5b.1. How does instruction by professional education faculty reflect the conceptual framework as well as current research and developments in the fields?

Instruction by professional education faculty reflects the conceptual framework, as well as current research and developments in the fields (Exhibit C1.1 Learning Facilitator Model Description) Faculty members help candidates develop proficiencies in professional, state, and institutional standards. Faculty members have aligned course syllabi with the conceptual framework, as well as institutional, state, and professional standards. (Exhibit 2a3.3 Matrix of Courses & Syllabi) Part III of each course syllabus includes Course Objectives, Outcomes, and Standards. The framework outlines the experiences and performances necessary for the candidates’ successful completion of educator programs, and the conceptual framework guides faculty behaviors in helping the candidates reach their respective goals. The faculty’s systematic infusion of the conceptual framework knowledge, skills, and dispositions (KSDs) throughout teaching, learning, and assessment offers repeated evidence of implementation of best teaching practices. Signature assessments, described in the discussion of Standard 2, with the associated candidate performance data reported in the Standard 1 discussions, are directly tied to the KSDs. (Exhibit 1c1.1 Undergraduate Signature Assessment Description, Rubrics and Data, Exhibit 1b1.1 MAT Signature Assessment Description, Rubrics and Data, Exhibit 1b2.1 M.Ed. Signature Assessment Description, Rubrics and Data) In Part III of each course syllabus, the knowledge, skills, and dispositions, along with professional, state, and institutional standards are referenced to each of the course objectives. Unit faculty members embody the term learning facilitator in their interaction with the candidates, especially in their teaching practice. The graphic depiction of the ULM Conceptual Framework incorporates concentric circles to convey the unit’s commitment to prepare learning facilitators to move from the university classrooms and beyond to positively impact an increasingly diverse world community. Both undergraduate and graduate programs within the unit subscribe to the conceptual framework. Not only do faculty teach about professional practices, but they also model what they teach in their varied methodology and candidate activities. By modeling the best practices in instruction and candidate supervision, faculty immerse candidates in learning experiences through which the candidates can develop their own professional persona.

5b.2. How do unit faculty members encourage the development of reflection, critical thinking, problem solving, and professional dispositions?

Unit faculty encourage the development of reflection, critical thinking, problem solving, and professional dispositions. The Standard 5 Survey and other surveys asked faculty members to indicate the ways they encouraged the development of candidate professional dispositions (Question #35) (Exhibit 5b2.1 Standard 5 Survey) During Fall 2006 through Summer 2008, assignments and assessments used by professional education faculty engaged the candidates in the development of reflection (86.4%), critical thinking (81.8%), problem solving (72.7%), and professional dispositions (77.3%). Parts VI, VII, and VIII of each course syllabus include Course Topics, Instructional Methods and Activities, and Assessment and Grade Assessment (Exhibit 2a3.3 Matrix of Courses & Syllabi) Activities, Assessments, and Course Topics are used by faculty members to develop these knowledge, skills, and dispositions. For example, candidates are asked to review, analyze, integrate, reflect, and investigate Course Topics and Concepts. Course syllabi also indicate that faculty use varied resources within their classes to adapt instruction and provide models for the candidates. Parts IV, V, and IX of each course syllabus include the Primary Empirical Base, Resources and Materials, Contemporary and Classical References, and Key Professional Journals.

5b.3. What types of instructional strategies and assessments do unit faculty members model?

Interviews of department heads and selected faculty, responses to the Standard 5 Survey during Fall 2008, and a review of course syllabi provide data about the types of instructional strategies and assessments that unit faculty members model (Exhibit 5b2.1 Standard 5 Survey) Course syllabi outline the depth and breadth of teaching and learning in the various courses in the unit’s programs and, along with faculty modeling of best practices and the carefully developed Signature Assessments, demonstrate the value faculty place on candidate learning (Exhibit 2a3.3 Matrix of Courses & Syllabi) Parts VII and VIII of each course syllabus include Instructional Methods and Activities, and Assessment and Grade Assessment. Instructional strategies are outlined in (Exhibit 5b3.1 Summary of Instructional Strategies) The Standard 5 Survey Monkey asked faculty members their use of various instructional strategies. Among the responses were: peer teaching (50%), journal writing (50%), projects (89.3%), development of portfolios (67.9%), research papers (46.4%), and the use of Internet research (85.7%) (Question #22). Consistent with the variety of instructional approaches they use, professional education faculty members also model multiple forms of assessments that allow candidates to demonstrate knowledge and skills in various ways. A significant majority of the Standard 5 Survey Monkey respondents reported using the following assessment approaches: objective tests (85.7%), subjective tests (78.6%), and objective and subjective items on one test (75%) (Question #22). Respondents were also asked to indicate ways field experiences are used in your classes: observations (95.8%), teach a lesson (66.7%), teach units (29.2%), and student teaching (20.8%) (Question #25). Standard 5 Survey respondents indicated ways data are collected in your classes for improving the teaching of your classes: in-class evaluations (79.3%), informal class suggestions (79.3%), formal class suggestions (41.4%), individual suggestions (72.4%), and faculty evaluations (75.9%) (Question #27). Standard 5 Survey respondents also indicated ways data are collected in their classes: candidates’ completion of TaskStream assignments (91.3%); and completion of pretests and posttests of peer teaching (34.8%), lessons in local schools (26.1%), assigned units of local schools (26.1%), and student teaching in local schools (17.4%) (Question #26).

5b.4. How do unit faculty members incorporate the use of technology into instruction?

Course syllabi, interviews of department heads and selected faculty, and responses to the Standard 5 Survey during Fall 2008 show the integration of technology throughout the programs of professional study (Exhibit 5b2.1 Standard 5 Survey). Faculty use technology both instructionally and informationally. Part VII of each course syllabus includes the Instructional Methods and Activities. The unit’s course syllabi are shown in (Exhibit 2a3.3 Matrix of Courses & Syllabi). Computer usage is required in all courses in the writing of lesson plans, interdisciplinary unit plans of study, papers and other written work submitted for evaluation. The Standard 5 Survey asked faculty members to indicate all the ways they use technology in teaching their classes. Among the responses were: e-mail (90%), Blackboard/Moodle (80%), PowerPoint presentations (80%), Internet searches (73.3%), Internet usage of programs (46.7%), research-based instruction (60%), TaskStream electronic portfolios and other submissions (63.3%), preparing teaching materials and aids (70%), and other ways (26.7%) (Question #24). (Exhibit 5b4.1 A Summary of Technology Usage) lists many uses of technology by the unit faculty. Interviews with selected faculty indicated other uses of technology. Faculty members may also use electronic grade book software; video cameras; and various exercise equipment. Some faculty members also schedule conferences with candidates using computer technology. Thus, the use of technology reported by faculty is not solely a teaching tool for the professor, but also a tool for the candidates who are required to develop technology skill sets that they need to be successful in the classroom. Part III of each course syllabus includes Course Objectives, Outcomes, and Standards. Question 23 in the Standard 5 survey asked the faculty all the different ways they address diversity in their courses. Seventy five percent indicated that they conducted discussions, projects, activities related to culture. Seventy eight percent stated that they had projects, discussion and activities related to race. In terms of students with special needs, 71% of the faculty members stated that they had activities, projects and discussions in courses related to teaching and working with students with special needs (Exhibit 5b2.1 Standard 5 Survey). Additionally courses objectives related to diversity (including students with special needs) are addressed in section III in each course syllabi (Exhibit 2a3.3 Matrix of Courses & Syllabi).

5b.5. How do unit faculty members systematically engage in self-assessment of their own teaching?

Interviews of department heads and selected faculty and the responses to the Standard 5 Survey provided data about how the unit faculty systematically engage in self-assessment of their teaching (Exhibit 5b2.1 Standard 5 Survey). According to the survey, unit faculty systematically engage in self-assessment of their teaching through: in-class evaluations (79.3%), informal class suggestions (79.3%), formal class suggestions (41.1%), individual suggestions (72.4%), and faculty evaluations (75.9%) (Question #27). The departments and colleges at the university actively seek candidates’ assessments of their courses. According to interviews, all faculty members are evaluated online each semester by students in each class they teach. These evaluations provide feedback to faculty with reference to the candidates’ perceptions of the effectiveness of their teaching. Candidates verify faculty teaching expertise with ratings of faculty that consistently average above four points on a five-point scale. Thus, teacher candidates evaluate courses each semester at ULM using a university-approved evaluation process, which asks the candidates to complete the evaluation forms anonymously on the ULM website (Exhibit 5b2.2 Candidate On-Line Course Evaluation Form of Faculty Teaching). The evaluations are compiled after semester grades are submitted and are available to all university students, faculty, and others for several semesters by using the website. The questions include items modeling best practices in teaching. Results of candidate evaluations are a required component of reappointment, tenure, and promotion reviews. The Candidate Online Course Evaluation Form of Faculty Teaching and a summary of results are shown in (Exhibit 5b2.2 Candidate On-Line Course Evaluation Form of Faculty Teaching). In addition, faculty members are required to complete a self-evaluation each year using the College of Education and Human Development Evaluation of Faculty Rating Form and Activity Report. These instruments devote considerable attention to the faculty members’ effectiveness as teachers. Some or all faculty members also conduct program reviews of course syllabi to ensure compliance with accreditation competencies; review results of national exit and licensure examination scores, graduating student exit surveys, graduate surveys, and employer surveys. Departments also are considering implementing peer monitoring/reviews for the 2009-2010 academic year.