Program Report for the Masters Preparation of Educational Technologists Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)

Program Report for the Masters Preparation of Educational Technologists Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION COVER SHEET 1. Institution Name University of Central Missouri 2. State Missouri 3. Date submitted MM DD YYYY 09 / 14 / 2008 4. Report Preparer's Information: Name of Preparer: Odin Jurkowski Phone: ( 660 ) 543-8387 E-mail: jurkowski@ucmo.edu Ext. 5. NCATE Coordinator's Information: Name: Joyce Anderson Downing Phone: ( 660 ) 543-8762 E-mail: jdowning@ucmo.edu Ext. 6. Name of institution's program MS in Educational Technology

7. NCATE Category Educational Computing & Technology 8. Grade levels (1) for which candidates are being prepared k-20 (1) e.g. Early Childhood; Elementary K-6 9. Program Type Advanced Teaching i First teaching license Other School Personnel Unspecified 10. Degree or award level Baccalaureate i Post Baccalaureate Master's Post Master's Specialist or C.A.S. Doctorate Endorsement only 11. Is this program offered at more than one site? Yes i No 12. If your answer is "yes" to above question, list the sites at which the program is offered 13. Title of the state license for which candidates are prepared n/a 14. Program report status: Initial Review Response to One of the Following Decisions: Further Development Required, Recognition with Probation, or Not Nationally Recognized Response to National Recognition With Conditions i 15. State Licensure requirement for national recognition: NCATE requires 80% of the program completers who have taken the test to pass the applicable

state licensure test for the content field, if the state has a testing requirement. Test information and data must be reported in Section III. Does your state require such a test? Yes i No SECTION I - CONTEXT 1. Description of any state or institutional policies that may influence the application of AECT standards. (Response limited to 4,000 characters) Missouri does not offer teacher certification in the field of educational technology, and there is no licensure test. Candidates in the Educational Technology program are diverse. Most are k-12 teachers, others are school technology coordinators, teach and/or work in higher education, or are employed completely outside of educational institutions altogether. While most enter the program with an education background, some do not. Candidates in this program have undergraduate degrees ranging from education, to computer science, family and consumer science, industrial technology, journalism, and many others. As we have no state policies or standards our program has now been organized and structured entirely around AECT standards. 2. Description of the field and clinical experiences required for the program, including the number of hours for early field experiences and the number of hours/weeks for student teaching or internships. (Response limited to 8,000 characters) Each candidate is required to complete a 60 hour internship towards the end of the program. The objective of the internship is to provide candidates with an opportunity to work side-by-side with a professional involved in some form of educational technology: a k-20 teacher or technology coordinator, a computer lab coordinator or technology trainer, an industry corporate trainer, or other related professionals. In most cases the candidate will work in one location for all 60 hours, although in some cases the internship may be split into more than one placement. Interns participate in many different authentic experiences, with emphasis on three areas: instructional support, technical support, and network support. The purpose of the internship is to expose each intern to several different technology areas, not to prepare an individual who is necessarily an expert in any one area. Interns are encouraged to negotiate and create an internship experience that meets their needs and interests. A significant requirement in the internship is the development of a training workshop to be delivered at the internship site. This involves the candidate's assessment of technology training needs and the subsequent development and delivery of the workshop. Evaluations of this training are conducted by the internship director, the internship supervisor, and workshop attendees. Suggested modifications to the training are made by the intern in a redesign plan. A written reflection of this process is included in a weekly journal and a final written reflection is submitted to the internship director. This assignment allows candidates to demonstrate their ability to have an impact on the creation of a supportive learning environment. 3. Description of the criteria for admission, retention, and exit from the program, including required GPAs and minimum grade requirements for the content courses accepted by the program. (Response limited to 4,000 characters) Admission Criteria Applicants must have a bachelor's degree from institutions accredited by agencies recognized by the University of Central Missouri. All degree-seeking applicants must: 1. Submit a formal application for admission to the Graduate School;

2. Submit official transcripts of all undergraduate/graduate course work; 3. Include a non-refundable application fee. When all materials are complete the Graduate School will conduct an initial evaluation. Applicant files meeting the requirements for admission to graduate study will be forwarded to the department for consideration and recommendation. The department will notify the applicant of action taken and admission status. A departmental adviser will be assigned and will assist the applicant in formulating a program of study leading to the attainment of the applicant's objectives in pursuing graduate work. Applicants are required to have a 2.75 undergraduate cumulative GPA or a 3.0 undergraduate GPA during the last 60 hours of course work. Applicants not meeting this requirement may be accepted as a Provisional Candidate with the stipulation that they maintain a 3.0 graduate GPA during the first 12 hours of course work in the program. Additionally, applicants are required to submit three letters of recommendation to the Educational Technology Program Coordinator. Retention Criteria Candidates utilize the online Degree Auditing Systems (DARS) to ensure proper course placement and meeting of degree requirements. A candidate must maintain a cumulative grade point average of 3.0 to remain in good standing. The first semester a candidate earns below a 3.0 cumulative GPA he/she will be placed on probation. The second consecutive semester a candidate earns below a 3.0 cumulative GPA he/she will be continued on probation. The third consecutive semester a candidate earns below a 3.0 cumulative GPA he/she will be ineligible for degree. A candidate must receive a grade of C or higher in each course on the approved Program of Study. Not more than six semester hours of credit with a grade of C will be applied toward degree requirements. Exit Criteria A candidate becomes eligible for graduation by meeting requirements for the degree. Included among the requirements, a candidate must: - Complete satisfactorily the Professional Development Plan - Complete satisfactorily all required background courses and all courses listed on the approved Program of Study, or those subsequently approved. - Remove all U grades. - Earn a cumulative graduate grade-point average of 3.0 or higher on all graduate study taken within the eight years immediately prior to the date of graduation. Earn a cumulative GPA of 3.0 on graduate courses that are a part of the candidate's program of study and on all graduate work completed at UCM. 4. Description of the relationship (2) of the program to the unit's conceptual framework. (Response limited to 4,000 characters) The Educational Technology program is housed in the Department of Career and Technology Education within the College of Education. The Educational Technology program demonstrates a clear connection with the unit's conceptual

framework. Candidates are taught to be reflective practitioners as course work and assessments are practical, experiential, and real life. We expect candidates to be critical thinkers, creating and sharing what they learn as opposed to simply memorizing. With UCM's statewide technology mission, the Educational Technology program is uniquely suited to provide educators with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to utilize technology to enhance learning. In fact, one of the central aspects of our conceptual framework is the commitment to instructional and learning technology. The faculty value diversity and believe that everyone can learn, feel that field experiences are essential in the development of candidates, and want candidates to have the ability to gather, synthesize, and utilize information especially in light of the never ending change in today's technology and society as a whole. (2): The response should describe the program's conceptual framework and indicate how it reflects the unit's conceptual framework. 5. Indication of whether the program has a unique set of program assessments and their relationship of the program's assessments to the unit's assessment system (3). (Response limited to 4,000 characters) Candidates in the graduate Educational Technology program do not obtain teacher certification and do not student teach. Therefore, the unit assessments are not applicable. Unique, yet related, assessments are being utilized at the program level to connect to the AECT SPA standards. The six assessments that have been submitted with this report are unique to the department and to the Educational Technology program. The assessments, however, indicate that candidates are prepared for the role that they play in the learning environment in which they work. (3) This response should clarify how the key accessments used in the program are derived from or informed by the assessment system that the unit will address under NCATE Standard 2. 6. Please attach files to describe a program of study that outlines the courses and experiences required for candidates to complete the program. The program of study must include course titles. (This information may be provided as an attachment from the college catalog or as a student advisement sheet.) See Attachments panel below. Program of Study MS Educational Technology UCM.doc 7. This system will not permit you to include tables or graphics in text fields. Therefore any tables or charts must be attached as files here. The title of the file should clearly indicate the content of the file. Word documents, pdf files, and other commonly used file formats are acceptable. 8. Candidate Information Directions: Provide three years of data on candidates enrolled in the program and completing the program, beginning with the most recent academic year for which numbers have been tabulated. Report the data separately for the levels/tracks (e.g., baccalaureate, post-baccalaureate, alternate routes, master's, doctorate) being addressed in this report. Data must also be reported separately for programs offered at multiple sites. Update academic years (column 1) as appropriate for your data span. Create additional tables as necessary. Program: MS in Educational Technology # of Candidates

Academic Year Enrolled in the Program # of Program Completers (4) 2005-06 37 15 2004-05 34 11 2003-04 39 13 (4) NCATE uses the Title II definition for program completers. Program completers are persons who have met all the requirements of a state-approved teacher preparation program. Program completers include all those who are documented as having met such requirements. Documentation may take the form of a degree, institutional certificate, program credential, transcript, or other written proof of having met the program's requirements. 9. Faculty Information Directions: Complete the following information for each faculty member responsible for professional coursework, clinical supervision, or administration in this program. Faculty Member Name Highest Degree, Field, & University (5) Assignment: Indicate the role of the faculty member (6) Faculty Rank (7) Tenure Track Dr. Robert Hallis PhD in Musicology, University of Texas - Austin Faculty - INST 4330 (Technology Troubleshooting); INST 5360 (Educational Computing Systems) Associate Professor YES gfedcb Scholarship (8), Leadership in Professional Associations, and Service (9) :List up to 3 major contributions in the past 3 years (10) Teaching or other professional experience in P- 12 schools (11) n/a Approximately 45 workshops for undergraduate and graduate students every semester covering web design, productivity applications, and information resources. Faculty Member Name Highest Degree, Field, & University (5) Ms. Sandra Jenkins EdS in Human Services (Learning Resources), University of Central Missouri Assignment: Indicate the role Faculty - INST 4350 (Administration of the K-12 Computer Lab); INST 4400 of the faculty member (6) (Design and Production of Materials) Faculty Rank (7) Tenure Track Scholarship (8), Leadership in Professional Associations, and Service (9) :List up to 3 major contributions in the past 3 years (10) Teaching or other professional experience in P- 12 schools (11) n/a Instructor YES gfedc 1) Jenkins, S., & Eubanks, J. (2006). The research process: Books & beyond (Central Missouri State University Custom Edition, 2nd Edition). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. 2) Development and implementation of Workshop: How to take an online course. Summer 2007. 3) Student technology fee committee (department committee) Faculty Member Name Dr. Odin Jurkowski Highest Degree, Field, &

University (5) Assignment: Indicate the role of the faculty member (6) Faculty Rank (7) Tenure Track Scholarship (8), Leadership in Professional Associations, and Service (9) :List up to 3 major contributions in the past 3 years (10) EdD in Instructional Technology, Northern Illinois University Administrator - Program Coordinator; Faculty - INST 5130 (Foundations of Educational Technology); INST 5220 (Communication in Online Learning Communities); INST 5390 (Educational Technology Leadership); Clinical Supervisor - INST 6930 (Internship) Associate Professor YES gfedcb 1) Jurkowski, O. (2006). Technology and the school library: A comprehensive guide for media specialists and other educators. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. 2) Jurkowski, O. (2005). An analysis of library web sites at colleges and universities serving distance education students. In E.D. Garten, D.E. Williams, & J.M. Nyce (Eds.), Advances in library administration & organization (Vol. 22, pp. 23-77). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. 3) Jurkowski, O. (2007, October 16). Seeing the Big Picture: MOREnet conf Teaching or other professional experience in P- 12 schools (11) Supervise UCM student internships; High school substitute teacher 1993-1994 Faculty Member Name Highest Degree, Field, & University (5) Dr. Shantia Kerr PhD in Curriculum & Instruction (Learning Technologies), University of Minnesota, Assignment: Indicate the role Faculty - INST 4400 (Design and Production of Materials); INST 5320 of the faculty member (6) (Assessment and Evaluation of Online Instruction); INST 5330 (Educational Product Development) Faculty Rank (7) Tenure Track Scholarship (8), Leadership in Professional Associations, and Service (9) :List up to 3 major contributions in the past 3 years (10) Teaching or other professional experience in P- 12 schools (11) n/a Assistant Professor YES gfedcb 1) Hughes, J.E., Kerr, S.P., & Ooms, A. (2005). Content-Focused Technology Inquiry Groups: Cases of Teacher Learning and Technology Integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(4), 367-379. 2) Kerr, S.P. (2006, October). Online learning in American high schools. Paper presented at Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education E-Learn (AACE-E- Learn), International Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. 3) Kerr, S.P. (2005, March). Video case use in literacy teacher education. Paper presented at Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International (SITE), Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Faculty Member Name Highest Degree, Field, & University (5) Assignment: Indicate the role of the faculty member (6) Faculty Rank (7) Tenure Track Mr. Stan Smith MS in Biology, Kansas State University Faculty - INST 4005 (Special Project Web Design; Special Project Grant Writing); INST 4318 (Telecommunications in Education) Adjunct Instructor YES gfedc 1) Part of a group that worked with DESE to develop the State Educational Scholarship (8), Leadership in Technology Plan for Missouri. 2) Coordinated an innovative pilot program Professional Associations, and modifying the emints professional development model to be applied to a one-

Service (9) :List up to 3 major contributions in the past 3 years (10) Teaching or other professional experience in P- 12 schools (11) to-one handheld computer program for middle school teachers and students. 3) In the last three years presented each year at the Missouri Instructional Technology Conference, at the Midwest Educational Technology Conference, and at various school districts upon request. Taught Life Science at the Middle School level for 11 years; Instructional Technology Coordinator for the Warrensburg R6 School District for the last 10 years. Plan and carry out teacher professional development programs related to integration of technology into the curriculum in K-12 Faculty Member Name Highest Degree, Field, & University (5) Assignment: Indicate the role of the faculty member (6) Faculty Rank (7) Tenure Track Scholarship (8), Leadership in Professional Associations, and Service (9) :List up to 3 major contributions in the past 3 years (10) Teaching or other professional experience in P- 12 schools (11) n/a Ms. Savitri Wilder MS in Technology Education, University of Central Missouri Faculty - INST 3100 (Mediating Instruction); INST 5400 (Advanced Production of Educational Materials) Adjunct Instructor YES gfedc 1) MBEA 2007 conference in Springfield Advanced Dreamweaver: Complete Site Creation Co-presenter 2) MoDLA 2006 conference in Osage Beach Open Source Content Management System 3) Faculty Fellows 2006 Free Web 2.0 Applications for Education (5) e.g., PhD in Curriculum & Instruction, University of Nebraska. (6) e.g., faculty, clinical supervisor, department chair, administrator (7) e.g., professor, associate professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, instructor (8) Scholarship is defined by NCATE as systematic inquiry into the areas related to teaching, learning, and the education of teachers and other school personnel. Scholarship includes traditional research and publication as well as the rigorous and systematic study of pedagogy, and the application of current research findings in new settings. Scholarship further presupposes submission of one's work for professional review and evaluation. (9) Service includes faculty contributions to college or university activities, schools, communities, and professional associations in ways that are consistent with the institution and unit's mission. (10) e.g., officer of a state or national association, article published in a specific journal, and an evaluation of a local school program. (11) Briefly describe the nature of recent experience in P-12 schools (e.g. clinical supervision, inservice training, teaching in a PDS) indicating the discipline and grade level of the assignment(s). List current P-12 licensure or certification(s) held, if any. SECTION II - LIST OF ASSESSMENTS 1. In this section, list the 6-8 assessments that are being submitted as evidence for meeting the AECT standards. All programs must provide a minimum of six assessments. If your state does not require a state licensure test in the content area, you must substitute an assessment that documents candidate attainment of content knowledge in #1 below. For each assessment, indicate the type or form of the assessment and when it is administered in the program. (Response limited to 250 characters each field) Type and Number of Assessment Assessment #1: Licensure assessment, or other contentbased assessment (required) Name of Assessment (12) Professional Development Plan Type or Form of Assessment (13) Professional Development Plan When the Assessment Is Administered (14) Completion of Program

Assessment #2: Assessment of content knowledge in instructional or educational communications and technology (required) Assessment #3: Assessment of candidate ability to plan (required) Assessment #4: Assessment of student teaching/internship/practicum etc. (required) Assessment #5: Assessment of candidate effect on student/client learning (required) Assessment #6: Additional assessment that addresses AECT standards (required) Assessment #7: Additional assessment that addresses AECT standards (optional) Assessment #8: Additional assessment that addresses AECT standards (optional) Course Reflection Design of Training Materials Internship Evaluation Training Workshop Digital Library Essay Project / Lesson Plan Clinical Evaluation Lesson Project INST 5130: Foundations of Educational Technology INST 5220: Communication in Online Learning Communities INST 6930: Internship in Educational Technology INST 6930: Internship in Educational Technology INST 5330: Educational Product Development and Management (12) Identify assessment by title used in the program; refer to Section IV for further information on appropriate assessment to include. (13) Identify the type of assessment (e.g., essay, case study, project, comprehensive exam, reflection, state licensure test, portfolio). (14) Indicate the point in the program when the assessment is administered (e.g., admission to the program, admission to student teaching/internship, required courses [specify course title and numbers], or completion of the program). SECTION III - RELATIONSHIP OF ASSESSMENT TO STANDARDS For each AECT standard on the chart below, identify the assessment(s) in Section II that address the standard. One assessment may apply to multiple AECT standards. 1. AECT STANDARDFOR MASTERS AECT PREPARATION #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 1. Design. Candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions

to design conditions for learning by applying principles of instructional systems design, message design, instructional strategies, and learner characteristics. 2. Development. Candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to develop instructional materials and experiences using print, audiovisual, computer-based, and integrated technologies. 3. Utilization. Candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to use processes and resources for learning by applying principles and theories of media utilization, diffusion, implementation, and policy-making. 4. Management. Candidates demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions to plan, organize, coordinate, and supervise instructional technology by applying principles of project, resource, delivery system, and information management. 5. Evaluation. Candidates demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions to evaluate the adequacy of instruction and learning by applying principles of problem analysis, criterion-referenced measurement, formative and summative evaluation, and long-range planning. gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedc gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedcb gfedcb gfedc gfedc gfedc SECTION IV - EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARDS DIRECTIONS: The 6-8 key assessments listed in Section II must be documented and discussed in Section IV. The assessments must be those that all candidates in the program are required to complete and should be used by the program to determine candidate proficiencies as expected in the program standards. Assessments and scoring guides should be aligned with the SPA standards. This means that the concepts in the SPA standards should be apparent in the assessments and in the scoring guides to the same depth, breadth, and specificity as in the SPA standards. In the description of each assessment below, the SPA has identified potential assessments that would be appropriate. Assessments have been organized into the following three areas that are addressed in NCATE s unit standard 1: Content knowledge (Assessments 1 and 2) Pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions (Assessments 3 and 4) Focus on student learning (Assessment 5) Note that in some disciplines, content knowledge may include or be inextricable from professional knowledge. If this is the case, assessments that combine content and professional knowledge may be considered "content knowledge" assessments for the purpose of this report. For each assessment, the compiler should prepare a document that includes the following items: a two page narrative that responds to questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 (below) and the three items listed in question 5 (below). This document should be attached as directed. 1. A brief description of the assessment and its use in the program (one sentence may be sufficient); 2. A description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards it is cited for in Section III. Cite SPA standards by number, title, and/or standard wording. 3. A brief analysis of the data findings; 4. An interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards, indicating the specific SPA standards by number, title, and/or standard wording; and

5. Attachment of assessment documentation, including: (a) the assessment tool or description of the assignment; (b) the scoring guide for the assessment; and (c) candidate data derived from the assessment. It is preferred that the response for each of 5a, 5b, and 5c (above) be limited to the equivalent of five text pages, however in some cases assessment instruments or scoring guides may go beyond five pages. All three components of the assessment (as identified in 5a-c) must be attached, with the following exceptions: (a) the assessment tool and scoring guide are not required for reporting state licensure data, and (b) for some assessments, data may not yet be avail 1. State licensure tests or professional examinations of content knowledge. AECT standards addressed in this entry could include any or all of Standards 1-5. If your state does not require licensure tests or professional examinations in the content area, data from another assessment must be presented to document candidate attainment of content knowledge. If you do not have a licensure or professional examination of content knowledge, provide another content-based assessment, as described under # 2 below. (Answer Required) See Attachments panel below. Educational Technology Assessment 1 Professional Development Plan 2. Assessment of content knowledge (17) in early childhood education. AECT standards addressed in this assessment could include any or all of Standards 1-5. Examples of assessments include comprehensive examinations, GPAs or grades, (18) content major projects or portfolio tasks. (19) (Answer Required) See Attachments panel below. Educational Technology Assessment 2 Course Reflection (17) Content knowledge in early childhood professional preparation includes knowledge of child development and learning (characteristics and influences); family relationships and processes; subject matter knowledge in literacy, mathematics, science, social studies, the visual and performing arts, and movement/physical education; as well as knowledge about children's learning and development in these areas. (18) If grades are used as the assessment or included in the assessment, provide information on the measurement criteria for those grades and describe how they align with the specialty standards. (19) For program review purposes, there are two ways to list a portfolio as an assessment. In some programs a portfolio is considered a single assessment and scoring criteria (usually rubrics) have been developed for the contents of the portfolio as a whole. In this instance, the portfolio would be considered a single assessment. However, in many programs a portfolio is a collection of candidate work and the artifacts included 3. Assessment that demonstrates candidates can effectively plan and implement appropriate teaching and learning experiences. AECT standards that could be addressed in this assessment include any or all of Standards 1-5. Examples of assessments include the evaluation of candidates

abilities to apply elements of the instructional design process, create learning environments, develop training, staff development or intervention plans. (Answer Required) See Attachments panel below. Educational Technology Assessment 3 Design of Training Materials 4. Assessment that demonstrates candidates' knowledge, skills, and dispositions are applied effectively in practice. AECT standards that could be addressed in this assessment include any or all of Standards 1-5. The assessment instrument used in the internship, practicum or other field experiences (action research qualifies as a field experience) should be submitted. (Answer Required) See Attachments panel below. Educational Technology Assessment 4 Internship Evaluation 5. Assessment that demonstrates candidate effects on student learning. AECT standards that could be addressed in this assessment include any or all of Standards 1-5. Examples of assessments include those based on student or client work samples, action research, portfolio tasks, case studies, follow-up studies, and employer or client surveys. (Answer Required) See Attachments panel below. Educational Technology Assessment 5 Training Workshop 6. Additional assessment that addresses AECT standards. Examples of assessments include evaluations of field experiences, case studies, portfolio tasks, licensure tests not reported in #1, and follow-up studies. (Answer Required) See Attachments panel below. Educational Technology Assessment 6 Digital Library 7. Additional assessment that addresses AECT standards. Examples of assessments include evaluations of field experiences, case studies, portfolio tasks, licensure tests not reported in #1, and follow-up studies.

8. Additional assessment that addresses AECT standards. Examples of assessments include evaluations of field experiences, case studies, portfolio tasks, licensure tests not reported in #1, and follow-up studies. SECTION V - USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE PROGRAM 1. Evidence must be presented in this section that assessment results have been analyzed and have been or will be used to improve candidate performance and strengthen the program. This description should not link improvements to individual assessments but, rather, it should summarize principal findings from the evidence, the faculty's interpretation of those findings, and changes made in (or planned for) the program as a result. Describe the steps program faculty has taken to use information from assessments for improvement of both candidate performance and the program. This information should be organized around (1) content knowledge, (2) professional and pedagogical knowledge, skill, and dispositions, and (3) student learning. (Response limited to 12,000 characters) Overview: The College of Education is currently NCATE accredited although the Educational Technology program had never chosen a SPA and gone through the rigor of the accreditation process. When the two full-time faculty left and were replaced by one full-time faculty member we began the initial steps for accreditation even though we knew it was too late to have three years of data in time for the next visit. With the hiring in August 2008 of a second faculty member and some initial data collection we are now beginning to feel like some progress is being made. The current semester breakdown for responsibility of each assessment is as follows: Assessment 1: Professional Development Plan - Odin Jurkowski Assessment 2: Course Reflection - Odin Jurkowski Assessment 3: Design of Training Materials - Shantia Kerr Assessment 4: Internship Evaluation - Odin Jurkowski Assessment 5: Training Workshop - Odin Jurkowski Assessment 6: Digital Library - Shantia Kerr At this point we have two semesters worth of data that we have collected and analyzed. Some assessments are given each semester (#1, #2, #4, #5), while others are given only once or twice per year (#3, #6). One assessment (#6) was not offered during these past two semesters so there is currently no data. Overall, because of the low enrollment and the loss of candidates during the transition from the past faculty to the new, the number of candidates that have been assessed is relatively low. Our program is in a continual state of improvement and in a period of rapid growth. Improvement should be ongoing as we of all people understand the instructional design process and the importance of evaluation and a continuous cycle of improvement. Furthermore, having never gone through the NCATE process before, with the hiring of two faculty to replace the two that left, the reinvention of all of the courses in the program, and the need to grow the program to attract more candidates, this accreditation process has given us the opportunity to organize and determine how to better structure the program.

Content Knowledge: As demonstrated in Assessments 1 and 2, professional development plan and course reflection, our candidates are in relatively good shape when it comes to overall content knowledge. They are exposed to projects in various classes that address all five AECT standards and have done well in articulating what they have learned from their course reflection early in the program to the professional development plan at the end of the program. The course reflection was a natural addition to the first course in the program. Normally a course reflection is a standard piece of most classes that we teach. By focusing on the AECT standards in this reflection we were able to strengthen the connection between the overview they received during the course and the knowledge they built. The professional development plan, however, was difficult because as the new faculty stepped into the program we had to work with candidates that did not really know us. They came to us at the tail end of a program that no longer existed. Furthermore, the choice of these assessments allows us to look at students as they enter and then later exit the program. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions: Overall we feel satisfied with this domain as measured by performance on Assessments 3 and 4, the design of training materials and the internship evaluation. While candidate performance has certainly been acceptable, and only a few candidates seemed to have a few difficulties, the small number of candidates in our data pool makes it difficult to make generalizations. Nevertheless, faculty are continually reviewing their courses and their assessments to improve clarity and reinforce concepts. Probably the most notable difficulty is with the internship as interaction with faculty is limited. Candidates choose a location which is approved by faculty. They are then left to complete their internship with most of their guidance by the on site supervisor. Their success lies heavily with that person. While this provides flexibility and an opportunity for real life experiences, candidates may have diverse experiences which may be either positive or negative. Furthermore, detailed and structured instructions in the syllabus is ever more important so that they understand course expectations. Student Learning: As Assessment 6, digital library, has not yet been given, we have relied on Assessment 5, training workshop, to indicate candidate effectiveness on student learning. Completed during the internship this is the only time that all candidates are outside of the classroom and have real life scenarios in which to teach. While the majority of our candidates are k-12 teachers of some sort, not all are. Candidates have chosen internship sites including k-12 schools, but have also worked in higher education in such areas as centers for teaching and learning and library technology instruction. Conclusion: Although our data collection is limited, our initiation into the NCATE process and the newness of the faculty in the Educational Technology program has led to a great deal of excitement and energy. We are reinventing the program, often teaching courses for the first and second times, and looking for ways to improve everything we do. We look forward to the semesters ahead and how the accreditation process will help to improve our candidates learning. SECTION VI - FOR REVISED REPORTS OR RESPONSE TO CONDITIONS REPORTS ONLY 1. Describe what changes or additions have been made in response to issues cited in previous recognition report. List the sections of the report you are resubmitting and the changes that have been made. Specific instructions for preparing a revised report or a response to condition report are available on the NCATE web site at http://www.ncate.org/institutions/process.asp?ch=4 (Response limited to 24,000 characters.)

The previous program report included no data. Assessments were created Fall 2007 and implemented Spring 2008. We now have two semesters worth of data, Spring and Summer 2008. This revised program report includes data and more information for each of the assessments as seen in new attachments for Section IV. It also includes and is followed by Section V, providing information on the use of data collected. The only other change is the addition of Dr. Shantia Kerr as a new faculty member hired August 2008. Please click "Next" This is the end of the report. Please click "Next" to proceed.