Exhibit 2.4.g.9 Special Education Initial Certification (BS/MAT, MEd) Comprehensive Data Analysis Report (DAR) Summary 2011-2013
AY11:
1. Have the change(s) in response to data that you documented last year had the desired effect on your program? Please provide specifics referencing prior changes that you submitted in AY 2009-10.
Within the Department of Special Education, five basic themes for areas of improvement emerged from the 2009-10 data analysis:
· Multicultural Perspectives
· Integration of Technology
· Portfolio
· Advising
· Increased Sample Size
The Department of Special Education faculty identified the following recommendations to address these areas. Specific responses are reported in italics below each recommendation. Goals that align direction with the COE Strategic Plan are marked with an asterisk.
Multicultural Perspectives
· *Continue to increase/emphasize multicultural perspectives in coursework and internship placements.
o Continue the internal SPED committee to focus on enhancing multicultural instruction and activities in courses.
Response:
o The SPED Multicultural Committee membership continued from January through May with the following faculty members: Kati Stein, chair, Jess Moore (also SPED representative to the COE Diversity Committee),Kay Holman, Diane Diven and Donna Janney.
o In August 2011, Patty Doran joined the Multicultural Committee and replaced Jess Moore as SPED representative to the COE Diversity Committee. Laila Richman also joined, replacing Donna Janney.
o The committee continues to lead the departmental focus on multicultural issues, discussions, instructional materials, references, etc.
o Faculty have included references to including the integration of multicultural perspectives into their coursework in the “New instructional procedures” segment of the Annual Review, Part II.
o Dedicate a portion of each department meeting to multicultural discussions/activities, facilitated and led by this committee.
Response:
o Beginning with the March 2010 department meeting, the committee has presented/facilitated this focus at each meeting, including:
§ Revision and approval of diversity working definition, which is now embedded into every Special Education course syllabus.
§ A variety of topics to be covered monthly identified by faculty.
o Provide materials on multicultural instruction to faculty.
Response:
o What Every Teacher Should Know About English Language Learners was given to each faculty member.
o Additionally, a summary of the multicultural focus, activities and materials developed for each undergraduate and graduate course in the Special Education Department was developed by the committee, and provided at the September meeting.
o This was posted on the Special Education Instructional Wiki by Dr. O’Hanlon.
o Books and instructional materials on cultural and linguistic diversity are also being identified and added to the department resource library.
o Many Special Education faculty also attended the University multi-cultural conference in February.
o Increase emphasis on multicultural instruction in each Special Education course.
Response:
o Each course lead was expected to collaborate with course instructors through email, conference call, or paid summer workshop to identify instructional materials and resources and develop activities that embed identified multicultural issues into the course content. This information was sent to Kati Stein by 7/31/11.
o A multicultural parents’ panel was presented during the Fall 2011 semester, arranged by Dr. Holman and Mrs. Berquist. Faculty teaching relevant courses in other departments in the COE and other Colleges were also invited to attend, along with their students.
o Select search candidates for associate professor vacancies with expertise in diversity.
Response:
o All three candidates, who were offered an assistant professor position in the Special Education Department, had expertise in the area of cultural and linguistic diversity.
o Two of the three candidates accepted the positions, Dr. Patty Doran and Dr. Laila Richman.
Integration of Instructional Technology
· * Increase integration of instructional technology in coursework and internship placements.
o Promote technology integration in coursework and internship placements.
Response:
o PDS Coordinators added additional internship sites that continue to be equipped with interactive whiteboards.
o Additionally, a number of Ipad and Ipod touch devices, a dedicated laptop, as well as video cameras have been requested for course and internship instructional purposes.
o A departmental wiki has been created by Dr. O’Hanlon, which houses faculty instructional activities/materials, as well as media services.
o Embed a school technology inventory into the internship service learning project, with interns utilizing and demonstrating technology within the school as part of this project.
Response:
o A summer workshop was scheduled to focus on this initiative, however, was unable to be held due to scheduling conflicts with several of the participants.
o Emphasize the use of technology in the JPTAAR lesson plan format.
Response:
o The UDL lesson plan, which is one of the signature assessments as well as a portfolio artifact, was revised and approved by faculty during the 2009-10 academic year.
o Provide opportunities for Universal Design for Learning (UDL) training for faculty, with the expectation that these principles will be incorporated into course presentations.
Response:
o Liz Berquist was instrumental in arranging for Dr. Todd Rose, from CAST, to offer a series of presentations on UDL and cognitive neuroscience to COE faculty, which was co-sponsored by the Department of Special Education on March 3 and 4, 2011.
o Liz also shared UDL resources that can be used to introduce students to UDL, as well as be incorporated into lesson planning and instruction, at the March department meeting. The CAST website, the National UDL Center as well as the MSDE online UDL site were shared.
o A Practical Reader in UDL has also been provided for each faculty member.
o Additionally, Dr. Gartland provided each faculty member with a copy of the 2011 Assistive Technology Resources CD-Rom at the October 2011 faculty meeting.
o Increase expectations of Promethian whiteboard usage in course presentations for faculty teaching in classrooms equipped with this technology.
Response:
o Faculty members new to teaching with whiteboards are expected to create a minimum of two lessons/semester using this technology.
o Faculty members who used whiteboards last year are expected to create minimally four lessons/semester.
o Many faculty members use whiteboards routinely during class instruction, as well as student presentations.
o Beginning fall 2011, an additional classroom equipped with a Promethian board has been dedicated for departmental use and a Promethian board was added to the Special Education lab in HH 112.
Portfolio
· *Continuously monitor pilot portfolio implementation.
o EESE, Single Certification, and Graduate teams will monitor student performance, as well as mentor/supervisor/evaluation feedback, for portfolio revisions. Response:
o Revised portfolio guidelines were submitted to CPP and the Dean’s office for review and approval.
o Faculty met to revise and further align portfolio requirements during summer meetings and workshops, and shared recommendations with the faculty at the September department meeting.
o Revisions were approved and are being implemented for the 2011-12 year.
o Teams will investigate the TPAC requirements and create a timeline for 2013 implementation. Response:
o A team of supervisors met with Karen Schafer to discuss the TPAC requirements during the spring semester.
o The special education TPAC protocol has not yet been released; further implementation discussion will occur once this is available.
Advising
· Increase the number of advisors in the Special Education Department to respond to the department’s enrollment growth.
o With the exception of the first year faculty, all faculty members will be assigned to program coordination, supervision, and/or advising responsibilities. Response:
o These assignments have been made; Dr. Fewster and Dr. O’Hanlon will begin advising as of the 2011-12 academic year.
o Training will be provided for new faculty advisors.
Response:
o A summer advisor workshop was held on June 14, 201, where University and departmental advising guidelines and expectations were reviewed and discussed. Information regarding the new Core Curriculum was also reviewed.
o Mrs. Rappa will work closely with Dr. Fewster and Mr. Meyer will assist Dr. O’Hanlon as they transition into the advising role this year.
Increased Sample Size/Maintain Communication with TU Graduates
· Increase efforts to maintain communication between the Special Education faculty and graduates.
o Maintain email directory for continued communication for outreach and survey information. Response:
o Supervisors agreed to collect contact emails for their graduating interns, so that post-graduation communication could continue.
o *Create Outreach Committee to investigate professional development and topics for TU graduates – Betsy Neville chaired this committee, however, faculty members were not available to participate at this time. This initiative will be continued into the 2011-12 academic year.
2. What significant findings emerge from your examination of these data?
It appears that the collective efforts recorded above have been effective, as the 2010-2011 data evidence growth in all five of the areas specified for improvement. Overall, the 2008-09 data reports contained 525 data cells, of which 79 (15%) were rated below 4.0. The 2009-10 data reports contain 850 data cells, of which 55 (6.4%) were rated below 4.0. The 2010-11 data reports contain 731 data cells, of which 29 (.04%) were rated below 4.0. It should also be noted that during this same period of time (2010-11) in the Special Education Department, the total Student Credit Hour production increased by 41%, with TLN production increasing by 49% above 2009-10 figures. These data confirm that the efforts of the Special Education Department over the past several years to improve and increase our influence in the profession have been successful. It should be noted that no significant difference in data was evident between courses taught on the TU campus compared to the off-site locations, nor was there a difference between data from courses taught by part-time versus full time faculty. Efforts toward continuous improvement continue; specific significant findings identified among all four initial certification programs are addressed below:· All data concerning TU undergraduate and graduate programs are above 4.0.
· Data below 4.0 are consolidated to responses from first and third year graduate and employer surveys.
· While slightly improved from the previous year, the low number of respondents in these three reports remains a concern.
3. How have you involved faculty in your identification of the implications of these data?
At each monthly department meeting following the January 2011 Strategic Planning Retreat, time was allotted to review the progress to date toward the action plan created from 2009-10 data. Additionally, minor revisions to the signature assessments were discussed and implemented, as appropriate.
A Strategic Planning Retreat was held on October 17, 2011, which included all faculty members. During the first half of the meeting, faculty chose to participate in a focus group to review and analyze the data for one specific CEC Signature Assessment. Significant findings and program recommendations were shared with the entire faculty for each assessment; results are reported in the Data Analysis Report, Part I. During the second half of the retreat, focus groups were created, consistent with the Department of Special Education organization plan, e.g. EESE, Single Special Education Certification, and Graduate Programs. Each group reviewed and analyzed the data sets pertinent to its focus and shared the findings with the entire department. As a department, specific areas were identified and action plans were developed in response to the data, which are delineated below. The initial data analysis, significant findings and recommendations were sent to the faculty electronically on November 1, 2011 in order to provide time for them to review the information prior to the November 7th Department Meeting. During that meeting, the report was finalized and approved.
4. What specific actions will you take in response to these data?
After carefully analyzing the data within and across programs in the Special Education Department, it was determined that the department should continue to focus on and expand four of the five themes for areas of improvement that were identified and addressed in the 2010-11 report. The area of advising was adequately addressed last year and was not continued in 2011-12. One additional areas of focus was added. The areas of focus for 2011-12 are:
Multicultural Perspectives
Integration of Technology
Portfolio
Sample Size/Maintenance of Communication with TU SPED Graduates
Teacher Induction Professional Development
The Department of Special Education faculty identified the following recommendations to
address these areas. Goals/actions marked with * directly align with the COE Strategic Plan.
Multicultural Perspectives
· *Continue to increase/emphasize multicultural perspectives in coursework and internship placements.
o Continue the internal Special Education Multicultural Committee to focus on enhancing multicultural instruction and activities in courses and internships.
o Dedicate a portion of each departmental meeting to multicultural discussions/activities lead by the committee.
o Continue increased emphasis on multicultural instruction in each SPED course.
o Provide materials on multicultural instruction to faculty.
o Develop a graduate certificate program with a focus on cultural and linguistic diversity for general and special educators.
Integration of Instructional Technology
· *Increase integration of instructional technology in coursework and internship placements.
o Continue to promote technology integration collaboration with PDS sites and mentor teachers.
o Embed a school technology inventory into the internship service learning project, with interns utilizing and demonstrating technology within the school as part of the project.
o Continue to emphasize the use of technology in the JPTAAR lesson plan format.
o Continue to provide opportunities for Universal Design for Learning (UDL) training for faculty, with the expectation that these principles will be incorporated into course presentations.
o Continue professional development in the use of technology for special education faculty.
o Increase expectations of Promethean whiteboard usage in course presentations for faculty teaching in classrooms equipped with this technology.
Portfolio
· *Continuously monitor pilot portfolio implementation.
o EESE, Single Certification, and Graduate teams will monitor student performance, as well as mentor/supervisor/evaluator feedback, for portfolio revisions.
o Teams will revisit TPAC requirements once the Special Education TPAC protocol is released.
Increased Sample Size/Maintain Communication with TU Graduates
· Increase efforts to maintain communication between the Special Education faculty and graduates.
o Maintain email directory for continued communication for outreach and survey information.
o Maintain data on graduates who are hired and the locations in which they are working.
Teacher Induction Professional Development
· *Develop Professional Development Outreach for TU Graduates
o *Create an Outreach Committee to investigate professional development opportunities and topics for TU graduates.
o Offer support to beginning teachers through workshops, newsletters, wiki site, etc.
o Create a graduate certificate program for beginning teachers consisting of a 4 course sequence that leads to a master’s program.
Report1: Rating of Special Education Program by Interns