University of Wisconsin - Stout

Purpose of the Review

Seven-year review cycle

M.S. Industrial/Technology Education
Program Director
Brian K. McAlister
PRC Consultants
Ted Harris and Sue Foxwell
Date of Review
December 5, 2003
Committee Findings
The PRC recommends that this program continue to be one of UW-Stout’s degree programs for the ongoing seven-year cycle, and recommendations made by the committee be implemented.


The M.S. in Industrial/Technology Education program provides for the practicing professional to develop into a master teacher who is a reflective practitioner, action researcher, innovator, mentor and leader, thinking about professional issues within the field of technology education, and thus, advancing the discipline.

Process Followed for Current Review

As of July 1, 2003, the new School of Education was implemented.  As of that date, all education related programs moved from discipline departments, (i.e.:  Communication, Education and Training, in this case) to the School of Education.  The PRC consultants discussed the program review process with the program director.  Data regarding aspects of the program was collected as per normal PRC procedures for a master’s program review; from one- and three-year program graduates, currently enrolled students, key instructors teaching coursework in the program, and program advisory committee members through the established survey process.  The program director wrote the program self-study report and the consultants wrote the recommendation report.  The report was forwarded to the dean to include response by both the chair and program director.  The PRC reviewed the response, approved the recommendation report and forwarded the report to the Faculty Senate.

Previous Review

The previous PRC review of the M.S. in Industrial/Technology Education was conducted in Spring, 1997 by consultants Lynnette Brouwer and Randall Upchurch.  Len Sterry was the program director. 

Recommendations for the program director from the 1997 review

  1. Continue to address assessment of competencies; 4 areas:  Action Researcher; Innovative Leadership; Mentoring, and Reflective Practitioner. (Appendix A; 1997 Self-Study)
  2. Review process and function of Program Advisory Committee.
  3. Continue to collaborate and coordinate efforts across campus, particularly with the Technology Department.

These recommendations were not addressed in the dean’s response in the 1997 report.

Recommendations for the dean (at that time, Bruce Siebold, College of Technology, Engineering and Management)

  1. Develop a plan of action and timetable focusing on additional staffing.
  2. Develop a plan of action and timetable focusing on development of lab facilities for this degree program; presently no labs dedicated to this program.
  3. Develop a plan of action and timetable focusing on key faculty teaching some of program’s courses a part of load, rather that all through Continuing Education.

Dean’s response (1/27/97 to PRC)

Additional Staffing Action Plan
Action Who Timeline
Develop a 2-year program list of courses to meet the needs Program Director Spring 1997
Determine additional staff needs Program Director and Chair Fall 1997
Consider funding issues Chair and Dean Fall 1997
Lab Facilities Action Plan
Action Who Timeline
Identify needs; equipment and space Program Director and Chairs Fall 1997
Secure funding Chair and Dean Spring 1997-98


Program Strengths

Background:  It is important to note that there are low numbers in survey responses. 

Additionally, there is a shortage of Technology Education teachers in Wisconsin.  This has had a major influence on the program.  The Department of Public Instruction has issued an increased number of emergency licenses over the last decade.  Any teacher teaching under an emergency license must enter an approved teacher certification program and document continued progress toward completion in order to have the license renewed each year.  Approximately two-thirds of the students in the program are currently working on teacher certification.  Implementation of PI-34 (new teacher licensure rule in Wisconsin) in August, 2004 will create new needs for novice teachers.  Future certification laws will require that new teachers establish professional development plans by their third year of teaching.  This contributes to the need/demand for the program and capacity.


  1. Graduates consistently report a high level of competency (3.9 or higher) in the following areas:  solve problems, organize information, analyze information, conduct a research/study project, think creatively, use computers in the profession.
  2. Graduates are 100% placed in jobs relating to the program.
  3. Graduates report satisfaction with their career development.
  4. A high level of satisfaction with overall quality of instruction, value of the education, faculty availability and quality of lab equipment is reported.
  5. 100% of graduates report that they would attend Stout if they had it to do over again.
  6. Employers reported being satisfied with the graduates.
  7. The highest areas of current student satisfaction were in the following areas; library, instructors, critical thinking, written communication skills, and overall program quality.
  8. Communication between program director and technical faculty is being addressed through a series of meetings with focused agendas to align the curriculum to meet the needs of the program for PI-34 in August 2004.

Issues of Concern

  1. Students report need for more staff (student survey).
  2. Scheduling of classes (need more coordination).
  3. Students report disparity between the philosophy in the school district and what the curriculum is in the graduate program. (NOTE: It is noted that this is a historical concern; the Technology Education curriculum is changing and there are different paradigms, traditional “shop” and the newer Technology Education perspective that would be influencing responses.) (student survey).
  4. Students report wanting more course offerings, related to where the coursework is offered as well as distance education offerings and more offerings in the summer (student survey and follow-up surveys).
  5. Prior issue of concern over assessment of curriculum competencies is related to the program revision never being taken through to the implementation of the curriculum approval process.  This has been dealt with by the new program director who took over in 2001, but the difficulty lies in implementation with the short-staffed status (self-study report).
  6. The staffing issue is now worse than it was in the prior review in 1997.  There is a national shortage of faculty available for Technology Teacher Education programs; however this staffing shortage needs a realistic solution.  As the program director indicates in the self-study report, “the program should not have to rely on the willingness of faculty to teach overloads, teach during the summer nor should it resort to a long-term solution of having adjunct faculty teach classes.” (self-study report).
  7. Lack of full utilization of the Program Advisory Committee (self-study report).

Recommendations for the Program Director, Chair of Education Department and Dean of the School of Education

  1. Develop and implement a plan for meeting the PI-34 licensure requirement due in August 2004.  This should be done with the B.S. in Technology Education in mind as the issues are similar in some cases.
  2. Develop and implement a timeline that addresses the staffing issue with consideration for addressing appropriate program size based on needs of the profession as well as resources of the university (balance of these two).
  3. Develop and implement a plan for Program Advisory Committee utilization.
[NOTE] By the time of the next PRC review perhaps a new data collection system will be in place that will encourage more responses.  It should be noted again that there was a low response rate for all surveys for this program.