Department under review: Undergraduate Physical Education/Teacher Education


APR Progress Report: In response to APR’s Recommendation from January 2007


Date self-study received in Dean’s office : March 2009

Date of external consultant’s review N/A

Date APR received report: September 2009


Based on the Review of the PETE program in January 2007, the following recommendation was made:

“Some area[s] to address – department should submit a short progress report to Faculty Senate/Provost’s Office in three years. This report should focus on progress toward improving assessment of student learning.”



APR’s comments including Notable Strengths


It should be noted that the original APR Report from 2007, in addition to the request for a 3-year progress report on assessment. Action and future action steps for all five recommendations were included in the progress report from PETE:

·         The Program and the SAH Deans need to work together to ensure that a systemic assessment method for determining student learning is established

Prior to this report, the PETE program had very vague standards that included statements like “Understands Content” and “Communicates.”  Now the Department has created an extensive document that demonstrates its alignment of content in required courses for the Undergraduate PETE program with Wisconsin teaching standards, State Physical Education Content Guidelines.

·         The Program should explore the possibility of grouping students during their pre-student teaching clinical.

Clinical experiences have already been revised for more efficient and effective teaching practices.

·         Discussion is needed, within the Program and with the College Office, to find ways to more expeditiously fill faculty vacancies.  

At the last report, there was a problem regarding vacancies.  In Fall 2009, the Program successfully hired two tenure-track faculty positions.

·         The Program should consider developing a more specific mission statement and PETE-specific goals.

The PETE program has a summer retreat planned to work on this task.

·         The Program needs to continue strengthening connections with the School of Education. 

The PETE faculty has been on committees within the School of Education.

APR’S comments including Notable Weaknesses:

·         As indicated in the previous response from the APR Report, assessment is still a concern. Clearly there is course-level assessment, but less evidence reflects programmatic change due to analyzing student achievement. It appears that data are being gathered; however, how the data are applied to the program is still unclear in terms of providing opportunity for reflection, change, or modification of the program.

·         Providing measurable evidence of student learning over time would be clearer and more persuasive in proving that assessment is being conducted in ongoing and meaningful ways. As indicated in the original 2007 APR Report, we recommend assessment that “directly monitor[s] student performance relative to content knowledge.”

·         Currently, the e-portfolio system is not being used to its full potential; this seems an ideal place to gather assessment information. The chair has acknowledged that use of the portfolios has been a bit fragmented, but that there is an effort afoot to create consistent, reliable assessment. The goal is to have a rubric ready in April 2010 that will be used to assess portfolios in the fall 2010. The current process driving programmatic change is interview focus group data and student teacher evaluations.


APR’s Recommendations:


  • Since the aim of this progress report was to focus on assessment, the APR committee recommends that the PETE program continue to develop assessment procedures examining student progress.  Furthermore, the committee suggests selecting one or two of the teaching standards, determining an assessment instrument, and collecting data across courses listed as addressing those specific standards.
  • Include student data from the rubric being developed for the e-portfolio at the next Academic Program Review (in 4 years) along with any curricular changes resulting from this data.
  • While the PETE program has included action and future action steps for each additional recommendation, the committee also encourages the PETE program to continue to develop more detailed responses outlining the strategies for accomplishing these tasks.
  • Collaborate with the SOE Assessment Coordinator to further develop a plan for continued assessment of student performance.