NCATE Standard 5 Report
Standard 5 Institutional Report
Professional education faculty are highly qualified
and demonstrate best professional practices in teaching, service and
scholarship. Faculty collaborate with other professionals in their
disciplines, schools, colleges as well as other institutions of higher
education. Faculty performance is systematically evaluated formally and
informally to reflect best teaching practices and members are very active in
5a. Qualified Faculty
5a1 TABLE to be completed using updated AIMS (from spas) and new information
Full-time and part-time faculty are well qualified for the courses and programs in which they teach with respect to earned degrees, teaching experience and research expertise. (Exhibit 5a1.1.1 Table 11 Qualified Faculty)
5a2 What expertise qualifies professional
education faculty members who do not hold terminal degrees for assignments?
Faculty who do not hold terminal degrees for their assignments have at least a master’s degree in their major field of instruction and/or state certification, which qualifies them for their teaching assignment. Seven out of 34 (21%) do not have terminal degrees. One member has extensive training in counseling through psychology while another member, (PK-3), has had extensive training and expertise by owing a daycare and has certified other daycares for operation in the state of Louisiana. The art professor is certified and has an M.A. in studio art and uses expertise through participation in regional art tours and festivals (Exhibit 5a1.1.1Table 11 Qualified Faculty).
5a3 How many of the school-based faculty members are licensed in the areas they teach or are supervising? How does the unit ensure that school-based faculty members are adequately licensed?
To ensure that the school-based faculty members are licensed in the areas they teach or supervise, the unit uses information from applications, as well as the LaDOE website that contains information for all personnel teaching in the state of Louisiana on their types and levels of certification(s). The exhibit demonstrates that school-based clinical faculty are certified and qualified to lead, mentor, and evaluate teacher candidates. Moreover, 100% have state certifications with 71% earning a Master’s Degree and 33% completing coursework above the Master’s Degree. Additionally 71% have 10 years or more teaching experience. All are teaching in their areas of certification and meet the requirements for supervising teacher candidates. (Exhibit 5a2.1.1 List of School-Based Faculty).
The Masters’ of Education programs in Curriculum
and Instruction and in Special Education are relatively new (in their first
year of implementation). They will utilize the teachlouisiana.net to place
candidates in any school-based field experiences as well as allowing candidates
working as educators to use their own classrooms and schools for action
research and on-site laboratory experience. As was stated in Standard 3, for
field-based experiences in the Curriculum and Instruction, Special Education
programs, the unit requires that supervising clinical faculty have at least a
master’s degree. For the Educational Leaders Level One Master’s program, various
districts agree to participate to provide educational field and clinical
experiences and assist the university in identifying certified principals who
are willing to work with educational leader candidates. Additionally, the
supervisor agrees to internship activities outlined in the program.
5a4 What contemporary professional experiences
do higher education clinical faculty have in school settings?
Professional faculty have contributed numerous contemporary professional experiences with school settings. Faculty have been consultants and workshop facilitators in schools. Many have conducted tutoring projects through service learning, participated in February Reading Circles at the GSU lab schools, participated in Black History Celebrations at lab schools, judged science fairs at various schools, and distributed books to the elementary school. Two faculty are offering dual enrollment classes in Mathematic and English at Grambling High School. Two faculty have offered a creative writing seminar through Project Achieve to secondary students in Lincoln Parish for the past year (Exhibit 5a4.1.1 Documentation of Qualifications). Three of the four professional education faculty in the Educational Leaders program have worked extensively in the schools either as principals, mentors, or professional development providers. Most have been trained through the LA-TAAP program, and one conducts LA-TAAP trainings for mentors. They supervised teachers and provided workshops on literacy and writing. Additionally, they have offered their services to increase achievement on high stakes tests through test preparation sessions e.g., LEAP and iLEAP, ACT, and PSAT. Also, 71% are certified in P-12 schools (Exhibit 5a2.2.1 Certifications Held by GSU Faculty)
5b. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching
5b1. How does instruction by professional education faculty reflect the conceptual framework as well as current research and professional dispositions?
Faculty members have aligned all syllabi with the conceptual framework, Louisiana Components of Effective Teaching; Interstate New Teacher Assessment Support Consortium (INTASC); National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS); and where appropriate, SPAs; reading competencies and numeracy initiatives. Syllabi reflect Universal Design for Learning in their planning and methods for candidates to demonstrate learning (Exhibit B1.5.1 Syllabi for Education Courses; Exhibit B1.9.1 Alignment of State, Professional, and Institutional Standards). Course Objectives and Outcomes are clearly marked, and Standards are aligned with Objectives. The Conceptual Framework guides faculty practices in aiding teacher candidates in reaching goals. Best teaching practices are evident in how faculty infuses knowledge, skills, and disposition (KDS) into the teaching, learning, and assessment of each lesson. Signature assessments coupled with teacher candidates’ performance data are tied to the KSDs. In the syllabi, the KSDs are indicated in each of the course objectives Exhibit B1.9.2 Conceptual Framework KSD Alignment with Signature Assessments.
The Unit’s Conceptual Framework depicts the outcomes for initial and advanced programs: Masters of subject matter content, Facilitators of learning, and Enhancers and nurturers of affective behaviors. Faculty realize that they and their candidates must demonstrate knowledge across multiple venues. Instruction reflects current research by building background knowledge, using relevant examples in the instruction, and displaying knowledge of proactive and positive classroom management. This involves the creation of new learning environments that are student-centered and involve the principles of Universal Design for Learning which include multimedia; work and information exchange; active, exploratory, inquiry-based learning; critical thinking, informed decision making, and authentic real-world contexts Exhibit 5b3.2.1 Teaching Styles Inventory Data Summary.
Framework reflects the importance of the skills of the professional education
faculty. Quality of teaching is one of the best predictors of low versus high
academic achievement in all students, regardless of diversity. Therefore, the
teaching that the candidates receive should be of high quality, that is, as consistent
as possible with what faculty know currently to reflect best practices.
5b2. How do unit
faculty members encourage the development of reflection, critical thinking,
problem-solving and professional dispositions.
Faculty encourage reflection, critical thinking, problem-solving, and professional dispositions. Faculty utilize case studies, simulated and authentic class and field experiences, and key signature assessments that involve performance requirements and reflection to guide, challenge, and motivate candidates. Initial candidates are encouraged to master the skills and knowledge required for best pedagogical practices and practice connecting the theories, knowledge, and skills into a framework of teaching. They are encouraged to think about their students holistically, and to engage in ethical problem-solving. Advanced level candidates are expected to become thinking teacher leaders who can solve tomorrow’s problems by thinking beyond current parameters. Faculty use varied field experiences, and conferences both on-campus and off to promote reflection, and critical thinking and are careful to model the dispositions that candidates are expected to display. Data (Exhibit 5b3.3.1 Grasha-Reichmann Survey and Summary) show that faculty use multiple methods to encourage the development of reflection, critical thinking, problem-solving, and professional dispositions and indicate that 67% of the faculty strongly agreed that “activities . . .encourage students to develop their own ideas about content issues”—reflection. 54% of the faculty strongly agreed that “small group discussions . . .help students develop their ability to think critically.” 42% of the faculty strongly agreed that “my standards and expectations help students develop the discipline they need to learn”—professional dispositions, and 71% of the faculty strongly agreed that “I give students a lot of personal support and encouragement to do well”—professional dispositions. One of the results of the survey was that 92% of the faculty viewed themselves as Personal Models for the students.
5b3. What types of instructional strategies and assessments do unit faculty members model?
Faculty use multiple methods for instructing and assessing candidates, evidenced by a pilot study of teaching styles (Nur-Hussen & Newman, 2008) (Exhibit 5b3.2.1 Teaching Styles Inventory Data). Faculty demonstrate that to get a clearer picture of a learner, not only should teachers use multiple assessments, but that assessments should follow more than one format. The study found that faculty used an average of ten teaching methods in their courses with a range of 3 to 14 methods reported. Data analysis indicated that 79% of the faculty encouraged candidates to read and write in journals, 55% required portfolios, 51% required précis, 79% utilized brainstorming and free writing, 89% required papers, 93% utilized discussions, 79% used cooperative learning, 79% also used case studies, 44% used role playing, 44% required debates, 75% used problem-based learning, 27% used service-learning, 44% used electronic and/or online delivery, 34% employed tutoring, and 62% used demonstration learning. Teacher candidates and other university students were surveyed to determine their preferred learning styles; findings confirmed that learning styles and instructional strategies used by faculty were congruent. Many of the styles promoted higher-order thinking (e.g., problem-based learning, case studies), and candidates indicated that these were styles of teaching that they felt helped them to learn.
Faculty use multiple methods of assessing learning (Exhibit 5b3.2.1 Teaching Styles Inventory Data.) Courses require multiple assignments and use multiple means of assessing learning. These assessments align with the CF and other national and state mandated standards. A listing of assessments is found in (Exhibit 2a.3.1 Table of Current Program Assessments ). Faculty continuously revise assessments to align with evolving state-of-the-art content.
5b4 How do unit faculty members incorporate the use of technology into instruction.
Faculty use different types of technology in their
courses. Many use Blackboard for varied amounts of instructional support from
posting supplemental materials to hosting discussion forums to completely
delivering the courses online Exhibit (5b3.5.1
Online Classes Listed on Blackboard 2009.2010). Faculty
members have taken part in training for SmartBoards (Exhibit 5f10.1.1);
(Exhibit 5f10.8.1 TaskStream
Training Seminar). Faculty, regularly check out laptops and projectors
for use in their courses (Exhibit 5b3.4.1 Sample Sign-Out Sheet for Technology). Additionally, advanced faculty have
delivered courses either online or via compressed video. Course syllabi and
responses from Faculty Teaching Style survey data (Spring 2009) indicate the
use of technology throughout the programs (Exhibit 5b3.2.1 Teaching Styles
Inventory Data). Computer generated
documents and Internet searches are required for all courses that call for unit
plans, lesson plans, papers submitted for evaluation, powerpoints, and final
electronic portfolios. The survey revealed that 65% of faculty reported using
technology in general, 44% reported using electronic delivery systems such as
online discussion forums and providing supplemental materials.
Additionally, faculty who teach advanced level courses reported using
WebQuests, SPSS and interactive technology for teaching. Faculty also reported
teaching candidates how to conduct professional education literature searches
using technology such as EBSCO and ERIC. Faculty also report using
electronic gradebooks, digital and video-cameras, and electronic exercise
equipment for Health and Physical Education. Additionally, candidates
integrate technology into the lesson plan as a part of Universal Design for
Learning. Faculty have used webinars presented by professional
associations to offer professional development opportunities to candidates as
well as other faculty (Exhibit B1.5.1 Syllabi for Professional Education
Courses); (Exhibit 5d10.4.1 CEC Webinars Powerpoints and Notes).
5b.5 How do unit faculty members systematically engage in self-assessment of their own teaching?
Faculty submit annual reports documenting their productivity. Faculty to respond to the teaching areas of “1 Relations to students and student activities,” and “8 Activities relating to teaching.” It also requires faculty to reflect upon accomplishments, factors that impeded performance, and new opportunities desired. (Exhibit b1.2.17 Annual Faculty Report). Faculty use Peer Evaluations and student evaluations as reflective instruments to assess their teaching efficacy. The student evaluations used by the university are placed online for students to complete each semester for each class they are enrolled. As an additional means of verifying teaching effectiveness, the unit made the decision to adopt a return to the in-course, paper-pencil format. The student evaluations are distributed near the end of the course by the faculty member who gives the surveys to a student to distribute to the class while the faculty member is away from the class. Upon completion, a candidate collects the surveys, seals them in an envelope, and returns them to the department head, who gives them to the Assessment Coordinator or data analyst. This format produced more evaluations per course, and once the system was established, turnaround time to provide feedback to faculty regarding teaching improved from a year with the pilot sample in Fall 2008 (matching the university timetable), to one semester in Spring 2009, to five weeks for Fall 2009. Whether online or hardcopy format, data analyses take place after grades are submitted. Many faculty, desiring more specific and immediate feedback issue unofficial questionnaires and ask candidates to provide anonymous feedback about the course content, style of teaching and interactions, and solicit suggestions to improve the course. Professional education faculty in the initial and advanced areas use grades, grade distributions, and PRAXIS scores to track effectiveness and make adjustments to the course. These changes can be any of the following: more supplemental materials, more simulations, varying the order of the delivery of content, varying the candidate work samples, and collaborating with other faculty in the educational sequence. GSU faculty are required to use student evaluations as one means of determining teacher effectiveness for tenure, promotion, and for unit and university awards.
5c Modeling Best professional Practices in Scholarship
5c1 What types of scholarly work are expected of faculty as a part of the institution’s and unit’s mission?
The Unit is committed to promoting effective teaching, innovative scholarship, and dedicated service. That commitment is reflective of GSU’s mission statement as well as the unit’s mission statement. Faculty engage in scholarly work as part of a process for achieving tenure, promotion and maintaining graduate faculty status. The Faculty Handbook states that “The responsibilities of a faculty member include teaching, research or creative activities, professional activities, university service and community service” (p. 46). The annual report requires faculty to document: research projects undertaken and research projects completed, productive and creative activities and activities relating to research. Scholarly activities are defined by the university in the Faculty Handbook under Appendix C—Procedures for Tenure and/or Promotion. Faculty must engage in scholarship as a part of the tenure and promotion process. Faculty are expected to remain engaged in their fields and be familiar with trends and mandates regarding literacy, numeracy, high-stakes testing and Universal Design for Learning. The expectation is that faculty will continue to attend and present at conferences, participate in P-12 school settings and activities, and model life-long learning for candidates. (Exhibit B1.2.11 GSU Faculty Handbook) and (Exhibit B1.2.12 COE Handbook).
5c2 In what types of scholarship activities are faculty engaged? How is their scholarship related to teaching and learning? What percentage of the unit’s faculty is engaged in scholarship?
Faculty are engaged in a variety of scholarly activities including publications, presentations at the state, regional, and national/international levels, and grant writing, evidenced by the activities reflected in the vitas. 83% of faculty has been engaged in scholarly research, published in refereed journals (36%), published books related to fields of study or interest from counseling to health, references for self-improvement (11%), and written book chapters (31%) (Exhibit 5c220.127.116.11 Samples of Books, Articles, Presentations). Most faculty presented evidence of submitting proposals related to their fields that were accepted for peer-reviewed presentations at conferences including state, regional, and national/international conferences (74%), over the last 5 years (Exhibit 5c1.1.1 Summary of Scholarship). Faculty have presented with initial candidates at the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Annual College of Education Research Symposia, giving candidates the experiences of presenting original research to a professional audience. During those same symposia, advanced candidates were afforded opportunities to review proposals, and act as moderators (Exhibit 5f10.5.1 GSU COE Research Symposia). Faculty often collaborated to write grants that have been funded at various levels. 50% of faculty have written or co-written grants that were funded. Examples of funded grants include Supporting Urban Science and Mathematics Teachers (SUSME) from the National Science Foundation $327,000; Service-Learning Grants $30,000; Air Force Research Lab in conjunction with Clarkson Aerospace Corporation Outreach to Science Teachers $100,000; Center for Mathematical Achievement in Science and Technology (CMAST) grant to work with teachers in science $2,500,000; Title III Strengthening Teacher Preparation $450,00 over 5 years; Louisiana Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (LAGEARUP) $37,000, $84,000, $104,000, $104,000, $104,343 and $104,374. Additionally, the unit has 4 existing and 1 new endowed professorships in the Departments of Kinesiology and Educational Leadership.
5d Modeling Best professional Practices in Service
5d1 What types of service activities are expected of faculty as a part of the institution’s and unit’s mission?2000
Faculty must engage in service as a part of the tenure and promotion process for consideration for Faculty Awards both for the institution and the unit. These service activities are defined by the university in the Faculty Handbook under Appendix C—Procedures for Tenure and/or Promotion. The requirements for tenure, promotion, and merit raises evaluations are included in the COE Faculty Handbook. (Exhibit B1.2.11 GSU Faculty Handbook) and (Exhibit B1.2.12 COE Handbook). Faculty engage in service to the profession and the community reflective of the GSU’s and unit’s mission statements. Individual and collaborative service activities are accomplished on campus and in the community. Faculty serve their departments, their college, the university, GSU students, and the surrounding community, evidenced by annual reports and current vitas. Faculty serve as academic advisors, provide orientation for freshmen education majors, and sponsor student organizations. Off campus, faculty interact with and participate in P-12 schools and with other community partners.
5d2 In what types of service activities are faculty engaged? Provide examples of faculty service related to practice in P-12 schools and service to the profession at the local, state, national, and international levels (e.g., through professional associations). What percentage of the faculty is actively engaged in these various types of service activities?
COE faculty collaborate with COAS faculty to develop various teacher education degree programs. Many COAS faculty serve on committees and work on redesign of educational programs and program reviews for accreditation. There is cooperation in co-advising teacher candidates in content areas. Additionally, GSU works with other institutions (ULM and LaTech) to offer candidates an Ed.D in Curriculum and Instruction or Educational Leadership in the Louisiana Education Consortium (LEC). This arrangement allows faculty an opportunity to collaborate with peers from other higher learning institutions on dissertation committees, candidate internship projects, candidate advisement, and assessments. GSU hosted 3 educational symposia, where faculty had opportunities to interact with peers from within and outside of the state of Louisiana. Faculty direct both the SUSME grant for Math and Science Teachers (Exhibit 5d6.4.1) SUSME Grant and the LAGEARUP program, collaborating with faculty from the sciences and nursing (Exhibit 5d6.2.1 LA GEARUP). 53% engaged in service to the community through affiliations with non-profit organizations such as Habitat for Humanity (Exhibit 5d6.2.1 Habitat for Humanity). Faculty participate in P-12 service activities for local schools (68%) and P-12 services to the community through churches or Boys and Girls Clubs (50%). Service activities include professional development workshops for teachers, school consultants, tutoring, ACT, PSAT, iLEAP and LEAP preparations, and instructing dual enrollment classes. On campus, faculty offered Praxis I and II workshops, sponsored student organizations, developed conferences and chaperoned students to conferences (Exhibit 5f10.6.1 Diversity Conference; Exhibit 5f10.7.1 Reading Conference, Exhibit 5f10-5-2 Research Symposium). Between F06 and F09, faculty provided professional service to professional organizations at International/national (39%), regional, state or local (39%) levels (Exhibit 5d6.1.1 Summary of Service).
hold memberships in professional organization such as National and Louisiana
Association of Developmental Education, American Educational Research
Association, International Reading Association, North Louisiana Reading
Council, Louisiana Association of Teacher Educators, Kappa Delta Pi, National Council
of Teachers of English, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
Council for Exceptional Children, and American Alliance of Health, Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD). Faculty have been officers in
professional organizations at the state and regional levels, and have served as
proposal readers and moderators at conferences. Faculty serve the
university through Faculty Senate, PK-16+ Advisory
Council, Assessment Committee, General Education Committee, Grievous Committee,
Curriculum Committee, Judicial Affairs Faculty Representatives, Satisfactory Academic
Progress Committee, Appeals Committee, and Tenure and Promotion Committee.
5e Unit evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance
5e.1. How are faculty evaluated? How regular, systematic and comprehensive are the unit evaluations of adjunct/part-time, tenured, and non-tenured faculty, as well as graduate teaching assistants?3000
Data from candidate evaluations, peer-evaluations and self-evaluations collectively contribute to the determination of fulltime-faculty’s performance in the unit. The self evaluation is documented in the following ways: workload reports that identify intent of activity, annual reports of actual activity both of which are submitted to department heads; and a subcategory for an item on the (Exhibit B1.2.18 Faculty Performance Evaluation GFPE) form (a document used by all faculty in the University). The (Exhibit 5e8-1-1Faculty Workload Form) is submitted at the beginning of each term and is a pre-measure of teaching, research and service and the annual report is a post-measure that is completed annually. The peer-evaluation form is completed by the department head, or other senior faculty in the unit (Exhibit B1.2.19 Faculty Peer Evaluation). The annual report is a qualitative instrument that is used in the unit as the foundation for completing the GFPE (a quantitative instrument) (Exhibit B1.2.17 Annual Faculty Report). The GFPE is a summative instrument that triangulates data from all evaluation instruments and presents a comprehensive view of faculty performance for teaching, scholarship, and service. All full-time faculty in the unit are evaluated in this manner, including tenure-track faculty. Tenure-track faculty, when eligible, must apply for tenure and prepare a portfolio for evaluation (Exhibit 5e7.3.1 GSU Tenure and Promotion Evaluation Rubric and Checklist). The current budget conditions are such that we have not had part-time faculty for several years. Part-time faculty are evaluated by candidates each semester and through peer evaluations as needed. Employing units are responsible for providing graduate assistants (GA) an annual written evaluation. Supervisors complete a form and meet with the GA to review performance. Completed evaluations consist of a completed evaluation form and any GAs’ prepared responses.
5e.2. How well do faculty perform on the unit’s evaluations? (A table summarizing faculty performance could be attached at Prompt 5e.4 below)
in the unit perform well in the areas of teaching, research and service.
An analysis of faculty workloads indicates that faculty have comparable
workloads: professional activity is weighted toward teaching and service.
There is minimal activity in research, especially during the current year, due
to extra duty for accreditation preparation. The electronic candidate
evaluations of courses (S09, F09) indicate that candidates have a positive
perspective on faculty and courses in the Unit; 67%-83% (S09) and 60%-80% (F09)
of responses were positive. The data indicate that the majority of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed with the items asked. For example, selected
items from the instrument indicate that: instructor was among the best
they had ever known (75% S09, 72% F09), course was among the best they had ever
taken (73% S09, 65%), material was pertinent to their professional training
(S09 76%, 75% F09) course challenged them to think (78% S09, 70% F09) and
courses enabled them to apply concepts (79% S09, 78% F09). The paper evaluation
had a similar trend. Faculty self-evaluation indicate strong productivity in
research, teaching and service. Faculty in the unit had a mean total score 88
points (07-08) and 92 points (08-09) (out of 100 possible) for the last two
years on the GFPE. All faculty (100%) scored above 70 points over
the last two years; no mandatory improvement plans were necessary (Exhibit
5e9.4.1 Summary of Faculty Evaluations).
5e.3. How are faculty evaluations used to improve teaching, scholarship, and service?
Unit faculty engage in a comprehensive, systematic evaluation process that ensures efficacy in teaching, research and service. Department heads have first responsibility for monitoring professional education faculty’s performance and for collaboratively developing an improvement plan when necessary. For example, the GFPE reflects candidates’, respective faculty, and supervisors’ assessment of teaching, research and service. The unit expects a minimum score of 70 (of 100 points) on the instrument. Those who score lower than 70 work with their department heads to develop and implement a data driven improvement plan. Those who score below the mean on any component in the GFPE also collaborate with department heads on an improvement plan.
The peer evaluation is critically important because it gives faculty “an extra eye” on their performance in the classroom and it provides tangible feedback to faculty for targeted improvement (Exhibit B1-2-19 Faculty Peer Evaluation). This evaluation is conducted by the department head and other faculty peers at least bi-annually but more regularly if there is a need. The peer evaluation, coupled with the GFPE is the unit’s way of ensuring that the assessment process results in positive improvement for teaching, scholarship and service. The faculty in the unit have earned decades of professional experience in the preparation of candidates and the potential for loss of interest and passion for the work is real. Therefore, the evaluation process involves dialogue and brainstorming between the faculty person and the department head to find ways to foster intellectual vitality (a task that is not easy during this current economic condition).
5f Unit Facilitation of Professional Development
5f1 How is professional development related to needs outlined in unit evaluations of faculty? How does this occur?2000
Faculty and department heads work collaboratively to identify professional development needs and opportunities for growth annually. Areas for improvement in teaching, research and service (aligned with our Conceptual Framework) are standing priorities for professional development. Beginning in the Spring 2010 semester, the dean will conduct an annual needs assessment for professional development so that the Administrative Council can use data across program areas to identify unit-wide training. This will enable the unit to have centralized activities to address professional development needs in a way that is cost efficient. As a result of external mandates, recurring needs for professional development across the unit are in the areas of technology and assessment.
As part of an on-going self-assessment process, faculty identify their own professional development needs and act proactively by attending university sponsored training/workshops, engaging in webinars or attending conferences. Faculty are committed to their continuous professional development, evidenced by their use of personal funds to attend national/regional professional meetings when institutional funds are not available.
5f2 What professional development activities are offered to faculty related to performance assessment, diversity, technology emerging practices, and/or the unit’s conceptual framework?
Faculty are offered many opportunities for faculty development, both on and off campus, which fit into the unit’s conceptual framework requiring the demonstration of life long learning. The unit operates in an environment of frequent mandates for change from external powerbrokers, which requires faculty to be continuous learners. Many professional development activities are offered in the unit to update faculty on emerging practices. The CEC redesign included a webinar for the special education faculty, general education faculty and candidates. The CEC also had a webinar on diversity as part of the redesign process (Exhibit 5f10.4.1 CEC Webinars). Many of our candidate assessments are quantitative measures but faculty do not market themselves as data analysts or statisticians. Therefore the unit engages in assessment retreats where experiential learning activities refresh the quantitative skills of faculty and inform appropriate data-based actions. The unit partners with the Southern Regional Education Board, provides professional development for those who train educational leaders. The unit adopted Taskstream as an electronic assessment tool, and training for the effective use of this technology is underway. This training not only fosters faculty’s knowledge of technology, it also promotes their cognitive confidence in the use of technology. The unit will receive four smartboards. Some faculty are trained to use this instructional technology and other faculty will be trained over the next two semesters (Exhibit 5f10.8.1 TaskStream Training).
The dialogue and collaborative interaction between department heads and faculty in the evaluation process identifies specific deficits in qualifications, skills or scholarship. The university’s Title III program is a wonderful contribution to the unit’s faculty development, especially during these economic times. Through Title III and other past sources of support, two faculty members earned a terminal degree (one no longer with the unit), nearly all have attended meetings to stay current on accreditation standards, and others have attended workshops to attain specific skills (Exhibit 5f10.2.1 Title III Information; Exhibit 5f11.2.1 Title III Summary). Several faculty members attended assessment training with ETS this year (Exhibit 5f10.9.1 ETS Workshop; Exhibit 5f10.10.1 ETS Participants).
5f3 How often does faculty participate in professional development activities both on and off campus? (Include all faculty and graduate assistants!)
Faculty participate in professional development as needed or as is required. Part-time faculty are afforded the same professional development opportunities of full-time faculty. Faculty schedule personalized training in technology as needed with the university’s Information Technology unit and most participate in at least one workshop annually. The university operates in a paperless environment; faculty engage in training on grade submissions and other reporting techniques bi-annually (either by a specific class, workshop, meeting or individual tutorials) in order to stay current. Approximately 50% of faculty are trained for on-line instruction via blackboard and participate in training sessions biannually as a refresher. Due to the current state of the economy, campus-based professional development activities (workshops, webinars, teleconferences, etc.) are becoming prevalent and more frequent. Full-time tenured faculty travel to one or more off-campus professional meetings (e.g. NCATE, AACTE, SACS, etc.) at least biannually. Graduate assistants attend training related to their respective teaching duties annually (Exhibit 5f11-1.1 Sample of Conferences Attended).
5f4 Optional upload--
make table of professional development activities!
1. What does your unit do particularly well related to Standard 5? 2000
The unit is known in the state for having an exemplary LAGEARUP program where faculty effectively engage with secondary students and involve candidates in the experience. The LA-GEAR UP summer program has resulted in more students not only graduating from high school, but more have chosen to attend Grambling State University than any other university. Faculty in the unit facilitate the use of effective instructional strategies for faculty in other units of the university through various workshops. Faculty engage in continuous learning and stay current in their respective fields, which fosters timeliness and program redesign.
Faculty are noted for their caring and nurturing disposition. They stay in contact with many candidates long after the candidate has graduated. Candidates state that they are expected to be engaged in the learning. Advanced candidates anecdotally remark that they are expected to contribute even to the lectures through active discussions of what they are seeing and experiencing. Initial candidates remark that they come to us and talk because “you’ll listen to us”—even if we cannot solve the current problem, or if we have to give them bad news.
2. What research related to Standard 5 is being conducted by the unit or its faculty?2000
Teaching styles – What teaching
styles are Professional Education faculty using in their courses? How do they
decide which style to use with what course or level or need of candidates?
Learning styles—What learning styles are candidates bringing to the profession? How do those styles match the needs or strengths of their P-12 students?
Dispositions—How important are the dispositions that professional education faculty display with respect to the development of the dispositions of initial and advanced candidates?
Reconstructing Lives as impact upon teaching—how does the use of biographies impact the dispositions and knowledge of candidates with respect to their future students?