.8

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Fall 2012

10

224

138

61.6%

13.8

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Fall 2013

10

220

102

46.4%

10.2

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Spring 2011

17

362

235

64.9%

13.8

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Spring 2012

11

202

111

55.0%

10.1

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Spring 2013

12

257

129

50.2%

10.8

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Spring 2014

11

237

113

47.7%

10.3





Course Completion & Withdrawals (Major)

Major

Degree

Term

Students

ABCorP%

ABCDorP%

W%

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Fall 2011

125

96.0%

97.6%

2.4%

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Fall 2012

289

91.0%

93.4%

4.2%

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Fall 2013

118

93.2%

96.6%

0.0%

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Spring 2011

268

90.3%

94.0%

3.7%

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Spring 2012

188

96.8%

99.5%

0.5%

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Spring 2013

137

92.0%

95.6

1.5%

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

Spring 2014

137

88.3%

89.1

6.6%



Course Completion & Withdrawals (Program)

Program

Term

Students

ABCorP%

ABCDorP%

W%

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Fall 2011

228

90.8%

92.1%

5.3%

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Fall 2012

140

97.9%

98.6%

1.4%

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Fall 2013

102

93.1%

96.1%

0.0%

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Spring 2011

240

88.3%

94.6%

2.9%

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Spring 2012

112

95.5%

98.2%

0.9%

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Spring 2013

131

92.4%

94.7%

1.5%

Teacher Preparation-Elementary (TYC)

Spring 2014

113

84.1%

85.8%

8.0%



Graduates

Major

Degree

AY2010/11

AY2011/12

AY2012/13

AY2013/14

Teacher Preparation-Elementary

TYC

20

51

21

 



  • "Program" information is based on Dickerson's concept of a "program" as expending resources and is linked to courses owned by a program from TracDat
  • Graduation rates are based on Fall new students(full time) cohorts that are tracked at 100%, 150%, and 200%
  • Retention rates are based on Fall new students (full time) cohorts who return the following fall semester
  • Persistence rates are based on Fall new students (full time) cohorts who return the following spring semester

Program Review (National Campus)

AP Full Official:Third-year Certificate of Achievement in Teacher Preparation - Elementary

Campus: National Campus

Completed by: Susan J. Moses

AP Review Submission Date:March 28, 2014

AR Review Cycle: Fall 2012-Spring 2014

  1. Program Mission

    Beginning in 1974 offering an associate program in Teacher Education followed in 1982 by Third-year Certificates of Achievement in Elementary and Special Education, the Division strives to provide teachers of excellence for the Federated States of Micronesia. The program emphasizes and graduates will demonstrate understanding of the FSM elementary curriculum standards, a variety of contemporary teaching and assessment strategies, management techniques, pedagogical knowledge and professionalism.

  2. Program Goals

    Students completing the Third-year Certificate of Achievement in Teacher Preparation-Elementary will be expected to demonstrate the following competencies:

    1. Demonstrate comprehension and application of the FSM elementary school curriculum standards.
    2. Apply a variety of teaching approaches to meet learning needs of FSM elementary school students.
    3. Assess and evaluate learning of the elementary student at both the formative and summative levels.
    4. Organize and manage an elementary classroom environment for learning.
    5. Demonstrate comprehension and application of learning theories and principles, human development, language development, educational foundations, socio cultural issues, technology and strategies for teaching students with special needs.
    6. Demonstrate professionalism.

  3. Program History

    In 1963 the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and the University of Hawaii created the Micronesian Teacher Education Center (MTEC) to provide in-service teacher training. MTEC began offering a pre-service associate of science degree program in teacher education in 1969. In 1970 MTEC became the Community College of Micronesia (CCM). CCM added an in-service teacher education degree through the merging of the College’s extension program and the district teacher education centers in 1974. CCM was first accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges in 1978. In 1982 the Third-year Certificate of Achievement programs in Elementary and Special Education were added. In 1992 the FSM established COM-FSM as a public corporation, and in 1993 CCM became COM-FSM. Also in 1993, the Certificate of Achievement in Preschool Teacher Education was added. In 1994 the Third-year Certificate of Achievement in Related Services Assistant was added followed by the Third-year Certificate of Achievement program in Educational Leadership Academy in 1995. In 1996 the Associate of Science Degree program in Early Childhood Education was approved. In 1998 an agreement was signed with the University of Guam (UOG) to establish a branch UOG campus at the National Campus to offer fourth-year courses in elementary education to enable students to earn their bachelor’s degree from UOG. This agreement was followed by a collaborative arrangement between COM-FSM and UOG to offer the fourth-year elementary education program. This arrangement is now known as the COM-FSM/UOG Partnership BA Program. In 2002 a Bachelor of Arts Degree program in Elementary Education was approved by the Board of Regents but the substantive change proposal for this degree program was not approved by WASC. In 2009 the Associate of Science Degree program in Teacher Education – Elementary was phased out and replaced by the Associate of Arts Degree program in Teacher Preparation. In 2011 this program was renamed the Associate of Arts in Pre-teacher Preparation – Elementary. During 2009-2011 the Associate Degree programs in Early Childhood and Special Education were “shelved” due to low enrollment.

  4. Program Descriptions

    Originating as a teacher training institution, COM-FSM, through the Division of Education, continues the task of improving education in Micronesia. Programs are carefully designed to equip students with the necessary knowledge and skills to meet the challenges of teaching effectively in a culturally relevant manner. At present the college offers an Associate of Arts in Pre-Teacher Preparation -- Elementary and a Third-year Certificate of Achievement in Teacher Preparation – Elementary. The name of the AA program was changed from AA in Teacher Preparation – Elementary to AA in Pre-Teacher Preparation – Elementary to more accurately reflect the focus of this program. The AA-level program provides students with courses rich in content, theoretical foundations and an introduction to the teaching profession, while the Third-year program provides pre-service and in-service students with practical and methods courses to prepare them to meet the needs of students in the elementary classrooms in the FSM.

    Through a collaborative effort, the University of Guam offers the Partnership BA in Elementary Education at the National Campus making it possible for students to earn the UOG bachelor’s degree without leaving the FSM. The education associate degree and the third-year certificate program have been articulated to meet the requirements of the bachelor’s degree.

  5. Program Admission Requirements

    The admission policy for the Third-Year CA in Teacher Preparation-Elementary was modified in the spring of 2011 to read as follows:

    Admission Application Deadlines: Applications for admission to the third-year certificate program, along with entrance essays, must be submitted at least two weeks (10 working days) prior to the start date of an early registration period.

    Full Admission: A student will be admitted with full status if he/she

    1. possesses an associate degree in education
    2. has earned a CumGPA of 2.75 or above
    3. has a score of at least 20 on the entrance essay with no individual score below a three (3).

    Note: Entrance essay is scored based on the COMET Rubric.

    Probationary Status: A student with the education associate degree may be admitted on probation if he/she

    1. has a minimum CumGPA of 2.5 and
    2. has a minimum score of 15 on the entrance essay with no individual score below a three (3).

    A student is required to take EN 220 Writing for Teachers if he/she has a score of 15-19 on the entrance essay or an individual score of three (3) in Syntax and /or Vocabulary.

    Pre-requisite Courses: Students who enter the program without having completed ED 210a, ED 215, and/or ED/PY 201 need to complete these courses with a grade of 'C' or better during the first semester of the program.

    Removal from Probationary Status:
    The student may be removed from Probationary Status after the first semester of the third-year program if the student

    1. successfully passes EN 220 Writing for Teachers and
    2. earns a semester GPA of at least 2.75 (with no grade lower than a C) with a minimum of 15 credits.

    Should a student begin the program in the summer when 15 credit hours are impossible to attain, the same stipulation as above applies for the summer and fall semester combined (or the first two semesters in any combination) even if the course load in the respective semesters exceeds 15 credit hours.

    A three member subcommittee will represent the Division to review third-year applications along with the representatives from the Committee on Recruitment, Admissions, and Retention (RAR).

    There were several significant policy changes in the revised admission policy. Students are now required to have completed an AA or AS in education, excluding early childhood. Previously, students were admitted with a degree in any field. Deadlines have been established for applications. Also, clearer requirements for probationary status have been established including how to move to full admission status.

  6. Program Certificate/Degree Requirements

    The following are the major requirements:
    Program Requirements

            Third-Year Requirements:....................34 credits

    ED/PY 300 Education Psychology (3)
    ED 301a Language Arts Methods (4)
    ED 301b Reading Methods (4)
    ED 302 Social Studies Methods (3)
    ED 303 Math Methods (4)
    ED 304 Science Methods (4)
    ED 305 Children’s Literature and Drama (3)
    ED 330 Classroom Management (3)
    ED 338 Special Needs in the Classroom (3)
    ED 392 Practicum & Seminar (3)

    THIRD-YEAR TEACHER PREPARATION – ELEMENTARY< br /> Suggested Schedule

    Summer Session

    ED 301a Language Arts Methods............4
    ED 303 Math Methods..........................4
    Total Credits: 8

    First Semester

    ED 301b Reading Methods.....................4
    ED 301b Reading Methods .....................4
    ED 301b Reading Methods.....................4
    ED 330 Classroom Management..................3

    Second semester

    ED 304 Science Methods..................4
    ED 305 Child.. Lit. & Drama..................3
    ED 338 Special Needs in the Class..................3
    ED 392 Practicum & Seminar..................3

    Program Course Matrix
    Courses Outcome 1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Outcome 4 Outcome 5 Outcome 6
    ED/PY 300 I I I I D,M D
    ED 301a I I   I,D D D
    ED 301b I D I,D   D  
    ED 302 D D I,D D D D
    ED 303 D D I,D D D D
    ED 304 D D I,D D D D
    ED 305   D     D D
    ED 330   D I D D D
    ED 338 D D   D D D
    ED 392 D,M D,M D,M D,M D,M D,M

    I = Introduced, D = developed and practiced with feedback, M = demonstrated at the mastery level appropriate for graduation

  7. Program Courses and Enrollment

      National Chuuk Yap Kosrae
    Courses F
    12
    SP
    13
    F
    13
    SP
    14
    F
    12
    SP
    13
    F
    13
    SP
    14
    F
    12
    SP
    13
    F
    13
    SP
    14
    F
    12
    SP
    13
    F
    13
    SP
    14
    ED/PY300 11 11 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    ED/PY301a 14 7 18 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    ED/PY301b 14 13 13 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    ED 302 19 4 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    ED 303 15 9 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    ED 304 19 10 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    ED 305 15 17 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    ED 330 n/a* 12 14 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    ED 338 10 11 10 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    ED 392 8 12 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Total 125 106 101 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    * Course was not offered

  8. Program Faculty

    Paul Gallen Dr. Richard Womack
    Professor of Education Professor of Education/Business
    B.A., University of Guam B.A., University of California at Berkeley
    M.Ed., University of Hawaii M.Ed./Ed.D., University of Nevada, Reno
    paulg@comfsm.fm rwomack@comfsm.fm
       
       
    Magdalena Hallers Susan Moses
    Professor Professor
    B.A., University of Guam B.S., University of Illinois
    M.Ed., University of Guam M.Ed., University of Oregon
    mhallers@comfsm.fm smoses@comfsm.fm
       
       
    Robert Andreas Sylvia Henry
    Associate Professor UOG/COM-FSM Partnership BA Coordinator
    B.A., University of Guam A.A., College of Micronesia-FSM
    M.A., University of Hawaii, Manoa B.A., University of Guam
    andreas@comfsm.fm shenry@comfsm.fm

  9. Program Indicators

    1. Assessment of course student learning outcomes of program courses

    Number and Percentage of Students Scoring 70% or Higher on the Assessments
    Course and SLOs Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Fall 2013
    ED/PY 300 Ed Psych N=11 N=10 N=14
    CLO 1      
    SSLO 1.1 9 (82%) N/A 10 (71%)
    SSLO 1.2 10 (91%) 9 (90%) 14 (100%)
    SSLO 1.3 5 (45%) 9 (90%) 8 (57%)
    CLO 2      
    SSLO 2.1 11 (100%) 9 (90%) 14 (100%)
    SSLO 2.2 7 (64%) 8 (80%) 11 (79%)
    SSLO 2.3 10 (91%) 8 (80%) 11 (79%)
    SSLO 2.4 11 (100%) 9 (90%) 14 (100%)
    SSLO 2.5 10 (91%) 7 (70%) 13 (98%)
    SSLO 2.6 9 (82%) 8 (80%) 14 (100%)
    CLO 3      
    SSLO 3.1 9 (82%) 8 (80%) 13 (98%)
    SSLO 3.2 8 73%) 8 (80%) 13 (98%)
           
    ED/PY 300 Ed Psych N=11 N=10 N=14
    SSLO 3.3 N/A 6 (60%) 9 64%)
    CLO 4      
    SSLO 4.1 N/A 7 (70%) 14 (100%)
    SSLO 4.2 N/A 7 (70%) 14 (100%)
           
    ED 301a LA Methods N=14 N=7 N=18
    CLO 1 7/14 (50%) 5/7 (71%) Not available
    CLO 2      
    SSLO 2.1 14/14 (100%) 7/7 (100%) Not available
    SSLO 2.2 14/14 (100%) 6/7 (100%) Not available
    SSLO 2.3 14/14 (100%) 7/7 (100%) Not available
    SSLO 2.4 14/14 (100%) 7/7 (100%) Not available
    CLO 3      
    SSLO 3.1 14/14 (100%) 7/7 (100%) Not available
    SSLO 3.2 14/14 (100%) 7/7 (100%) Not available
    SSLO 3.3 14/14 (100%) 7/7 (100%) Not available
    CLO 4      
    SSLO 4.1 14/14 (100%) 7/7 (100%) Not available
           
    ED 301b Rdg Methods N=14 N=7 Not Available
    CLO 1      
    SSLO 1.1 14 (100%) 7 (58%) 11 (85%)
    SSLO 1.2 14 (100%) 11 (92%) 13 (100%)
    SSLO 1.3 8 (57%) 7 (58%) 12 (92%)
    CLO 2      
    SSLO 2.1 14 (100%) 14 (100%) 13 (100%)
    SSLO 2.2 14 (100%) 10 (83%) 13 (100%)
    SSLO 2.3 13 (93%) 10 (83%) 13 (100%)
    SSLO 2.4 14 (100%) 12 (100%) 12 (100%)
    SSLO 2.5 11 (79%) 9 (75%) 11 (85%)
    SSLO 2.6 14 (100%) 10 (83%) 12 (92%)
    SSLO 2.7 14 (100%) 10 (83%) 12 (92%)
    SSLO 2.8 14 (100%) 10 (83%) 12 (92%)
    SSLO 2.9 13 (93%) 10 (83%) 12 (92%)
    SSLO 2.10 12 86% 11 (92%) 11 (85%)
    CLO 3      
    SSLO 3.1 14 (100%) 11 (92%) 12 (92%)
    SSLO 3.2 14 (100%) 12 (100%) 13 (100%)
    CLO 4      
    SSLO 4.1 14 (100%) 11 (92%) 11 (85%)
    SSLO 4.2 14 (100%) 12 (100%) 12 (92%)
    SSLO 4.3 13 (93%) 10 (83%) 11 (85%)
    SSLO 4.4 13 (93%) 11 (92%) 11 (85%)
    SSLO 4.5 14 (100%) 12 (100%) 12 (92%)
    SSLO 4.5 14 (100%) 12 (100%) 12 (92%)
    CLO 5      
    SSLO 5.1 14 (100%) 12 (100%) 12 (92%)
    SSLO 5.2 14 (100%) 12 (100%) 10 (77%)
    SSLO 5.3 14 (100%) 12 (100%) 11 (85%)
    ED 302 Soc. St. Meth.   N=4 N=6
    CLO 1 Not Available 4/4(100%) 6(100%)
    CLO 2 Not Available 4/4(100%) 6(100%)
    CLO 3 Not Available 4/4(100%) 6(100%)
    CLO 4 Not Available 4/4(100%) 4 (67%)
    CLO 5 Not Available 4/4(100%) 1 (17%)
    ED 303 Math Methods.   N=9 N=10
    CLO 1 Not Available 9(100%)  
    SSLO 1.1 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    SSLO 1.2 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    CLO 2 Not Available 9(100%)  
    SSLO 2.1 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    SSLO 2.2 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    CLO 3 Not Available 9(100%)  
    SSLO 3.1 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    SSLO 3.2 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    CLO 4 Not Available 9(100%)  
    SSLO 4.1 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    SSLO 4.2 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    CLO 5 Not Available 9(100%)  
    SSLO 5.1 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    SSLO 5.2 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    SSLO 5.3 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    CLO 6 Not Available 9(100%)  
    SSLO 6.1 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    SSLO 6.2 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    SSLO 6.3 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    CLO 7 Not Available 9(100%)  
    SSLO 7.1 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    SSLO 7.2 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    SSLO 7.3 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    SSLO 7.4 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    CLO 8 Not Available 9(100%)  
    SSLO 8.1 Not Available Not Available 10(100%)
    SSLO 8.2 Not Available Not Available 10(100%)
    CLO 9 Not Available 9(100%)  
    SSLO 9.1 Not Available Not Available 10(100%)
    SSLO 9.2 Not Available 9(100%) 10(100%)
    ED 304 Science Meth. N=18 N=10 N=4
    CLO 1 17/18 (94%) 9/10 (90%) 4 (100%)
    CLO 2 18/18 (100%) 10/10 (100%) 3 (75%)
    CLO 3 18/18 (100%) 10/10 (100%) 4 (100%)
    CLO 4 9/18 (50%) Not assessed; covered in #3 4 (100%)
    ED 305 Children’s Lit. N=14 N=17  
    CLO 1      
    SSLO 1.1 6/14 (43%) 6/17 (35%) Not Available
    SSLO 1.2 4/14 (29%) Not available Not Available
    CLO 2 Not available Not Available Not Available
    ED 305 Children's Lit. N=14 N=17  
    SSLO 2.2 10/14 (71%) 17/17 (100%) Not Available
    SSLO 2.3 14/14 (71%) 13/17 (76%) Not Available
    CLO 3      
    SSLO 3.1 14/14 (100%) 17/17 (76%) Not Available
    SSLO 3.2 14/14 (100%) 17/17 (76%) Not Available
    SSLO 3.3 14/14 (100%) 15/17 (88%) Not Available
    CLO 4      
    SSLO 4.1 14/14 (100%) 17/17 (100%) Not Available
    CLO 5      
    SSLO 5.1 10/14 (71%) 9/17 (53%) Not Available
    SSLO 5.2 14/14 (100%) 17/17 (100%) Not Available
    ED 330 Class. Man. Not offered N=12 N=14
    CLO 1      
    SSLO 1.1 N/A 11 (92%) 11 (79%)
    SSLO 1.2 N/A 11 (92%) 10 (71%)
    SSLO 1.3 N/A 11 (92%) 12 (86%)
    SSLO 1.4 N/A 11 (92%) 13 (93%)
    SSLO 1.5 N/A 9 (75%)) 14 (100%)
    SSLO 1.6 N/A 11 (92%) 12 (86%)
    CLO 2      
    SSLO 2.1 N/A 9 (75%) 12 (86%)
    SSLO 2.2 N/A 9 (75%) 12 (86%)
    SSLO 2.3 N/A 9 (75%) 12 (86%)
    SSLO 2.4 N/A 9 (75%) 12 (86%)
    SSLO 2.5 N/A 11 (92) 12 (86%)
    CLO 3      
    SSLO 3.1 N/A 11 (92) 12 (86%)
    SSLO 3.2 N/A 10 (83%) 10 (71%)
    SSLO 3.3 N/A 11 (92%) 13 (93%)
    CLO 4      
    SSLO 4.1 N/A 11 (92%) 12 (86%)
    SSLO 4.2 N/A 10 (83%) 13 (93%)
    SSLO 4.3 N/A 11 (92%) 13 (93%)
    SSLO 4.4 N/A 12 (100%) 13 (93%)
    ED 338 Special Needs N=10 N=11 N=10
    CLO 1      
    SSLO 1.1 10(100%) 9 (82%) 10 (100%)
    SSLO 1.2 9 (90%) 11 (100%) 10 (100%)
    SSLO 1.3 9 (90%) 10 (91%) 10 (100%)
    CLO 2      
    SSLO 2.1 10 (100%) 9 (82%) 8 (80%)
    SSLO 2.2 8 (80%) 11 (100%) 10 (100%)
    SSLO 2.3 10 (100%) 11 (100%) 10 (100%)
    SSLO 2.4 7 (70%) 8 (82%) 9 (90%)
    CLO 3      
    SSLO 3.1 9 (90%) 10 (91%) 10 (100%)
    SSLO 3.2 10 (100%) 11 (100%) 10 (100%)
    SSLO 3.3 10 (100%) 11 (100%) 10 (100%)
    ED 392 Practicum N=8 N=12  
    CLO 1      
    SSLO 1.1 6/8 (75%) 12/12 (100%) Not Available
    CLO 2      
    SSLO 2.1 8/8 (100%) 12/12 (100%) Not Available
    SSLO 2.2 8/8 (100%) 12/12 (100%) Not Available
    SSLO 2.3 8/8 (100%) 12/12 (100%) Not Available
    CLO 3      
    SSLO 3.1 8/8 (100%) 12/12 (100%) Not Available
    SSLO 3.2 8/8 (100%) 12/12 (100%) Not Available
    CLO 4      
    SSLO 4.1 8/8 (100%) Not Available Not Available
    CLO 5      
    SSLO 5.1 Not Available 12/12 (100%) Not Available
    SSLO 5.2 8/8(100%) 12/12 (100%) Not Available
    CLO 6      
    SSLO 6.1 8/8(100%) Not Available Not Available
    SSLO 6.2 8/8(100%) Not Available Not Available
    CLO 7      
    SSLO 7.1 8/8(100%) Not Available Not Available
    SSLO 7.2 8/8(100%) Not Available Not Available
    CLO 8      
    SSLO 8.1 6/8 (75%) 11/12 (92%) Not Available
    SSLO 8.2 6/8 (75%) 12/12 (100%) Not Available
    SSLO 8.3 N/A N/A Not Available

    2.Assessment of program student learning outcomes

    Division of Education faculty decided to measure all six program outcomes each semester. The results from Spring 2013 and Fall 2013 are shown in the table below.

    Program Outcome Assessment Strategy Target Spring 2013 Results Fall 2013 Results
    1. Demonstrate comprehension and application of the FSM elementary school curriculum standards Review of unit and lesson plans developed in ED 392 using a rubric to establish baseline data 70% 12 of 12 students or 100% achieved 71% or higher on the rubric. Not available
    2. Apply a variety of teaching approaches to meet learning needs of FSM elementary school students Juried review of video tapes of teaching performance in ED 392 using a rubric to establish baseline data 70% All 12 students achieved 70% or higher. Not available
    3. Assess and evaluate learning of the elementary student at both the formative and summative levels Review of unit and lesson plans developed in ED 392 using a rubric to establish baseline data 70% All students achieved 70% or higher on the rubric. Not available
    4. Organize and manage an elementary classroom environment for learning Juried review of video tapes of teaching performance in ED 392 using a rubric to establish baseline data 70% All 12 students achieved 70% or higher. Not available
    5. Demonstrate comprehension and application of learning theories and principles, human development, language development, educational foundations, socio cultural issues, technology and strategies for teaching students with special needs.5. Demonstrate comprehension and application of learning theories and principles, human development, language development, educational foundations, socio cultural issues, technology and strategies for teaching students with special needs. Graduating students take the FSM Teacher Competency Test (certification test) 100% Spring 2013: 7/9 (78%) of the graduates who took the exam passed with a score of at least 53/75 or 70%--the FSM cutoff score for certification
    Fall 2012: 4/6 (67%) of the graduates who took the exam passed with a score of at least 53/75.
    8/9 (89%) of the graduates who took the exam passed with a score of at least 53/75 or 70%--the FSM cutoff score for certification
    6. Demonstrate professionalism. Professionalism disposition rubric completed by third-year instructors at midterm and final 100% Of the ten courses offered in spring 2013, professionalism scores ranged from 52% to 84%. Of the ten courses offered in fall 2013, professionalism scores ranged from 64% to 92%.

    3.Program enrollment (historical enrollment patterns, student credits by major)

    Enrollment by Campus
    Term National Chuuk Kosrae Yap Total
    Spring 2011 59 9 7 0 75
    Fall 2011 62 16 0 0 78
    Spring 2012 48 0 0 0 48
    Fall 2012 34 0 0 0 34
    Spring 2013 35 0 9 0 44
    Fall 2013 27 0 0 0 27
    Spring 2014 36 0 2 0 38

    4.Average Class Size

    Table Average class size by Term
    Term Section Enroll/Max Enrollment EnrollRatio(3/2) AvgClassSize(3/1)
    Fall 2012 10 224 138 61.6% 13.8
    Spring 2013 12 257 129 50.2% 10.8
    Fall 2013 10 220 102 46.4% 10.2

    5.Course completion rate

    Term Students %ABC or P %ABCD or P %Withdrawals
    Fall 2012 140 97.9% 98.6% 1.4%
    Spring 2013 131 93.1% 96.1% 0.0%
    Fall 2013 102 93.2% 94.7% 1.5%


    6. Student Persistence and Retention Rate by Term of Admission

    The Certificate of Achievement in Teacher Preparation – Elementary is a 34-credit program designed to be completed in two regular semesters and one summer session. Cohorts of students are admitted three times a year – for the fall, spring, and summer sessions. The table below shows the number of students admitted for each cohort by term, the number who actually enrolled that term, the number of students from each respective cohort who persisted to the following terms, and the number who graduated following that third term/session. The numbers include students admitted from the State Campuses. Also, summer session is included as a term as most of the third-year students enroll during the summer.

    Term Number Admitted* Number Enrolled Term of Admission Enrolled Following Term** Enrolled Following Term** Graduated at End of Third Term
    Fall 2012 4 3 3 2 0
    Spring 2013 16 7 5 5 5
    Sum 2013 11 4 4 4 4
    Fall 2013 11 8 6 N/A N/A

    * set to graduate Spring 2014

    The decline in the persistence rate for the Spring 2013 cohort was due to one student who failed to meet the conditional admission requirements during the Spring 2013 semester and one student who chose not to attend the summer session but returned for the Fall 2013 semester.

    The decline in the persistence rate for the Fall 2013 cohort was due to one student who had to withdraw from the program due to a family emergency and one teacher who was not given leave to continue the program.


    7) Graduation Rate by Academic Year

    Graduate Academic Year
    2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
    20 51 21

    8) Students Seat Cost

    Information has yet to be provided.

    9) Cost of Duplicate or Redundant Courses/Programs/Services

    The data shown in Section 3 of this report show that there are not duplicate or redundant courses being offered in the system. For the past two years, only one course -ED 302 Social Studies Methods --has been offered at both the National and Kosra Kosrae Campuses. Students who attended the course in Kosrae would not have traveled to Pohn to take the course at the National Campus.

    10) Revenue Generated by Program – Tuition (program allocated; grant income)

    Credit Enrollment by Term with Tuition Calculations
    Term Total Credits Tuition Generated
      National Chuuk Kosrae Yap  
    Fall 2012 482 0 0 0 $55,430
    Spring 2013 405 0 27 0 $49,680
    Fall 2013 351 0 0 0 $40,365

    A selected number of third-year students participate in the Teacher Corps Program each semester. This program, funded through Supplemental Education Grant funds, provides stipends and other other forms of support for the students to foster their successful completion of the third-year program. Figures on the exact amount of support that has been provided to third-year students during the pa the past two years is unavailable.

    Results of a Survey Students Who Graduated Fall 2012, Spring 2013, and Fall 2013 (N=22
    Items V.Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied V. Satisfied
    1. Overall satisfaction with third-year program 0 0 0 3 19
    2. Overall satisfaction with third-year professors 0 0 2 7 13
      Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
    3. Third-year program increased my interest in being a teacher 0 0 0 2 20
    4. Third-year program prepared me well for teaching in the future 0 0 0 2 20
    5. Would recommend third-year program to other students 0 0 0 0 22

    Students currently enrolled in the third-year program were also surveyed to determine their level of satisfaction with the program. Of the respondents, 8 are in their first semester of the program, 10 are in their second semester of the program, 11 are in their third semester Whe or more, and 2 failed to mark this section. Thirty-one (31) students out of a total enrollment of 36 responded to the survey.


    Results of a Survey of Current Third-year Students (N= 31)
    Items V.Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied V. Satisfied
    1. Overall satisfaction with third-year program 0 1 2 15 13
    2. Overall satisfaction with third-year professors 0 1 7 11 12
      Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
    3. Third-year program increased my interest in being a teacher 0 0 3 11 17
    4. Third-year program prepared me well for teaching in the future 0 0 0 9 22
    5. Would recommend third-year program to other students 0 0 4 7 20

    Comments from the students were also collected on these surveys regarding the positive and negative aspects of the third-year program and suggestions for improvement. These comments will be summarized elsewhere.

    12). Alumni data

    A list of graduates from 2002 through Fall 2013 was reviewed and attempts were made to determine the whereabouts and current status of each graduate as of March 2014. The table below summarizes the data obtained from this review. The Transfer column reflects all of the graduates who transferred to the COM-FSM Partnership BA program and other institutions. Many alumni were counted in the transfer column as well as in one of the other columns. The Unknown column includes students for whom information is unknown or students who have graduated but are not yet working.

    Year Number of grads Trans to UOG or other 4-year program Curently teaching Working in educ or related field Working, but not in educ Deceased. Current status unknown
    2002 4 2 4 0 0 0 0
    2003 7 3 1 1 1 0 4
    2004 18 9 6 3 1 0 7
    2005 26 11 8 1 3+2(army) 2 10
    2006 19 12 7* 1 3+1(army) 0 7
    2007 17 11 10 0 3 0 4
    2008 18 15 11** 1 2 1 3
    2009 22 19 13 1 2 0 6
    2010 19 15 8 2 2 0 7
    2011 19 13 9* 0 1 0 4
    2012 34 22 23 0 0 0 11
    2013 23 17 9 0 0 0 14

    * one teaching principal    ** two teaching principals

    13) Employment data and employer feedback (employer survey)

    Five (5) of the Fall 2012, Spring 2013, and Fall 2013 graduates are currently teaching-one (1) in Kosrae, one (1) in Chuuk, and three (3) on Pohnpei. Survey forms were developed on which the principals were asked to rate their satisfaction with the performance of their respective teachers on each of the third-year program learning outcomes. A space for comments and suggestions was also provided. Although an attempt was made to secure surveys from all five principals, a total of four was received. The following table shows the results of these surveys.

    Principals' Level of Satisfaction with Performance of Third-Year Graduates (N=4)

    14) Program Added or Cancelled at Nearby Regional Institutions (PCC, GCC, Hawaii schools, UOG, CMI, NMC)

    No programs similar to the Third-Year Certificate of Achievement in Teacher Preparation- Elementary have been added or cancelled at nearby regional institutions.

    15) Transfer Rate/Follow Up

    Outcomes Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied
    1. Application of FSM standards 0 0 0 1 3
    2. Apply variety of teaching approach 0 0 1 0 3
    3. Assess and evaluate learning 0 0 0 2 2
    4. Organize and manage a classroom 0 0 0 2 2
    5. Knowledge of learning theories 0 0 1 2 1
    6. Professionalism 0 0 0 4 0
    Total graduates 4th-year B. Elem. Ed. Teaching 4th-year B. Elem. Ed. and Teaching Working (not in education) Other
    Fall 2012 6 3 1 1 1 0
    Spring 2013 13 9 4 0 0 0
    Fall 2013 10 8 0 1 0 1

    16) Scores on Licensure Exam

    Number of 3rd-year graduates who took and passed the FSM Teacher Competency Exam
    N Number passed Percentage Comments
    Fall 2012 6 4 67%  
    Spring 2013 9 7 78%  
    Fall 2013 9 8* 89% *One student took the test with Pohnpei State teachers and passed. Her score is counted in the 8. One graduate failed to take the test.

  10. Analysis

    1. Finding
    Assessment of Course Learning Outcomes. Lack of consistency in course level assessments is apparent in the table in Section 1. Some Division faculty assessed course outcomes at the specific level, while others assessed course outcomes at the general level. Also, data for some courses are missing. There is a clear need to clarify and communicate the data required for semester, annual, and bi-annual reports. Division faculty are optimistic that consistent implementation of the TracDat system will help address this concern. There is also a need to put in place a way to consistently enforce faculty compliance with course-level assessment requirements.

    Observations regarding the course-level assessment data by the faculty member who teaches each third-year class are summarized here.

    ED/PY 300 Education Psychology: This course was taught on a daily basis for 6 ½ weeks during the Fall 2013 semester. The data seem to support the perception expressed in student end-of-course reflection papers that scheduling this course on a daily basis enhances learning of the material.

    ED 301a Language Arts Methods: The inability of the students to transfer their knowledge or information they learn from the other third-year courses to this course was noted.

    ED 301b Reading Methods: The scores for Fall 2013 show that 80% or more of the students successfully completed all of the SSLOs, an improvement over the previous semester, with the exception of SSLO 5.2. One student performed poorly on an exam on the Informal Reading Inventory and chose not to take a make-up exam which negatively affected the score.

    ED 302 Social Studies Methods: The size and scope of the Teacher Collection required for measuring of Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) has impacted quality of evidence for CLOs. This has not impacted the completion of almost 100% on CLOs, but accuracy has suffered. Lack of access by students to the Internet is likely at fault. Arrangements need to be made for additional reserved time for this three (3)-credit course.

    ED 303 Math Methods: The students' performance (9 in Spring 2013 and 10 in Fall 2013) indicated outstanding results during the second halves of both semesters. During and after midterm students devoted time and concentrated on developing lesson plans and peer teaching activities.

    ED 304 Science Methods: The six (6) hours per week in the computer lab have allowed for the necessary completion as acceptable evidence of the CLOs with nearly 100% demonstrated. The extra computer lab time is necessary, and the quality of student learning is improving.

    ED 305 Children's Literature and Drama: The inability of the students to transfer their knowledge or information they learn from the other third-year courses to this course was noted.

    ED 330 Classroom Management: The data for Fall 2013 show a decline on nearly all of the SSLOs. This course was also taught on a daily basis during the fall semester. Students' comments on reflection papers supported the continued offering of this course on a daily basis and final grades were high. The scores reflected on the table were somewhat negatively affected by the poor performance of two students who failed to submit the initial assignments.

    ED 338 Special Needs: Students' performance on SSLO 2.1 declined from 100% to 80%. Students performed very well on demonstrations and presentations but not on written checkouts.

    ED 392 Practicum: The inability of the students to transfer their knowledge or information they learn from the other third-year courses to this course was especially noted in this course. Such inability is observed from lesson plan development (SLO write ups) all the way to actual teaching of lessons.

    Assessment of Program Student Learning. The results of the assessment of the program learning outcomes are encouraging. Students are consistently scoring 70% or higher on most of the assessment indicators with the exception of the professionalism rubric. As stated in the table in Section 2, ratings on the Spring 2013 rubrics ranged from 52% to 84%, while the ratings on the Fall 2013 rubrics ranged from 64% to 92%. Review of the summary of these ratings by course show a rather wide variation among the Division faculty on how they rate the various criteria. Also, during a March 2014 Division meeting to review these ratings it was apparent that faculty are not really clear on what the ratings mean and how such ratings might be improved. There is a need for the Division faculty to further review the rating instrument to determine if revisions are needed or if alternative instruments need to be developed.

    The data presented in Section 2 is incomplete. There is a need to complete and input Program Level Assessment in TracDat in a timely manner for purposes of program improvement.

    As can be seen by the data presented in Sections 2 and 16, the percentage of third- year graduates passing the FSM Teacher Competency Exam has increased. This increase may be attributable to the development of a test preparation manual that has been made available to each graduate several weeks before the exam and to special review sessions held prior to the exam. Informal feedback from students indicates that such sessions were very helpful. There is a need to continue to make the preparation manual available and provide special sessions for graduates several weeks prior to the test date.

    Enrollment and Average Class Size: As can be seen from the tables presented in Sections 3 and 4 of this report, since the Fall 2011 semester enrollment has been on a decline with the exception of a slight increase for Spring 2014. It is not coincidental that a more rigorous admissions policy was implemented in Fall 2011. To gain entry to the third-year program students must now have attained a cumulative GPA of 2.75 and score a minimum of 20 on an essay scored using the COMET rubric. Also prospective students must have already earned an AA or AS in education (excluding early childhood) prior to being admitted. Prior to 2011 students could enter the third-year program with a two-year degree in any field. Entrance applications show that it is the rare student who is admitted to the third-year program having met both the 2.75 GPA and 20 essay score requirements. Students are admitted conditionally if they achieve a Cum GPA of 2.50 and/or score between 15 and 19 on the entrance essay. The majority of students enter the program on conditional status. A number of students have been denied admission due primarily to low GPAs. These students are counseled to re-take courses in which they have earned Ds and Fs to raise their GPAs and try again. Several students have achieved admission through this pathway. Students who attempt admission to the third-year program but fail due to lack of an AA or AS in education are counseled to apply for a second degree in education and try again. Students who meet the GPA and degree requirements but fail the essay are provided a second opportunity to write the essay on a different topic.

    The decline in enrollment has resulted in low class sizes for the past four semesters. These small classes have been offered because of the need for two or more of the students for these classes to graduate.

    There is a clear need to review all of the factors that affect enrollment in the third-year program and develop ways to increase the level of enrollment.

    Also, courses have not been offered at the State Campuses on a consistent basis due to the ACCJC policy which requires approval through the substantive change process if more than 50% of a program is to be offered at an additional site. A substantive change report to allow the College to offer third-year courses at the State Campuses on an as-needed basis is being submitted to the ACCJC in April, and it is hoped that the Commission will approve the College’s request in early July. Offering third-year courses at the State Campuses will enable to College to meet the need for teachers to complete the third-year program as well as encourage pre-service students to complete this program without having to leave their home islands. Completing the third-year program greatly enhances a teacher’s chances of passing the FSM Teacher Competency Exam which is required for certification. It is predicted that offering the courses/program at the State Campuses will result in significant improvement in enrollment data at both the program and course levels. The deadline for third-year applications for summer 2014 admission to the program was March 21, 2014. A total of 58 applications were received – 22 from Yap Campus, 7 from Kosrae Campus, 15 from Chuuk Campus, and 14 from National Campus students.Once approved by ACCJC, there is a need to ensure the successful implementation of the third-year program at the State Campuses. Also, there is a need to counsel current two-year education majors to ensure their GPA remains 2.50 or higher if they aspire to pursue the third-year program. Recruitment efforts for the third- year program also need to be improved.

    Course Completion Rate by Term The course completion rate for the third-year program appears to be quite high as shown in the table in Section 5. However, it should be noted that the rate has consistently declined for the past three semesters measured. There is a need to ensure that this decline does not continue.

    Student Retention and Persistence Rate by Term. The data on the table in Section 6/7 show that students who attend three consecutive terms do graduate in that time frame. In most cases students who have not persisted from one term to the next have had valid reasons for sitting out a semester. As indicated in the section, one student had been admitted conditionally and failed to meet the requirements for full admission. Retention and persistence do not appear to be a problem for the program except in instances where a teacher is not allowed to take education leave. There is a need to schedule courses in such a way to accommodate these teachers.

    Graduation Rate by Academic Year. The decline in graduation rate from Academic Year 2011-2012 to Academic Year 2012-2013 can be seen as a direct result of the decline in program enrollment. As can be seen from the persistence and retention data, students who are admitted and persist in their enrollment in the program for one year, including the summer session, typically graduate in one year. It is anticipated that as admission rates increase, the graduate rate will also increase.

    Student Seat Cost. There remains a need for the College to develop a way to calculate seat cost in an efficient manner so that such figures can be available to faculty conducting program reviews in a timely manner.

    Cost of Duplicate or Redundant Courses/Programs/Services. For the past several semesters duplicate or redundant courses and programs have not been offered.

    Revenue Generated by the Program. As can be seen in the table in Section 10, the revenue generated by the third-year program has consistently declined due to the decline in enrollment. These figures may improve if the substantive change request to ACCJC to offer third-year courses at the State Campuses is approved. There are cohorts of teachers, both in Chuuk and in Kosrae, whose program progress was stalled at the 50% mark due to the ACCJC policy which prohibits more than 50% of a program to be offered at another site without ACCJC approval. Also, it is anticipated that as the need for highly qualified teachers at the states continues to rise more pre-service education majors will choose to complete the third-year program.

    Students' Satisfaction Rate. Section 11 shows data collected by surveying two cohorts of students: 1) those who graduated from the third-year program in Fall 2012, Spring, 2013, and Fall 2014; and 2) those who are currently in the third-year program. The data on the first table show that on items 1,3,4, and 5 of the survey students are satisfied or very satisfied with the overall third-year program, how the program affected their interest in teaching, how well the program prepared them for teaching, and would recommend the program to other students. It should be noted that the only item that received a neutral rating was the one that focuses on satisfaction with the third-year professors. Also that item received lower scores overall than the other items with more students selecting "Satisfied" than "Very Satisfied." Although many students wrote positive comments about the program, other comments on the surveys provide insight as to why the lower-rated items were rated the way they were.

    The data on the second table summarizes the perceptions of the current third-year students. These data raise cause for concern as the students rated the program much lower than the graduates of the program. Of special concern is the low rating for the third-year professors. Again, although many students wrote positive comments about the program, other comments on the surveys provide insight as to the reasons for lower-than-desirable ratings.There is a need for the third-year Division of Education faculty to review the data from the satisfaction surveys, especially the comments, and address the concerns expressed by the students.

    Alumni Data. Data summarized in the table in Section 12 were collected by the "ask around" method because no formal system to follow up on the program's graduates is in place. The use of this method explains the high number in the "Current status unknown" column. It should be noted that the data include summer graduates, while the data in Section 13 include only the regular semesters. The data show that of the third-year graduates from 2002 to 2013 at least 108 are known to be currently teaching at the elementary and high schools. One graduate is currently teaching at the College’s National Campus. Four of these graduates are known to be serving as school principals. The data in the column "Working in education or related field" include graduates who are working for departments of education at the state and national levels and those working for the College and the University of Guam in education related positions. Those who joined the military are designated as such due to a concern recently raised in the CAC by the Kosrae Instructional Coordinator. These three graduates happen to be from Kosrae.

    The data show that a substantial number of third-year graduates go on to enroll in four-year programs, the majority in the COM-FSM/UOG BA Partnership program. One student is currently enrolled in the Tokyo Medical College. Those working outside of the field of education include graduates working for Pohnpei Port Authority, Pohnpei Court of Land Tenure, IOM in Chuuk, and family businesses. Two are working as security guard-one on Guam and one for the US Embassy in Pohnpei. Three of the graduates are deceased.

    The data show that of the 226 graduates from 2002-2013, 109 or approximately 49% are currently teaching. It is hypothesized that this number is actually much higher due to the high number of graduates for whom the current status is unknown. Even so, there appears to be a need for the Division of Education faculty to examine these data to develop strategies to increase the number of graduates who are in teaching positions.

    Employment Data and Employer Feedback (employer survey). Four of the principals rated the teachers as "Very Satisfied" or "Satisfied" on the program learning outcomes related to comprehension and application of the FSM standards, ability to apply assess and evaluate learning, and ability to organize and manage a classroom. "Neut "Neutral" ratings were made by one principal on the teacher’s ability to apply a variety of tea teaching strategies and knowledge of learning theories and principles. All four principals rated "Satisfied" for the teachers on professionalism. The principals were also asked for their comments and suggestions. There is a need to conduct follow-up surveys with the principals of the schools where the third-year graduates are employed on a regular basis .

    Program Added or Cancelled at Nearby Regional Institutions (PCC, GCC, Hawaii schools, UOG, CMI, NMC). A scan of programs at these institutions shows no addition or cancellation of programs that may impact enrollment in the third-year program.

    Transfer Rate/Follow Up. Of the 29 third-year graduates from Fall 2012, Sping 2013, and Fall 2013, 21 enrolled in the fourth-year program only, five are teaching in the elementary schools in Pohnpei and Kosrae, one is enrolled in the fourth-year program and teaching at the same time, one is working as a security guard, and one is seeking employment. The figures in this section show a transfer rate of 76% which is felt to be a strong transfer rate. Other follow-up data is provided under the section on Alumni.

    Scores on Licensure Exam. The data on the table on Section 16 show that the pass rate of third-year graduates on the FSM Teacher Competency Exam has been increasing over the past three semesters. However, each semester there is a student or two who fail to take the test, and there is no penalty for failing to take the test. There is a need to determine a strategy to ensure that all students take the licensure exam upon completion of the third-year program.

    2. Recommendations.

    1. All Division of Education faculty should be trained in the use of TracDat and be held accountable for inputting data for their respective courses in a consistent fashion each semester.
    2. The Division of Education faculty should meet at the end of the Spring 2014 semester to review the Professionalism Rubric and make modifications as appropriate.
    3. Steps should be taken to insure that all Program Level Assessment data is inputted into TracDat in a timely manner.
    4. Several strategies to increase third-year program enrollment have been implemented during the past year which include holding an ice-cream social event during which students from the education programs attempted to recruit students to the education major. Meetings were also held with the Director and staff of the Pohnpei State Department of Education (PDOE) to encourage their support for teachers to enroll in courses during the summer and throughout the school year. Although a recent collaboration between the Division of Education and Pohnpei State Department of Education did result in a few teachers enrolling in courses during Spring 2014, it is recommended that such strategies as recruitment of students on campus and collaboration with PDOE and other Departments of Education in the FSM continue on a consistent basis. Advisors and instructors of students in the two-year program should remind students of the 2.50 GPA threshold requirement for admission to the third-year program on a continual basis and advise these students accordingly.
    5. Once word is received of approval of the substantive change request to offer the third-year program at the State Campuses, steps should be taken to implement this program in the Fall 2014 semester as outlined in the substantive change report. These steps include the hiring of a third-year program coordinator.
    6. The Division of Education faculty should meet to review the course completion data, determine possible explanations for the slight decrease in the completion rate, and develop strategies to address any shortcomings discovered through these discussions.
    7. The Division of Education should make every effort to schedule courses needed by teachers admitted to the third-year program in the afternoons or on weekends to accommodate those who are not allowed to take educational leave.
    8. The Division of Education faculty should meet to review the findings of the student satisfaction surveys, especially the comments, and develop a plan to address the concerns expressed by the students in the interest of program improvement.
    9. The Division of Education faculty should meet to review the findings of the alumni data to develop strategies to increase the percentage of third-year graduates who secure teaching positions.
    10. Follow-up surveys of employers of the third-year graduates should be conducted on a regular basis, not only as part of the program review process. Division of Education faculty should meet to review the results of these surveys to make program improvements.
    11. The Division of Education faculty should continue to offer study sessions using the FSM Teacher Competency Exam manual prior to test administration dates. Also, a mechanism needs to be developed to ensure that all third-year graduates take the test.

Unit Assessment Report

Report Period: 2013-2014

This website and all COM-FSM Internet based services are best viewed with Firefox 3.0 or better.
© Copyright 2014 College of Micronesia-FSM | Site Disclaimer
P. O. Box 159, Kolonia, Pohnpei, 96941 - (691) 320-2480
College of Micronesia-FSM is accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges,
Western Association of Schools and Colleges, 10 Commercial Bldv., Suite 204, Novato, CA 94949, (415) 506-0234,
an institutional accrediting body recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation and the U.S. Department of Education.
Additional information about accreditation, including the filing of complaints against member institutions, can be found at: www.accjc.org

feedback