NCATE Program Review Report

Addendum Exhibit 5.5.a Non SPA Program Reviews
The University of Texas at Brownsville
Doctoral Degree in Education
NCATE Program Review Report
Updated: August 28, 2013, 2013
SECTION I: CONTEXT
1. Description of any state or institutional policies that may influence the application of
Curriculum and Instruction standards. (Response limited to 4,000 characters).
There are no state or institutional policies that may influence the application of the Curriculum
and Instruction Standards. The mission of The University of Texas at Brownsville (UTB) and the
College of Education fully support the application of the standards in the doctoral program. The
mission of the University is to provide accessible, affordable, postsecondary education, i.e.
Baccalaureate to Doctorate, of superior excellence, to conduct research which expands
knowledge, provides sound intellectual frameworks and presents programs of cultural and
pioneering scientific value.
The doctoral program was designed to be a model program in the different Specializations it
offers. A former partnership with the local community college eliminated inter-institutional
barriers. The separation comes at a time when the university has expanded its lower-level
courses downward, now providing seamless access for high school and college students to
university education that reaches the doctorate. The College of Education (COE) offers
Baccalaureate, and Graduate degrees in different fields of Education arts and professional
programs such as the Doctorate in Education Curriculum and Instruction with five
Specializations that are designed to meet student needs as well as regional, national, and
international expectations. Upon deciding to pursue accreditation for its first doctoral degree,
The University of Texas at Brownsville took the preliminary step of modifying its institutional
mission statement. This strategic change in the institutional mission statement is in line with its
directive to address the needs of the entire community, region, state and nation. The mission
statement clearly defines its relevance to higher education, emphasizing learning and teaching at
the core of its commitments and promoting intellectual growth through research and service.
The doctoral program also connects to UTB’s mission statement in that it meets the needs of the
region by supporting leadership and professional training as well as curriculum development.
The doctoral program engages in research looking at best practices and their application to
improving curriculum in a structured fashion. It also focuses on public service in addressing
Early Childhood through Grade 16 initiatives, at educational technologies, and at higher
education teaching as one of the catalysts for seamless transition from public school and college
to university.
In addition, faculty support the application of the C&I standards in their work. Faculty seek to
help students at all levels develop the skills of critical thinking, quantitative and qualitative
analysis, and effective communications which will sustain lifelong learning. This is raised to a
highly sophisticated level in doctoral courses that were specifically developed as agents to
enhance the students’ capacity to conduct research. These courses also include elements to 1
abridge the process for students to become mature, well-rounded members of their field. COE
seeks to be a college with a combination of regional to global orientation, which respects the
dignity of each learner and address community, regional and global needs. Depending on
students’ background, student might be advised to enroll into additional courses when
weaknesses are recognized in the Research and C&I core.
COE is fully committed to the fundamental principles of accreditation established by entities
such as SACS or NCATE and strives continuously to meet these accreditation standards.
Moreover, COE is dedicated to the quality enhancement of its programs and services within the
context of UTB’s mission, resources, and capabilities, and to the creation of an ideal environment in which learning, teaching, public service, and research occurs.
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)
Due to the highly-specialized objective of the doctoral program and the qualifications of the students,
field and clinical experiences, student teaching or internships are not required for the five Specializations
of the Ed.D. C&I program. The doctoral students are professionals in their respective fields and have
degrees, and therefore, do not require field and clinical experiences. The objective of the Doctor in
Education Curriculum and Instruction program is to advance highly skilled educational professionals
beyond the master’s level programs that will assume roles and positions in new models of teaching, creative research, highest levels of educational leadership and service and aggressively impact human
development. In each course, the faculty in each of the specializations described below provide the
experience required of the students in the specialization.
Bilingual Studies
The Specialization in Bilingual Studies prepares highly qualified educators with the knowledge
and skills needed to provide leadership in the area of bilingual and ESL education. The strength
of the program is the highly dedicated faculty who are involved in the on-going development and
implementation of the program, evidenced by increasing numbers of faculty participating in
discussions about student progress, advising, scheduling, and development of specializations.
Educational Leadership
The Specialization in Educational Leadership provides within CoE’s four guiding principles of inquiry, interculturalism, pedagogical leadership and interrelatedness a thorough grounding in
the functioning and the curriculum of public education, and in the skills of administration,
decision-making, intelligent and informed leadership and research. Students develop an
understanding of secondary education in society, the historical and philosophical context from
which it emerged, and the ethical considerations that must surround and guide education. The
doctoral student is being prepared to be a practitioner as well as consumer and producer of
research and scholarship and possible careers in academia; and to take on leadership roles in
school campuses and school districts. The specialization emphasizes preparation for a research
career in which the graduate will add to the core of knowledge that is the basis for informed
practice. The curriculum is oriented toward the development of theory and research skills in a
variety of methodologies and includes a strong secondary emphasis in a cognate field of study.
Early Childhood
The Early Childhood Specialization is designed to create highly skilled professionals who meet
the educational needs of researchers and teacher educators in an intercultural world. The
students will improve their investigative and instructional skills in early childhood education
settings striving for cutting edge research that is responsive to diverse community and regional
needs. Courses, field experiences, and research studies are complemented with progressively
2
more involved curricula encompassing young children in group settings within public and private
settings. Such training is the best possible preparation for careers in higher education, in schools
as educational leaders and in child-related agencies such as mental health agencies, hospitals,
and related fields.
Educational Technology
The Specialization in Educational Technology with a focus on e-Learning will further enhance
candidates' career opportunities in the PK-16 arena by enabling them to design, develop, and
teach courses through Web-based instruction (e-learning). The Educational Technology courses
are offered 100% online. This program allows students to acquire knowledge and skills in the
areas of instructional systems design, learning and instructional theories, and development of
Web-based and interactive multimedia learning environments using various state-of-art
technology-based systems.
Higher Education Teaching
This specialization is designed for scholar-practitioners. Graduates will possess the skills,
knowledge, and attitudes necessary for investigating, understanding, and shaping dynamic
relations among students, institutions of higher education, and society. Graduates pursue careers
in public education (such as dual enrollment teaching), community colleges, four-year colleges,
universities, corporate-sponsored education, and research centers. Students coming to this
program have diverse backgrounds. Graduates can anticipate positions as faculty, instructional
designers, evaluators, trainers, and managers of instructional systems in public schools, business,
government, higher education, military, and other settings. The curriculum includes the
development of sophisticated management skills and intelligent, informed leadership. The overall objective of the Specializations of the Doctor in Education Curriculum Instruction is to
prepare, train and educate students to become exceptional leaders in administrative and academic
positions of public and private school systems, colleges and universities, and become scholars
who will achieve greater understanding of higher education. At the same time they can pass on
knowledge of the past, have the ability to inquire and prepare students to work with a technology
friendly and change oriented higher education environment in the future.
Students in the different specializations receive a thorough foundation in the functioning of
Curriculum and Instruction of colleges and universities and in the skills of administration,
decision-making and leadership. They develop an understanding of the particular role of colleges
and universities in society as both distributors and creators of knowledge, the historical context
from which those institutions have emerged, and the ethical considerations that must surround
and guide the enterprise. Finally, the program prepares doctoral students to be consumers and
producers of higher education research and scholarship, effective communicators, reflective
professionals and socializes students towards possible careers in academia.
In summary, programs leading to this degree emphasize preparation for a research career in
which the graduate will add to the core of knowledge that is the basis for informed practice. The
curriculum is oriented toward the development of theory and research skills in a variety of
methodologies and includes a strong secondary emphasis in an interrelated field of study.
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)
Criteria for Admission
Standards for admission to the Ed.D. C&I are based on multiple sources of evidence of an
applicant’s qualifications and commitment to the program, and are comparable to those for
doctoral programs in other disciplines and for Curriculum and Instruction in other universities.
All applicants must hold a baccalaureate and a master’s degree from a regionally accredited U.S. institution or a recognized international equivalent plus have three years of teaching experience.
3
The Educational Technology track and Higher Education Teaching track do not have the
teaching requirement, but accept professional equivalents. Candidates cannot go directly from a
baccalaureate degree to the doctoral program.
The admission process includes completion of the following criteria:
Completed application form
Verification of a master’s degree in Education or related field
Official transcripts from all colleges and universities attended
GPA of 3.25 or higher on all graduate coursework
Submission of satisfactory GRE scores originating within the past five years
Three years of teaching experience or five years of experience in education or related professional
field
Verification of three years of classroom teaching experience at an accredited institution for the
Specializations in Bilingual Studies, Early Childhood, and Educational Leadership
TOEFL passing score of 600 for the paper test and 100 for the internet based test for foreign
applicants from non-English speaking countries
Statement of the applicant’s professional experience and scholarly accomplishments, why they want to pursue this degree, possible research questions or topics of interest for pursuing research
Resume or curriculum vita
Letters of recommendation and completed forms from three professionals with firsthand knowledge
of the applicant, the applicant’s professional qualities, and the applicant’s scholarly potential (professors, principals, etc.)
Admission Interview*
Admission Writing Prompt*
*All final candidates for admission will be required to participate in the following: An interview with a
Faculty Selection Committee and preparation of a Writing Sample (in English). Candidates write a
reaction paper on site. A rubric is available in advance so applicants will know how the samples will be
reviewed.
Once accepted, students obtain a copy of the Program of Study (POS) for their Specialization. An Advisor
assists the student in developing the official POS and forwards it to the Office of Graduate Studies for
final approval. Students follow the POS for the duration of the program.
Criteria for Exit from the Program
There are several possibilities of exiting the program:
Student withdraws or stops out; or
Student graduates; or
Student is released from the program due to a low GPA (i.e. below 3.25), two failing grades, three
grades of C, or failing results in the Comprehensive Examinations.
Criteria for Retention
In close collaboration with the administration, faculty, student advisor, and students, a high
emphasis is placed on helping the doctoral students persist and complete the doctoral program.
The vision for the Ed.D. C&I Program of UTB includes providing students:
Close contact with faculty that are both highly accomplished and educationally involved;
A rich array of courses providing a theoretically-grounded exploration of key issues in
educational practice;
A wide variety of teaching, research, and professional development experiences;
A distinctive approach to educational issues that combines rigorous intellectual inquiry with
a close connection to professional practice.
The doctoral program is research-based and knowledge-based and covers several dimensions.
Students understand that they have to move through and complete these dimensions one at a
4
time. Although these dimensions seem to overlap students are made aware not to do all at the
same time. In the doctoral program there are distinct reading, research, and writing processes
that are culminating in the Comprehensive Examinations and the Dissertation. These dimensions
are:
Course work (57 semester credit hours);
Comprehensive Exam (the comps reflect how students bring all their course work together,
understand scholarship and identify their own interests within a larger representation of educational
inquiry);
Dissertation Proposal and IRB (where students identify a research topic, and lay out the steps to their
methodology or research design);
Research in the field – data collection, analysis of data, findings (which will last at least one full
semester);
Writing the dissertation - which requires at least one full semester.
During the first courses students receive an orientation on the expectations and goals of research, the
process of research, field work, how to use e-library resources, and the reading process. Students will
also be informed on how to form a doctoral committee, the role of the committee, the writing process
which will include several revisions, the APA Manual use, ethics and responsibilities of a
student/scholar/researcher, plagiarism, and net-etiquette when sending professional emails.
A
continuously up-dated handbook provides guidelines and procedures to assist students attending the
program.
The doctorate is often referred to as a terminal degree, but at UTB it is considered the beginning and the
gate to an academic future of the graduate.
4. Description of the relationship of the program to the unit’s conceptual framework. (Response limited to 4,000 characters).
The faculty and staff of the doctoral program view the College of Education conceptual framework as a
living, coherent set of concepts that co-evolves in relation with the capacities, needs and opportunities of
stakeholders in all aspects relevant to the preparation of highly skilled educational professionals. Our
framework has developed over the last 10 years in response to institutional assessment efforts and with
input from COE faculty, representatives from the dean’s office, faculty and administrators from UTB colleges outside the COE, students, local school districts and community members. Input regarding our
vision, mission, and conceptual framework is informed by district leaders across our state region via the
Lower Rio Grande Valley P-16 Council. Similarly, our unit now relies on feedback from our Community
Advisory Committee and our Student Advisory Committee. Our conceptual framework has provided
guidance for the coherent development and consistent implementation of the Ed.D. C&I program and
specializations. The multilayered COE conceptual framework revolves around the COE’s mission to prepare highly skilled professionals to assume roles and positions in teaching, research, educational
leadership, service and human development. The COE carries out its mission through the collaborative
interaction among departments within the college, through collaborative efforts with other academic
colleges and schools of UTB, other Colleges and universities in the region, and PK-12 schools in the
region.
The mission of the Doctor in Education Curriculum and Instruction Program complements COE’s conceptual framework. It is to create and promote a culture of excellence in scholarship and to prepare
educator practitioners of highest quality. The Ed.D. C&I program will help students develop the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions that enable the practitioner to achieve professional and organizational
goals, improve the productivity of their organizations and provide leadership, advocacy, and service to
their communities and regions.
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. (Response limited to 4,000 characters)
5
The Ed.D. has adopted a unique set of program assessments because there is no SPA for graduate
C&I programs. The attached Key Assessment reports describe the assessments and include
scoring rubrics and results (when applicable).
6. Please attach files to describe the 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.)
Please see Attachment 7: Programs of Study for Each Specialization.
7. 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. Update
academic years (column 1) as appropriate for your data span. Create additional tables as necessary.
Year
Number of Students Enrolled
Number of Graduates
2007-2008 Cohort 1
13
12
2008-2009 Cohort 2
7
2
2009-2010 Cohort 3
10
2010-2011 Cohort 4
13
2011-2012 Cohort 5
12
2012-2013 Cohort 6
38
8. Faculty Information
Directions: Complete the following information for each faculty member responsible for professional
coursework, clinical supervision, or administration in the program.
Please refer to Attachment 8: Faculty Information
6
SECTION II: LIST OF ASSESSMENTS
In this section, list the 6-8 assessments that are being submitted as evidence for meeting the C&I
Standards. All programs must provide a minimum of six assessments. For each assessment, indicate the
type or form of assessment and when it is administered in the program. (Response limited to 250
characters each field).
Please also refer to Attachments 1-6.
Name of Assessment
Type or Form of
Assessment
When the Assessment
is Administered
Key Assessment 1
Research Literature
Review
Written Report
EDCI 8300
Key Assessment 2
Curriculum Conference
Proposal Assignment
Written Report
EDCI 8320
Key Assessment 3
Teaching Portfolio
Portfolio
EDCI 8323
Key Assessment 4
Doctoral Dissertation
Proposal Defense
Dissertation
Proposal Defense
Advancement to
Candidacy
Key Assessment 5
Doctoral
Comprehensive Exam
Comprehensive
Exam
After completion of
all core courses
Key Assessment 6
Doctoral Dissertation
Dissertation
Key Assessment
Within final 6 hours
of program
7
SECTION III: RELATIONSHIP OF ASSESSMENT TO STANDARDS
Matrix of Curriculum and Instruction Standards with selected assessments from the core courses.
Standards
Standard 1:
Knowledge of
Curriculum. Program
completers will
demonstrate advanced
ability to synthesize indepth knowledge of
major theories,
philosophies, and
current issues in
curriculum and their
implications for
practice; as well as
articulate the
contribution their own
inquiry makes to
scholarship and
practices relevant to
curriculum.
Standard 2:
Knowledge of
Instruction. Program
completers will
demonstrate advanced
ability to apply research
and best practices to
lead; plan; implement;
and evaluate instruction;
as well as articulate the
contribution their own
inquiry makes to the
scholarship and
practices relevant to
instruction.
Researc Curriculu Teachi Doctoral
Doctoral
Doctoral
h
m
ng
Dissertati Comprehensi Dissertatio
Literatu Conference Portfoli
on
ve
n
re
Proposal
o
Proposal
Exam
Review Assignmen
t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
Standard 3:
Knowledge of Content.
Program completers will
demonstrate advanced
depth and breadth of
specialization-specific
knowledge and skills,
and the ability to
conduct research
appropriate to their
specialization.
X
X
X
X
Standard 4:
Knowledge of
Students. Program
completers will
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
demonstrate advanced
knowledge of the
sociocultural,
psychological and
developmental
dimensions of learning,
and the implications of
these dimensions for
teaching, learning,
leading, and conducting
research.
Standard 5:
Knowledge of Inquiry.
Program completers will
demonstrate advanced
knowledge of
approaches to and the
ethical dimensions of
inquiry, as well as
specific skills related to
conducting research
relevant to curriculum
and instruction that
advances the field of
education.
X
X
9
Standard 6:
Knowledge of
Assessment. Program
completers will
demonstrate advanced
knowledge of the
methods, issues, and
ethical dimensions of
assessment, as well as
an understanding of its
applications to inquiry
and practice.
Standard 7:
Professional Practices.
Program completers will
cultivate dispositions
that will enable them to
meaningfully and
ethically participate in
communities of practice,
as well as professional
and scholarly
organizations and
networks.
X
Standard 8:
Technology
Integration. Program
completers will
demonstrate the ability
to think critically about
issues related to
technology and the
implications for
teaching, learning, and
equity, as well as
develop the
technological
competencies to
function effectively as a
learner, researcher, and
instructional leader.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SECTION IV – EVIDENCE FOR MEETING THE STANDARDS
Please refer to Attachments 1-6 for the Key Assessment Reports.
SECTION V – USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE PROGRAM
The NCATE program review of the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Curriculum and Instruction
10
has been an illuminating process, which has resulted in many recommendations for
improvement, several of which have already been implemented. The process started with a
review of the doctoral program’s current student learning outcomes. When seen through the lens of an NCATE program review, it became immediately evident that the existing standards were
inadequate. Therefore, one of the first major revisions was the development of new curriculum
and instruction standards for the doctoral program. The following standards were adopted:
Standard 1: Knowledge of Curriculum. Program completers will demonstrate advanced
ability to synthesize in-depth knowledge of major theories, philosophies, and current issues
in curriculum and their implications for practice; as well as articulate the contribution their
own inquiry makes to scholarship and practices relevant to curriculum
Standard 2: Knowledge of Instruction. Program completers will demonstrate advanced
ability to apply research and best practices to lead; plan; implement; and evaluate instruction;
as well as articulate the contribution their own inquiry makes to the scholarship and practices
relevant to instruction
Standard 3: Knowledge of Content. Program completers will demonstrate advanced depth
and breadth of specialization-specific knowledge and skills, and the ability to conduct
research appropriate to their specialization
Standard 4: Knowledge of Students. Program completers will demonstrate advanced
knowledge of the sociocultural, psychological and developmental dimensions of learning,
and the implications of these dimensions for teaching, learning, leading, and conducting
research.
Standard 5: Knowledge of Inquiry. Program completers will demonstrate advanced
knowledge of approaches to and the ethical dimensions of inquiry, as well as specific skills
related to conducting research relevant to curriculum and instruction that advances the field
of education.
Standard 6: Knowledge of Assessment. Program completers will demonstrate advanced
knowledge of the methods, issues, and ethical dimensions of assessment, as well as an
understanding of its applications to inquiry and practice.
Standard 7: Professional Practices. Program completers will cultivate dispositions that will
enable them to meaningfully and ethically participate in communities of practice, as well as
professional and scholarly organizations and networks.
Standard 8: Technology Integration. Program completers will demonstrate the ability to
think critically about issues related to technology and the implications for teaching, learning,
and equity, as well as develop the technological competencies to function effectively as a
learner, researcher, and instructional leader.
Adoption of these standards has resulted in changes to the curriculum, as well as to the six,
targeted key assessments. Consequently, due to curriculum realignment, modification or revision
of key assessments, and course sequencing (some courses are offered only once per year), some
key assessments have only one semester of data available. The key assessment for one of the
research courses was completely redesigned and data collection for that course began in Fall
2012 semester. Data from the six key assessments have been carefully reviewed, and a rigorous
internal review has been conducted, resulting in several recommendations for improvement to
the doctoral program. In particular, the four areas described below have been targeted for
improvement.
The first area targeted for improvement is the doctoral dissertation proposal. Although 100% of
the candidates achieved the standards measured by this key assessment, further analysis
11
regarding those candidates who scored Met with Weakness was merited. As the key assessment
data reveals, several candidates struggled with review of literature, methodology, and scholarly
writing. Therefore, in order to increase candidates’ attainment of a Target score for the
dissertation proposal defense, several measures have been instituted over the past year:
1. A doctoral student handbook was developed and implemented in the Fall 2011 by the new coordinator
of the doctoral program. In addition to procedural information, the doctoral handbook includes an
overview of each assessment, including the proposal defense. The manual is available in hard copy and
online on the University website.
2. A new doctoral dissertation proposal rubric, aligned to the new C&I standards, was developed and
added to the doctoral student manual to help candidates know and work towards specifically
developing the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required by each standard.
3. Increased opportunities for students to develop their writing and research skills have been incorporated
into the core and research courses. In EDCI 8300 – Advanced Research Methods in Education, an
enhanced Research Literature Review project (see Key Assessment #1) was developed to strengthen
doctoral students’ research and writing skills. To further enhance their scholarly writing ability and research skills, a Curriculum Conference Proposal (see Key Assessment #2) paper was developed for
EDCI 8320 - Advanced Curriculum: Instructional Design and Development to get doctoral students to
use guidelines from the Curriculum Studies Division (B) of the American Educational Research
Association to develop a conference proposal based on appropriate forms of curriculum inquiry for
submission to a national educational conference focusing on curriculum. These two major key
assessments should help to strengthen doctoral students’ scholarly writing and research skills in preparation for their doctoral dissertation proposals.
The second major area targeted for improvement was the Doctoral Comprehensive Exam. While
data from this key assessment indicated that 100% of test takers passed all three sections of the
doctoral comprehensive exam, several candidates (71%) met the research (inquiry) question with
weakness. One possible explanation for the low performance on the research question is that the
question writers and raters were not the same individuals. Based on these results, we recognize
the need for writers and raters to be familiar with the content, students, and expectations.
Furthermore, in earlier cohorts, faculty teaching the research and C&I core courses tended to
lean more heavily toward qualitative methods, resulting in a majority of students preferring
qualitative over quantitative methods in their research papers and dissertations. This imbalance
has since been addressed with the hiring of additional research faculty, who have a strong
background in quantitative methodologies. Recent and future cohorts will receive a more
balanced coverage of qualitative and quantitative methods through their research and content
courses. It is expected that as the improvements take effect, the performance on the research
(inquiry) question will improve.
The third area targeted for improvement in the doctoral program is the doctoral dissertation.
Although key assessment data obtained on the doctoral dissertation reflected a Target rate of
100% on the standards addressed in this assessment, it has been observed that a significant
majority of doctoral dissertations submitted over the past 3 years have relied heavily or almost
exclusively on qualitative methods. While qualitative research studies are appropriate for
educational research, the lack of quantitative studies was a concern. As indicated above with the
issues regarding the research question on the comprehensive exam, steps have been taken to
provide a more balanced coverage of quantitative and qualitative methods through the research
courses as well as in the core courses. Furthermore, additional doctoral faculty with experience
in quantitative research methods have been hired to teach the research and curriculum courses.
These changes to the faculty line up should provide a much more balanced coverage of research
and prepare doctoral students to use the most appropriate research methodologies based on their
research topics. The addition of two new doctoral specializations, in Educational Technology and
Higher Education Teaching should also help to provide a balance between qualitative and
quantitative research studies. Last, but not least, the new doctoral student handbook will provide
students with guidance in the development of their doctoral dissertation topics. Resources for
12
selecting and using appropriate quantitative and qualitative research methods will be included in
doctoral student handbook as well as a detailed doctoral dissertation rubric, aligned to the new
C&I standards, to assist doctoral students and faculty assessing the quality of the dissertations
being submitted for review.
A fourth area that was raised as a result of a rigorous internal review process, involves the reevaluation of the Key Assessment Rubrics. Internal reviewers recommended that for the next
assessment cycle, the doctoral program faculty and coordinator evaluate the benefits of revising
the Key Assessment Rubrics so that that standards are assessed using one portion of the scoring
rubric, thereby allow for individual assessment of the different standards. Doctoral program
faculty and coordinator will collaborate throughout this assessment cycle to assess the feasibility
of this recommendation.
In summary, the four recommendations enumerated above will significantly improve the quality
of the doctoral program and serve as a launching board for additional improvements in the
coming years. The adoption of new program standards in curriculum and instruction that align
with the College of Education’s conceptual framework and reflect the highest NCATE standards have already resulted in significant improvements to the program. The new C&I standards and
COE conceptual framework will be included in all doctoral course syllabi. All course content
will be aligned to these standards and all key assessments will monitor student performance on
the standards through newly developed rubrics. The three, targeted areas for improvement are
congruent with the goals and direction the College of Education faculty have set for the future of
the
program.
SECTION VI – FOR REVISED REPORTS OR RESPONSE TO CONDITIONS REPORT
ONLY
This is the first submission of an accreditation report for the Doctoral Program, so this section
does not apply.
13
ATTACHMENT 1
KEY ASSESSMENT 1: RESEARCH LITERATURE REVIEW
EDCI 8300: Research Methods in Education
1. Brief Description of the Assessment and Use in the Program
Students will choose a topic of interest to them. The research topic chosen will be narrowed down (or
expanded) to reformulate into an instructional problem for the purpose of research. The research problem
will include the context (background) and need for studying the topic, the participants to be studied, and
the potential research design that would address the problem. The statement of the problem will draw on
at least four peer-reviewed research articles (See AERA Empirical Standard I).
After the initial topic is approved by the professor, students will carry out a search of library databases
and online journals to select research articles for contrastive analyses of relevant research literature. The
articles must be original empirical research from different peer-reviewed research journals. The articles
must employ different research methodologies, including a balanced selection of qualitative and
quantitative or mixed-methods studies. The literature review paper must include the following sections:
(1) an introduction which sets the context for the reader; (2) the main body where the writer develops
arguments and discusses the literature; (3) a conclusion that summarizes and brings closure to the paper;
and (4) complete list of references.
2. How the Assessment Aligns with the C&I Standards
This assessment demonstrates proficiencies in the following Curriculum and Instruction
standards: Standard 1: Knowledge of Curriculum, Standard 3: Knowledge of Content, Standard 5
- Knowledge of Inquiry, and Standard 8 – Technology Integration. The chart below illustrates the
performances that fulfill the C&I standards. This assessment is also aligned to College of
Education Conceptual Framework.
Criteria
Curriculum &
Instruction Standards
COE
Conceptual Framework
Effectiveness of the
Introduction
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content
Std. 5: Knowledge of Inquiry
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Currency and relevance of
the literature cited
Std. 1: Knowledge of
Curriculum
Std. 5: Knowledge of Inquiry
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Analysis of individual
articles and demonstrated
knowledge of the topic
Std. 1; Knowledge of
Curriculum
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content
Std. 5: Knowledge of Inquiry
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Effectiveness of the
Conclusion
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content
Std. 5: Knowledge of Inquiry
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Mechanics and Grammar
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content COE-1: Knowledge in
Std. 8: Technology Integration Practice
COE-2: Reflection
COE-6: Technology
14
APA format
Std. 3: Knowledge of
COE-1: Knowledge in
Content
Practice
Std. 8: Technology Integration COE-2: Reflection
COE-6: Technology
Coherence and flow of the
logic or path of the
argument
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
3. Brief Analysis of Data Findings
Fall 2012
(N=14)
C&I Standards Achieved
by Research Literature Review
Total
(N=14)
Percentage of
students scoring
Good and
Outstanding
Scholarship
Percentage of
students scoring
Good and
Outstanding
Scholarship
Effectiveness of the introduction
86%
86%
Currency and relevance of the literature cited
93%
93%
Analysis of individual articles and demonstrated
knowledge of the topic
93%
93%
Effectiveness of the conclusion
93%
93%
Mechanics and grammar
100%
100%
APA format
86%
86%
Coherence and flow of the logic or path of the
argument
93%
93%
4. Interpretation of Data Findings
A description of how data provides evidence for meeting the standards will be filled out after all
data has been collected (over 2 semesters).
EDCI 8300: Research Methods in Education is taught only in the fall semester. Therefore, the
second cycle of data will be available after the completion of the Fall 2013 semester, which is
currently in progress.
A preliminary interpretation of the Fall 2012 data, however, revealed that there are 2 areas
(Effectiveness of the Introduction and APA format), that although reached 86% Good and
Outstanding Scholarship, merit attention. The assignments and lessons leading up to the
development of the project for this key assessment are being modified to include increased
hands-on practice in writing an introduction and formatting a research paper effectively using
APA.
15
5. Full Description of the Assignment
Students will choose a topic of interest to them. After the initial topic is approved by the professor,
students will carry out a search of library databases and online journals to select research articles for
contrastive analyses of relevant research literature. The articles must be original empirical research from
different peer-reviewed research journals. The articles must employ different research methodologies,
including a balanced selection of qualitative and quantitative or mixed-methods studies. The literature
review paper must include the following sections: (1) an introduction which sets the context for the
reader; (2) the main body where the writer develops arguments and discusses the literature; (3) a
conclusion that summarizes and brings closure to the paper; and (4) complete list of references.
As part of analyzing research literature for the final paper, students will write analyses of select research
articles. Each of the research articles chosen will be analyzed to examine the research design, carried out,
and reported. The contrastive analysis will consist of investigating the similarities and differences
between the articles, and will focus on how the articles help understand the research problem and research
methodology. The articles will be compared and contrasted to answer the question of what difference the
differences in research approaches makes?
The parts contrasted and analyzed across the articles will include analyses of:
Research Problem. How is the topic delimited? How is the research problem formulated? What is
the context for the research problem? Why does the problem need to be studied and understood?
What frames the formulation of the problem? How does the research problem guide research
questions asked?
Theoretical Framework. On which theories do the researchers draw? How are they selected? How is
the theoretical framework grounded in the historical context of the research problem? What
educational philosophies influence and shape the framework? What is the theories’ foreground and background?
Conceptual Framework and Review of the Related Literature. What is the review of related
literature and the concept created by the author of the article? What is left unexamined?
Analytical Framework and Research Methodology. How do the theories guide the selection and
design of research methods? Who are the research participants? How is data collected, how much, for
what purposes? How are data analyzed? How do the analyses address the research problem and
research questions?
Findings and Implications. What are the key findings of the research article? How do they relate to
the research problem? How are the findings important? What are the key arguments of the article
given the findings? What are the implications of this research? Consider the “so what?” question of why anyone should read the article and care about/learn from the research. How can this research be
used to inform practice?
The final research literature synthesis will consist of the synthesis of literature based on the analyses
carried out throughout the course.
16
17
6. Grading Rubric
Criteria
Effectiveness of
the Introduction
C&I Standards:
3, 5
Currency and
Relevance of the
Literature Cited
Activities
Points
The focus of the topic is clear and explicit. The reader is aware
of the problem or topic to be examined. The introduction is
relevant and provides an appropriate overview of the scope and
general structure of the paper.
10
Cites studies that are current or relevant. Identifies trends and
existing patterns of studies or the field. Identifies strengths and
weaknesses in the literature. Notes gaps in the literature. Quotes
sources of key terms o concepts.
20
Demonstrates evidence of knowledge of the topic and of the
significance of the topic to the field of education. Demonstrates
how authors answered the research questions. Applies
knowledge of different research methods and their purposes to
article analysis. Compares research methodologies and research
designs. Synthesizes how the literature contributes to the field
of education.
30
Describes what the writer found in the literature. Identifies gaps,
voids or conflicts in the related literature. Makes connections to
class content including: theories, methods, techniques,
rationales, and research designs. Refers back to the original
focus of the topic. Evaluates the literature and provides
recommendations for the reader. Describes lessons learned
(Personal reflection is optional). Provides closure for the reader.
10
Uses correct grammar, punctuation and spelling. Writes in
complete sentences. Uses correct paragraph breaks.
5
Referenced citations are in the correct format. Statements are
cited in the paper as well as in the References. Use of quotes are
appropriate and adequate. APA guidelines are followed
throughout the paper.
10
The focus of the topic can be followed throughout the paper.
Appropriate words are used and their meanings are clear.
Idioms and colloquialisms are avoided. A variety of sentence
structures are used. Paragraphs are connected, cohesive, and
coherent. Transitions are used to demonstrate the flow of the
logic. Writing is crisp and clear. The active voice is used
throughout the paper.
15
Total Points:
100
C&I Standards:
1, 5
Analysis of
individual articles
and demonstrated
knowledge of the
topic
C&I Standards:
1, 3, 5
Effectiveness of
the Conclusion
C&I Standards:
3, 5
Mechanics and
Grammar
C&I Standards:
3, 8
APA Format
C&I Standards:
3, 8
Coherence and
Flow of the Logic
or Path of the
Argument
C&I Standards:
3
18
7. Data derived from the Assessment
Data For Fall 2012 Totals (N=14)
Marginal
Scholarship
Good
Scholarship
Outstanding
Scholarship
Effectiveness of the Introduction
1
2
11
Currency and relevance of the literature
cited
1
2
11
Analysis of individual articles and
demonstrated knowledge of the topic
1
5
8
Effectiveness of the Conclusion
1
8
5
Mechanics and Grammar
0
3
11
APA format
2
1
11
Coherence and flow of the logic or path of
the argument
1
2
11
Marginal
Scholarship
Good
Scholarship
Outstanding
Scholarship
Effectiveness of the Introduction
0
0
5
Currency and relevance of the literature
cited
0
0
5
Analysis of individual articles and
demonstrated knowledge of the topic
0
0
5
Effectiveness of the Conclusion
0
2
3
Mechanics and Grammar
0
1
4
APA format
0
0
5
Coherence and flow of the logic or path of
the argument
0
0
5
Criteria
Data By Sections
Data for Fall 2012 Section 1 (N=5)
Criteria
Data for Fall 2012 Section 2 (N=9)
19
Marginal
Scholarship
Good
Scholarship
Outstanding
Scholarship
Effectiveness of the Introduction
1
2
6
Currency and relevance of the literature
cited
1
2
6
Analysis of individual articles and
demonstrated knowledge of the topic
1
5
3
Effectiveness of the Conclusion
1
6
2
Mechanics and Grammar
0
2
7
APA format
2
1
6
Coherence and flow of the logic or path of
the argument
1
2
6
Criteria
20
ATTACHMENT 2
Key Assessment #2: Curriculum Conference Proposal Assignment
EDCI 8320: Advanced Curriculum- Instructional Design and Development
1. Brief Description of the Assessment and Use in the Program
This assessment takes place in EDCI 8320, a required curriculum class for all specialty tracts in
the Curriculum and Instruction doctoral program. For this assessment, Curriculum and
Instruction doctoral candidates—across program specialties—meet guidelines from the
Curriculum Studies Division (B) of the American Educational Research Association to develop a
conference proposal based on appropriate forms of curriculum inquiry for submission to a
scholarly conference sponsored by a national curriculum organization.
2. How the Assessment Aligns with C&I Standards
Key Assessment 2 primarily assesses Doctoral Standard 1: Knowledge of Curriculum. Using
guidelines from and measured against a rubric adapted from AERA Division B-Curriculum
Studies, Assessment #2 requires that students synthesize and bring in-depth knowledge of major
curriculum theories and philosophies to bear on current issues in curriculum studies. Using this
rigorous set of criteria related to curriculum knowledge and inquiry, assessment #2, requires that
students synthesize and apply curriculum theory and scholarship to sculpt a coherent theoretical
framework that supports an original curriculum inquiry that falls within seven categories of
curriculum inquiry established by the Curriculum Studies (Division B) of AERA. This
assessment also requires doctoral student to demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of current issues
in curriculum and a command of relevant curriculum scholarship in order to persuasively
establish the significance of their inquiry in relation to contemporary theory and practice of
curriculum studies.
Key Assessment 2 also assesses, in-part, Standard 5: Knowledge of Inquiry, in that, per
guidelines from AERA Division B, students are required to articulate an advanced understanding
of appropriate methods of curriculum inquiry as well as specific skills in designing inquiry
relevant to curriculum that advances the field of education and more specifically the field of
curriculum studies as measured against a rubric adapted from, arguably, the most influential
educational research organization in the United States and Canada in terms of setting standards
for scholarly curriculum inquiry.
Key Assessment 2 also assesses, in- part, Standard 7: Professional Practices. In addition to
being scored internally by program faculty, this assessment requires that students participate in
scholarly organizations by submitting their proposals for review by national organizations of
curriculum scholars. Positive reviews and acceptance to the annual national conferences of these
scholarly organizations requires that student work demonstrate the scholarly dispositions and
standards of ethical inquiry set by leading scholarly organizations devoted to curriculum studies.
The chart below illustrates the performances that fulfill the C&I standards. This assessment is
also
aligned
to
College
of
Education
Conceptual
Framework.
Criteria
Review and Acceptance by
National, Scholarly
Curriculum Organization
Curriculum & Instruction
Standards
C&I Standards 1, 5, and 7
COE
Conceptual Framework
COE-1: Knowledge in Practice
COE-2: Reflection
21
Curricular Significance of
Topic
C&I Standards 1 and 5
COE-1: Knowledge in Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Clarity of Curricular
Purpose/Aims
& Objectives
C&I Standards 1, 5, and 7
COE-1: Knowledge in Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Curricular
Perspectives/Theoretical
Framework
C&I Standards 1 and 5
COE-1: Knowledge in Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Mode of Curriculum
Inquiry
C&I Standards 1 & 5
COE-1: Knowledge in Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Curricular Implications
C&I Standard 1
COE-1: Knowledge in Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Scholarly Contribution to
the Theory and Practice of
Curriculum
C&I Standards 1, 5, and 7
COE-1: Knowledge in Practice
COE-2: Reflection
COE-5: Professionalism
3. Brief Analysis of Data Findings
This assessment was implemented, as aligned with the COE Doctoral standards and the COE
conceptual framework for the first time in July 2012.
Summer 2012
(N = 11)
Summer 2013
(N = 27)
TOTAL
(N = 38)
Percentage of
students scoring
Met and Target
Percentage of
students scoring
Met and Target
Percentage of
students scoring
Met and Target
Submission and Acceptance by National,
Scholarly, Curriculum Organization
100%
Pending
Acceptance
Pending
Curricular Significance of Topic
100%
100%
100%
Clarity of Curricular Purpose/Aims
& Objectives
100%
100%
100%
Curricular Perspectives/Theoretical
Framework
100%
100%
100%
Mode of Curriculum Inquiry
100%
96.2%
94.7%
Curricular Implications
100%
100%
100%
Scholarly Contribution to the Theory and
Practice of Curriculum
100%
100%
100%
C&I Standards Achieved
by Key Assessment #2
22
4. Interpretation of Data Findings
Data indicate that all Summer 2012, EDCI 8320 students met or scored at target for each
identified criterion of performance. In Summer 2013 all students did so except for the criterion
related to curriculum inquiry in which one student did not. In Summer 2012 Students
demonstrated the highest level of proficiency on criteria aligned with the specific components of
Standard 7 (Professional Practices) measured in this assessment as 100% of students submitted
proposals that were reviewed and accepted by national, scholarly curriculum studies
organizations. Data regarding the acceptance rate of Summer 2013 proposals will not be
available until December 2013. While data indicate that nearly 100% of students met or scored at
target for specified components of standards 1, 5, and 7, students performed the least well on
criteria associated with Standard 5 (Mode of Inquiry), and for the purpose of this assessment,
mode of curricular inquiry.
5. Full Description of the Assignment
For this assignment, students will develop and submit a conference proposal for an individual
paper that uses conceptual, theoretical, historical, narrative or other forms of curriculum inquiry
to meaningfully contribute to the “complicated conversation” of curriculum theories and practices within the parameters of an academic conference that represents a professional
community relevant to curriculum studies (Pinar, 2011, p.43). Toward that end, this assignment
utilizes the guidelines and is scored using a rubric adapted from Division B (Curriculum Studies)
of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). You may feel free to submit your
proposal to an AERA Special Interest Group (SIG) or even another national conference of a
professional community relevant to the field of curriculum instead of submitting to AERA
Division B. However, we will still use the general guidelines AERA and Division B sections to
structure our proposals. These sections, representing major strands of curriculum scholarship
include:
Section l: Critical and Post-Foundationalist Perspectives and Practices
Section 2: Globalization, Decolonization, and Transnational Inquiry
Section 3: Challenging Methodological Boundaries in Curriculum Inquiry
Section 4: Sustainability, Environmental, and Ecological Perspectives
Section 5: Historical, Philosophical, and Disciplinary Knowledges
Section 6: Arts, Youth, and Action
Section 7: Digital Technologies, Gaming, and Posthumanism
Proposal Guidelines: The proposal should be 2,000 words or fewer in length (excluding
references, tables, charts, graphs, and figures) and should be submitted as a Microsoft Word
attachment in Tk20. References should be included (if applicable) at the end of the paper and are
not included in overall word count. The proposal will be reviewed based on all six elements
described below. All elements must be addressed in the proposal even if the results, conclusions,
or findings are not complete or final at the time of the submission. The proposal should be
explicitly related to one of the sections listed above and should address each of the following six
elements, in order. In addition, you must provide an abstract not exceeding 120 words, which
summarizes the major contribution the paper makes to curriculum and its significance.
Objectives/Purposes related to curriculum
Perspective(s)/Theoretical framework firmly grounded in the field of curriculum
Methods, Techniques, or Modes of Inquiry
Data sources/ Evidence
23
Results and/or Substantiated Curricular Conclusions or Warrants for Arguments/Point of
View
Scientific or Scholarly Significance of the Study or Work to Theories and Practices of
Curriculum
6. Grading Rubric
The Curriculum Conference Proposal Assignment will be assessed using the following rubric:
Not Met
0-1 points
Met
2-3 points
Target
4 points
Abstract provides summary
(120-word maximum) of
the proposed curriculum
inquiry that articulates its
significance in terms of
curriculum theory and
practice.
Abstract provides a
compelling and accurate
synthesis (120-word
maximum) of the proposed
curriculum inquiry that
articulates its significance in
terms of curriculum theory
and practice.
Proposal demonstrates
purposeful connections to
the theory and practice of
curriculum studies.
Proposal demonstrates
specific, clear, and
purposeful connections to
the theory and practice of
curriculum studies.
Total
Score
ABSTRACT
Abstract provides
summary (120-word
maximum) of the
proposed paper but fails
to that articulates its
significance in terms of
curriculum theory and
practice.
TOPIC
Proposal demonstrates
vague references to the
theory and practice of
curriculum studies.
CLARITY OF PURPOSE/AIMS & OBJECTIVES
The author’s curricular purpose and objectives
are vague or elusive.
Proposal displays depth of
thought, but the author’s curricular purpose and
objectives are vague [or
vice versa].
Proposal displays depth of
thought, with a clear and
creative elucidation of
author’s curricular purpose and the objectives of the
curriculum inquiry.
PERSPECTIVES/THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
24
The theoretical
framework is incoherent
and/or incompatible with
the curricular aims and
does adequately situate
itself within
philosophical
orientations and theories
relevant to curriculum
studies.
The theoretical framework
is coherent and compatible
with the curricular aims of
inquiry but does not
represent a compelling
synthesis of philosophical
orientations relevant to
curriculum studies.
The theoretical framework
represents a generative
synthesis of philosophical
orientations and theories
relevant to curriculum
studies, is coherent and
compatible with the
curricular aims of inquiry
and supports the curriculum
inquiry in a compelling and
thorough way.
MODE of INQUIRY/DATA SOURCE
Description of mode of
curriculum inquiry and
the process through
which data were
analyzed is addressed in
inadequate detail and
does not utilize data
sources and methods of
analysis appropriate to
curriculum inquiry.
Description of mode of
curriculum inquiry and the
process through which data
were analyzed needs to be
developed with further
detail and design.
Description of the mode of
curriculum inquiry and
process through which data
were analyzed is detailed
and logical and utilizes data
sources and methods of
analysis appropriate to
curriculum inquiry.
CURRICULAR IMPLICATIONS
Curricular implications
are vague and/or
superficial and do not
follow logically from
curricular aims &
methodology.
Curricular implications to
the theory and practice of
curriculum are stated and
are compatible with
curricular aims and data
source.
Curricular implications to
the theory and practice of
curriculum studies are
compelling, compatible with
curricular aims and data
source and contribute to the
literature of curriculum
studies.
Scholarly Contribution to the Theory and Practice of Curriculum
25
The proposal is not
engaging and does not
contribute in any
significant way to the
ongoing curricular
conversations of
professional and
scholarly communities
relevant to the field of
curriculum studies.
Overall, the proposal is
interesting and relevant to
the field of curriculum and
its practice, but does not
demonstrate its significance
to the ongoing curricular
conversations of
professional and scholarly
communities relevant to the
field of curriculum studies.
Overall, the proposal is
unique, interesting, creative,
and offers new insights that
are significant to the
ongoing curricular
conversations of
professional and scholarly
communities relevant to the
field of curriculum studies.
Total __/28
7. Data derived from the Assessment
Data for Summer 2013 Totals All Sections (N= 27)
Criteria
Not Met
Met
Target
Review and Acceptance by National Scholarly
Curriculum Organization
0
Pending
Acceptance
Pending
Acceptance
Curricular Significance of Topic
0
9
17*
Clarity of Curricular Purpose/Aims &
Objectives
0
11
16
Curricular Perspectives/Theoretical
Framework
0
17
10
Curricular Mode of Inquiry
1
19
Curricular Implications
0
17
10
Scholarly Contribution to the Theory
and Practice of Curriculum
0
11
16
6**
* Data for 1 student for Curricular Significance of Topic not input.
** Data for 1 student for Curricular Mode of Inquiry not input.
Data for Summer 2012 (N= 11)
Criteria
Not Met
Met
Target
Review and Acceptance by National,
Scholarly Curriculum Organization
0
0
11
Curricular Significance of Topic
0
5
6
26
Clarity of curricular Purpose/Aims &
Objectives
0
5
6
Curricular Perspectives/Theoretical
Framework
0
6
5
Curricular Mode of Inquiry
0
8
3
Curricular Implications
0
7
4
Scholarly Contribution to the Theory and
Practice of Curriculum
0
7
4
27
ATTACHMENT 3
KEY ASSESSMENT 3: TEACHING PORTFOLIO
EDCI 8323: Advanced Models of Teaching
1. Brief Description of the Assessment and Use in the Program
Doctoral candidates must successfully complete a professional portfolio to complete the
requirements of EDCI 8323 Advanced Models of Teaching. The portfolio must include: a vita;
summary of teaching and/or administrative education responsibilities; examples of student or
teacher work that supports their educational philosophy; a reflection essay; and all course
assignments (lesson plans, mission statement, and journal articles). In addition to being used as
assess the candidates’ mastery of the EDCI 8323 course objectives, the portfolio is also a key
assessment for the doctoral program. It is used to assess candidates’ fulfillment of the Curriculum and Instruction standards identified as targeted by this course.
2. How the Assessment Aligns with C&I Standards
This assessment is aligned to College of Education Conceptual Framework and demonstrates
proficiencies in the following Curriculum and Instruction standards: 1- Knowledge of
Curriculum; 2- Knowledge of Instruction; 3- Knowledge of Content; 4- Knowledge of Students;
5- Knowledge of Inquiry; Standard 6- Knowledge of Assessment; and 7- Professional Practices.
The chart below illustrates the performances that fulfill the C&I standards.
Criteria
Curriculum &
Instruction Standards
COE Conceptual
Framework
Vita
Std. 7: Professional Practices
COE-5: Professionalism
Summary of Teaching
and/or Administrative
Responsibilities
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content
COE-1: Knowledge In
Practice
COE-5: Professionalism
Journal Articles
Std. 2; Knowledge of Instruction
Std. 7: Professional Practices
Std. 5: Knowledge of Inquiry
Lesson Plans
COE-1: Knowledge In
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Std. 1: Knowledge of Curriculum COE-1: Knowledge In
Practice
Std. 2: Knowledge of Instruction COE-4: Diversity
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content
Std. 4: Knowledge of Students
Std. 6: Knowledge of Assessment
Std. 7: Professional Practices
28
Mission & Philosophy
Statement
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content
Std. 4: Knowledge of Students
COE-2: Reflection
COE-4: Diversity
COE-5: Professionalism
Std. 7: Professional Practices
Self-Reflection Essay
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content
Std. 4: Knowledge of Students
Std. 7: Professional Practices
COE-1: Knowledge In
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
COE-4: Diversity
COE-5: Professionalism
Professional Educator
Practices
Std. 5: Knowledge of Inquiry
Std. 7: Professional Practices
COE-1: Knowledge In Practice
COE-2: Reflection
COE-3: Collaboration
COE-4: Diversity
COE-5: Professionalism
Portfolio Format
Std. 7: Professional Practices
COE-5: Professionalism
3. Brief Analysis of Data Findings
The portfolio is the key assessment used to evaluate candidates’ achievement of the curriculum and instructional standards in EDCI 8323 Advanced Models of Teaching for the Doctorate in
Education in Curriculum and Instruction at The University of Texas at Brownsville. EDCI 8323
was taught in Spring 2011 (N = 8), Fall 2011 (N = 13), and Fall 2012 (N = 19) for a total of 61
candidates. As presented in the chart below, over 95% of the candidates satisfied all of the
requirements all of the standards by scoring Target and Met with Weakness. In the next section,
results are further broken down and analyzed, and specific recommendations for improvement
are discussed.
Spring 2011
(N = 8)
C&I Standards
Achieved by
Teaching Portfolio
Fall 2011
(N = 13)
Fall 2012
(N = 19)
Total
(N = 61)
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
candidates scoring
candidates
candidates scoring candidates scoring
Met with
scoring Met with
Met with
Met with
Weakness and
Weakness and
Weakness and
Weakness and
Target
Target
Target
Target
Vita
100%
100%
100%
100%
Summary of Teaching
and/or Administrative
Responsibilities
100%
100%
100%
100%
Journal Articles
100%
100%
100%
100%
Lesson Plans
100%
100%
100%
100%
29
Mission & Philosophy
Statement
100%
100%
100%
100%
Self-Reflection Essay
100%
100%
95%
100%
Professional Educator
Practices
100%
100%
100%
100%
Portfolio Format
100%
100%
100%
100%
4. Interpretation of Data Findings
The EDCI 8323 portfolio addresses Curriculum and Instruction Standards 1 through 7. The Fall
2011, Spring 2011, and Fall 2012 data on candidate performance on the portfolio provides
evidence that 100% of the candidates achieved the standards measured by this key assessment.
Further analysis is merited regarding those who scored Met with Weakness rather than Target.
Several measures will be implemented over the following year to improve the percentage of
candidates achieving Target, as well as to ensure continued attainment of the standards.
1. Based on assessment data analysis, in 2011, the semester in which this course was offered was
changed from fall to spring. This is offered once a year to each doctoral cohort. It was previously
offered each spring, but in 2011, it was changed to the fall semester to more effectively accommodate
students’ schedules. With the program offerings being more balanced, candidates are able to more effectively achieve the standards by taking the courses in a sequence that allows them to spend more
time developing their skills in each standard.
2. Course projects and learning activities will continue to be revised based on candidate performance
and program review assessment results. Increased opportunities for students to develop their skills in
the areas covered by the standards will be provided in the course. For example, since 50% (n = 4) of
the Spring 2011 candidates and 38% (n = 5) of the Fall 2011 candidates, scored Met with Weakness
instead of Target for the Journal Article component of the portfolio, additional learning opportunities
and lessons will be provided to help develop candidates’ skills in critical inquiry. Fall 2012 data revealed improvements in the percentage of students obtaining Target in the above-mentioned
standards.
3. Fall 2012 data revealed that for the Self-Reflection Essay, 5% (N = 1) received Not Met. Although
this was the result for only 1 student out of the total 19 that semester, the results merit attention.
Learning activities will be added using the Blackboard discussion forum to build students’ writing and self reflection skills. The instructor will be an active participant in the discussion forum and
provide guidance and practice as needed.
4. The results of the Fall 2012 course revealed that over 50% (n = 10 out of 19) achieved Met with
Weakness on the Vita component of the portfolio. Based on the results, learning activities will be
added throughout the course to help students develop a professional vita that meets the standards of a
professional educator. Special emphasis will be given to help students develop vitas that through
active service activities, reflects candidates’ understanding of the importance of engaging in partnerships with schools and communities.
5. The course Syllabus has been revised to include the College of Education Conceptual Framework, as
well as the Curriculum and Instruction standards. The new Syllabi will be used beginning Fall 2012.
6. Additional, more detailed step-by-step instructions and samples for the portfolio will be integrated
into the course to increase candidates’ understanding of the expectations and criteria required by the standards. Candidates will be required to begin to develop their portfolio starting the first week of
class. It will also be iterated consistently throughout the course that candidates are expected to further
develop their skills in future courses in the program.
30
5. Full Description of the Assignment
Doctoral candidates must successfully complete a professional portfolio to complete the
requirements of EDCI 8323 Advanced Models of Teaching. The portfolio is used as a key
assessment in the doctoral program to assess candidates’ fulfillment of the identified Curriculum and Instruction standards identified for this course. The portfolio must include: a Vita; Summary
of Teaching and/or Administrative Responsibilities; Journal Articles; Lesson Plans; Mission &
Philosophy Statement; Self Reflection Essay; and Professional Educator Practices. It will be
evaluated based on the content, as well as the professional presentation of the portfolio.
6. Grading Rubric
The key assessment will be assessed using the following rubric:
Criteria
Vita
C&I
Standard(s):
7
Summary of
Teaching
and/or
Administrative
Responsibilitie
s
C&I
Standard(s):
3, 7
Target
Description
Not
Met
Met with
Weakness
Target
0 – 6 pts.
7 – 8 pts.
9 – 10
pts.
Has a clearly defined structure that
highlights candidates’ skills and qualifications;; Includes candidates’ objective, education, work history,
service, membership in professional
organizations, awards, references, and
other relevant categories; demonstrates
candidates’ active involvement in professional and scholarly
organizations and networks; through
active service activities, reflects
candidates’ understanding of the importance of engaging in partnerships
with schools and communities.
Candidates’ teaching and/or administrative responsibilities are
summarized in 2-3 well-developed
paragraphs;; describes candidates’ participation in
interdisciplinary/cross-disciplinary
activities that reflects breadth and
depth of perspective and
knowledge; addresses how
candidate ensures the application of
ethical, social behavior and
professional ethical standards in the
carrying out of their responsibilities.
31
Journal
Articles
C&I
Standard(s):
2, 5
Lesson Plans
C&I
Standard(s):
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7
Mission &
Philosophy
Statement
C&I
Standard(s):
3, 4, 7
Includes a two-page (double spaced)
critique for 4 professional, refereed
journal articles on 4 learning
strategies previously identified by
the professor; strictly adheres to
APA guidelines; reflects candidates’ ability to continuously reflect and
refine their practices to promote
student learning and meet the
changing needs of learners, and use
research to contribute to the
teaching profession.
Includes 5, fully-developed lesson
plans that each demonstrate
candidates’ advanced knowledge and ability to plan curriculum, as
well as knowledge of the student as
influenced by cognitive, physical,
emotional, social, cultural,
environmental, and economic
factors;; demonstrates candidates’ experimenting with pedagogical
techniques and critical evaluation of
the results of their experimentation;
includes documentation of student
assessment data and a critique that
reflects candidates’ ability to
measure and evaluate student
performance and educational
progress, and use these data to
modify practice in order to facilitate
the success of all students.
Art project (text, quotes, drawing,
collage, photographs, etc.) reflect
candidates’ professional mission and philosophy statement;
demonstrates candidates’ ability to express themselves in reflective
practice that help develop their
capacity to think critically about
their own beliefs and practices, and
how these might influence teaching
and learning in diverse contexts.
Self Reflection The reflection essay is well written
Essay
and demonstrates high standards for
professional practice; is free of
spelling and grammatical errors;
explores personal growth. Strengths
C&I
and weaknesses are identified and
Standard(s):
plans for professional development
3, 4, 7
are outlined;; reflects candidates’ ability to demonstrate inquiry as a
habit of mind and a guiding
principle of their professional
practice;
32
Professional
Educator
Practices
Includes evidence of additional
professional activities, including
relevant resource materials, current
journal articles, certificates,
professional memberships, and inservices or seminars attended;
reflects candidates’ active inquiry into educational dilemmas and
problems to seek resolutions that
benefit students; evidence of
innovative scholarship that advances
the field and related disciplines;
demonstrates candidates’ transformation of candidates’ practices evident through
continuous reflection, ongoing
professional development, and
sharing of learning with others in
educational community; includes
verification of collaboration with
other professional educators,
families and communities.
C&I
Standard(s):
5, 7
Portfolio
Format
C&I
Standard(s):
Completed portfolio submitted in a
two-inch binder (or smaller);
includes all required components
work samples divided into clear
7 and
sections.
7. Data derived from the Assessment
Data For Fall 2012 Totals (N= 19)
Not Met
Met with
Weakness
Target
Vita
0
10
9
Summary of Teaching and/or Administrative
Responsibilities
0
0
19
Journal Articles
0
0
19
Criteria
33
Lesson Plans
0
0
19
Mission & Philosophy Statement
0
0
19
Self Reflection Essay
1
4
14
Professional Educator Practices
0
0
19
Portfolio Format
0
0
19
Data for Spring 2011 Totals (N= 8)
* Note: After Spring 2011, the course was only offered every Fall semester.
Not Met
Met with
Weakness
Target
Vita
0
1
7
Summary of Teaching and/or Administrative
Responsibilities
0
2
6
Journal Articles
0
4
4
Lesson Plans
0
2
6
Mission & Philosophy Statement
0
2
6
Self Reflection Essay
0
2
6
Professional Educator Practices
0
3
5
Portfolio Format
0
0
8
Not Met
Met with
Weakness
Target
Vita
0
0
13
Summary of Teaching and/or Administrative
Responsibilities
0
0
13
Criteria
Data for Fall 2011 Totals (N= 13)
Criteria
34
Journal Articles
0
5
8
Lesson Plans
0
3
10
Mission & Philosophy Statement
0
1
12
Self Reflection Essay
0
1
12
Professional Educator Practices
0
3
10
Portfolio Format
0
0
13
Not Met
Met with
Weakness
Target
Vita
0
9
4
Summary of Teaching and/or Administrative
Responsibilities
0
0
13
Journal Articles
0
0
13
Lesson Plans
0
0
13
Mission & Philosophy Statement
0
0
13
Self Reflection Essay
1
3
9
Professional Educator Practices
0
0
13
Portfolio Format
0
0
13
Not Met
Met with
Weakness
Target
Data By Sections
Data for Fall 2012 Section 1 (N= 13)
Criteria
Data for Fall 2012 Section 2 (N= 6)
Criteria
35
Vita
0
1
5
Summary of Teaching and/or Administrative
Responsibilities
0
0
6
Journal Articles
0
0
6
Lesson Plans
0
0
6
Mission & Philosophy Statement
0
0
6
Self Reflection Essay
0
1
5
Professional Educator Practices
0
0
6
Portfolio Format
0
0
6
36
ATTACHMENT 4
KEY ASSESSMENT 4: DOCTORAL DISSERTATION PROPOSAL DEFENSE
1. Brief Description of the Assessment and Use in the Program
The dissertation proposal defense demonstrates candidates’ ability to identify and defend a formal proposal regarding a specific need and/or gap in education research in their
specializations. The proposal is used in the program to determine if candidates have developed
the depth and breadth of content knowledge and research skills to advance in doctoral
coursework and dissertation. It is also used to help candidates identify a dissertation topic,
research question(s), review of literature, and methodology.
2. How the Assessment Aligns with C&I Standards
This assessment demonstrates proficiencies in the following Curriculum and Instruction
standards: 1- Knowledge of Curriculum; 3- Knowledge of Content; 4- Knowledge of Students;
5- Knowledge of Inquiry; Standard 6- Knowledge of Assessment; 7- Professional Practices; and
8- Technology Integration. The chart below illustrates the performances that fulfill the C&I
standards. This assessment is also aligned to College of Education Conceptual Framework.
Criteria
Curriculum &
Instruction Standards
COE Conceptual
Framework
Proposal Topic
Std. 1: Knowledge of
Curriculum
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Introduction
Std. 1: Knowledge of
Curriculum
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Review of Literature
Std. 1: Knowledge of
Curriculum
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content
Std. 4: Knowledge of Students
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Methodology
Std. 5: Knowledge of Inquiry
Std. 6: Knowledge of
Assessment
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Presentation
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content
Std. 8: Technology Integration
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
COE-6: Technology
Scholarly Writing
Std. 7: Professional Practices
Std. 8: Technology Integration
COE-1: Knowledge in Practice
COE-2: Reflection
COE-6: Technology
37
APA Format
Std. 5: Knowledge of Inquiry
Std. 8: Technology Integration
COE-5: Professionalism
COE-6: Technology
3. Brief Analysis of Data Findings
The dissertation proposal defense is the assessment used to evaluate doctoral candidates’ readiness continued doctoral level scholarship and for writing a dissertation in the Doctorate in
Education in Curriculum and Instruction at The University of Texas at Brownsville. A total of 13
candidates successfully defended dissertation proposal, meeting the standards, during the Fall
2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. All 13 candidates (100%) successfully defended their proposal,
continued to dissertation, and graduated. 100% of the candidates satisfied all of the requirements
all of the standards by scoring Target and/or Met with Weakness. In the next section, results are
further broken down and analyzed, and specific recommendations for improvement are
discussed.
C&I Standards
Achieved by
the Doctoral
Dissertation
Proposal
Defense
2010
(N = 3)
2011
(N = 8)
2012
(N = 1)
2013
(N = 1)
Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage of
of
of
of
candidates
candidates
candidates candidates
scoring
scoring
scoring
scoring
Met with
Met with
Met with
Met with
Weakness &
Weakness & Weakness & Weakness &
Target
Target
Target
Target
Total
(N = 13)
Percentage of
candidates
scoring
Met with
Weakness &
Target
Proposal Topic
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Introduction
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Review of
Literature
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Methodology
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Presentation
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Scholarly Writing
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
APA Format
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
4. Interpretation of Data Findings
The dissertation proposal defense addresses the Curriculum and Instruction Standards 1, 3, 4,
5, 6, and 7. The Fall 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 data on candidate performance on the
dissertation proposal defense provides evidence that 100% of the candidates achieved the
standards measured by this key assessment. Further analysis is merited regarding those who
scored Met with Weakness rather than Target. As the data below reveal, although candidates
met each of the standards, they struggled with review of literature, methodology, and scholarly
writing. In part, this is due because proposal defense occurs early in the doctoral program, and
38
for the most part, this is the first time, candidates have presented a formal research proposal at
the doctoral level. Over the course of the following one to two years, candidates’ research, scholarship, and presentation skills improve because they have ample opportunities to practice
and develop the skills in the program courses, development of their dissertation, and extra
curricular activities that faculty encourage candidates to participate in (ex.: submit and present
at local, state, and national conferences). Even so, in order to increase candidates’ attainment of a Target score for the dissertation proposal defense, several measures have been instituted
over the past year.
4. Measures have already been implemented to improve candidates’ performance on the standards. For example, a doctoral student handbook was developed and implemented in the Fall 2011 by the new
coordinator of the doctoral program. In addition to procedural information, the doctoral handbook
includes an overview of each assessment, including the proposal defense. The manual is available in
hard copy and online on the University website.
5. In the Fall 2012, detailed descriptions of each of the assessments, as well as the rubrics were added
to the doctoral student manual to help candidates know and work towards specifically developing the
skills required by each standard.
6. In order to improve students’ performance in the standards that did not meet the 100% Target score,
increased opportunities for students to develop their skills in these areas will be provided, starting in
the first course in the sequence.
7. Additional instructions and samples will be provided to increase candidates’ understanding of the expectations and criteria required by the standards. As new candidates enter the program, they will
become accustomed to working on their dissertation proposals from the first semester. They will be
expected to further develop their proposal and practice their proposal presentation in subsequent
courses.
5. Full Description of the Assignment
The dissertation proposal demonstrates candidates’ ability to identify, write, and defend a formal proposal regarding a specific need and/or gap in education research in their
specializations. The proposal is used in the program to determine if candidates have developed
the depth and breadth of content knowledge and research skills to advance in doctoral
coursework and dissertation. It is also used to help candidates identify a dissertation topic,
research question(s), review of literature, and methodology.
Doctoral candidates who have advanced to candidacy and received approval of their
dissertation Chair, the specialization coordinator, and the doctoral program coordinator, under
the supervisor of their dissertation committee members, identify a need or gap in educational
research in their specialization field.
Dissertation proposals that involve human subjects must also have prior approval of the
university Institutional Review Board (IRB). By the time of the proposal defense, candidates
will have submitted a draft of the first three chapters of their dissertation.
The dissertation proposal defense document includes, but is not limited to: a cover page, table
of contents, Chapter 1: Introduction; Chapter 2: Review of Literature; Chapter 3: Methodology;
and Listed References. APA format is strictly abided by for in-text citations and references.
Candidates collaborate closely with their dissertation committee chairs and members to define
the research topic, question(s), design, and methodology.
After the proposal defense document has been approved, candidates defend the proposal before
their dissertation committee. The committee may: (a) approve the proposal as presented;
39
approve contingent upon recommended changes; or disapprove the proposal and schedule a
new defense at a later date. The dissertation committee chair shall send a memo to the doctoral
program coordinator and Dean of the College of Education reporting the results of the
dissertation proposal defense.
40
6. Grading Rubric
The dissertation proposal defense will be assessed using the following rubric:
Criteria
Proposal Topic
C&I Standards:
1, 3
Introduction
C&I Standards:
1, 3
Review of
Literature
C&I Standards:
1, 3, 4
Not Met
Met with Weakness
Target
Limited or no evidence
of research-based
planning that recognizes
the needs of the target
audience; demonstrates
basic knowledge and
skills in the academic
discipline and
pedagogy; topic vaguely
addresses a relevant
need in curriculum and
instruction.
Provides limited
evidence of researchbased planning that
recognizes the needs of
the target audience;
demonstrates adequate
knowledge and skills in
the academic discipline
and pedagogy; topic
addresses a relevant
need in curriculum and
instruction.
Reveals in-depth
research-based
planning that
recognizes the needs of
the target audience;
demonstrates advanced
depth and breadth of
knowledge and skills in
the academic discipline
and pedagogy; looks at
the research question(s)
in a way that is creative
and insightful; topic
clearly addresses a
relevant need in
curriculum and
instruction.
Weak or no argument
for the need and
significance of the
study;; chapter’s focus is inconsistent; chapter
does not address all
elements of the
dissertation outline.
Argument for the need
and significance of the
study is presented, but
not consistently
developed throughout
the chapter;; chapter’s focus is inconsistent;
chapter addresses most
elements of the
proposal outline.
Builds a strong,
consistent, and
persuasive argument for
the need and
significance of the
study;; chapter’s focus is consistent; addresses
all elements of the
proposal outline.
Insufficient review of
literature; demonstrates
minimal knowledge of
major theories,
philosophies, and
current issues in
curriculum; sources are
outdated and/or not
relevant; no researchbased evidence of the
need and significance of
the study.
Adequate review of
literature; demonstrates
basic knowledge of
major theories,
philosophies, and
current issues in
curriculum; relies on
mostly older sources;
research-based
evidence of the need
and significance of the
study requires further
development.
Comprehensive review
of literature;
demonstrates in-depth
knowledge of major
theories, philosophies,
and current issues in
curriculum; effectively
incorporates a variety
of relevant current and
classic (older) sources;
consistently provides
research-based
evidence of the need
and significance of the
study.
41
Methodology
C&I Standards:
5, 6
Presentation
C&I Standards:
3, 8
Scholarly
Writing
C&I Standard:
7, 8
Description of the
process by which data
will be collected and
analyzed is attempted,
but lacks detail and/or is
loosely organized;
proposed research
design (ex. qualitative
and/or quantitative) and
selection of data
analysis methods
demonstrate a lack of
understanding of
assessment, research
principles, and research
methodologies; chapter
lacks several required
components of the
chapter (ex.:
participants, research
design, data collection
procedures, etc.).
Description of the
process by which data
will be collected and
analyzed is described;
proposed research
design (ex. qualitative
and/or quantitative) and
selection of data
analysis methods
demonstrate a basic
understanding of
assessment, research
principles, and research
methodologies; most
required components of
the chapter are included
(ex.: participants,
research design, data
collection procedures,
etc.).
Description of the
process by which data
will be collected and
analyzed is detailed and
demonstrates high level
academic rigor;
proposed research
design (ex. qualitative
and/or quantitative) and
selection of data
analysis methods
demonstrate an in-depth
understanding and
application of
assessment, research
principles, and research
methodologies; all
required components of
the chapter are included
and addressed in depth
(ex.: participants,
research design, data
collection procedures,
etc.).
Presentation is not
logically organized and
hard to follow; no use of
technology or it hinders
message; major
improvement needed to
demonstrate doctoral
level communication
skills; many questions
not adequately
addressed; demonstrates
lack of knowledge and
skills in the academic
discipline.
Overall, presentation is
organized; basic
technology used; basic
communication ability,
but improvement
needed to demonstrate
doctoral level skills;
one or more questions
not satisfactorily
addressed;
demonstrates basic
knowledge and skills
in the academic
discipline.
Presentation is well
prepared, establishing
high standards for
academic rigor and
intellectual inquiry;
innovative use of
technology promotes
message; highlyprofessional
communication skills;
questions are
effectively addressed
and expanded upon;
demonstrates advanced
depth and breadth of
knowledge and skills in
the academic
discipline.
Writing level does not
meet the scholarly
expectation of doctoral
work; research is not
satisfactorily
paraphrased and
properly quoted;
structure and
organization are unclear;
transitions between
paragraphs, sections,
and chapters are weak;
many spelling,
grammar, and
punctuation errors.
Writing level meets the
scholarly expectation of
doctoral work; research
is satisfactorily
paraphrased and
properly quoted;
structure and
organization are clear
and organized; some
transitions needed to
help readers see the
relationship between
paragraphs, sections,
and chapters; some
spelling, grammar, and
punctuation errors.
Writing level exceeds
the scholarly
expectation of doctoral
work; research is
skillfully paraphrased
and properly quoted;
structure and
organization are
consistently clear and
well organized; skillful
transitions help readers
clearly see the
relationship between
paragraphs, sections,
and chapters; few
spelling, grammar, and
punctuation errors.
42
APA Format
C&I Standards:
APA style guidelines are Overall, APA style
inconsistently applied;
guidelines are applied;
frequent errors.
numerous errors.
5, 8
APA style guidelines
are strictly and
consistently applied;
few errors.
7. Data derived from the Assessment
Data for 2013 (N=1)
Not Met
Met with
Weakness
Target
Proposal Topic
0
0
1
Introduction
0
0
1
Review of Literature
0
0
1
Methodology
0
1
0
Presentation
0
0
1
Scholarly Writing
0
1
1
APA Format
0
0
1
Not Met
Met with
Weakness
Target
Proposal Topic
0
0
1
Introduction
0
0
1
Review of Literature
0
1
0
Methodology
0
0
1
Presentation
0
0
1
Scholarly Writing
0
1
0
Criteria
Data for 2012 (N=1)
Criteria
43
APA Format
0
0
1
Not Met
Met with
Weakness
Target
Proposal Topic
0
2
6
Introduction
0
3
5
Review of Literature
0
3
5
Methodology
0
2
6
Presentation
0
1
7
Scholarly Writing
0
3
5
APA Format
0
2
6
Not Met
Met with
Weakness
Target
Proposal Topic
0
0
3
Introduction
0
0
3
Review of Literature
0
1
2
Methodology
0
2
1
Presentation
0
1
2
Scholarly Writing
0
2
1
Data for 2011 (N=8)
Criteria
Data for Fall 2010 (N=3)
Criteria
44
APA Format
0
1
2
45
ATTACHMENT 5
KEY ASSESSMENT 5: DOCTORAL COMPREHENSIVE EXAM
1. Brief Description of the Assessment and Use in the Program
The doctoral comprehensive examination consists of three, four-hour written examinations, each one
pertaining to a specific area or topic that is addressed in a doctoral-level education course. To allow a
more comprehensive picture of what the students know, the questions are drawn from the program
content areas of Research Applications (i.e., EDCI 8300 Research Methods in Education, EDCI 8301
Qualitative Research, or EDCI 8302 Quantitative Research and Research Electives), from the Core (i.e.
the Ed.D. Program’s Curriculum Core), and from the areas of Specialization (i.e., Bilingual Studies, Early Childhood, Educational Leadership, Educational Technology, or Higher Education Teaching).
2. How the Assessment Aligns with C&I Standards
This assessment demonstrates proficiencies in the following Curriculum and Instruction
standards:
1- Knowledge of Curriculum; 2- Knowledge of Instruction; 3- Knowledge of Content; 4Knowledge of Students; 5- Knowledge of Inquiry; Standard 6- Knowledge of Assessment; and
8- Technology Integration. The chart below illustrates the performances that fulfill the C&I
standards. This assessment is also aligned to College of Education Conceptual Framework.
Criteria
Curriculum &
Instruction Standards
COE Conceptual
Framework
Knowledge of Curriculum
Std. 1: Knowledge of
Curriculum
Std. 2: Knowledge of Instruction
Std. 4: Knowledge of Students
Std. 6: Knowledge of Assessment
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
COE-5: Professionalism
Knowledge of
Specialization
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content
Std. 4: Knowledge of Students
Std. 5: Knowledge of Inquiry
Std. 6: Knowledge of Assessment
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
COE-5: Professionalism
Knowledge of Research
Std. 5: Knowledge of Inquiry
COE-1: Knowledge in
Std. 6: Knowledge of Assessment Practice
COE-2: Reflection
COE-5: Professionalism
Application of Content
Knowledge
Std. 1: Knowledge of
COE-1: Knowledge in
Curriculum
Practice
Std. 2: Knowledge of Instruction COE-2: Reflection
Std. 3; Knowledge of Content
Std. 4: Knowledge of Students
Std. 5: Knowledge of Inquiry
Std. 6: Knowledge of Assessment
Scholarly Writing
Std. 8: Technology Integration
COE-6: Technology
46
3. Brief Analysis of Data Findings
Of the seven test takers, 100% passed all three sections of the doctoral comprehensive exam.
On the question pertaining to the candidate’s specialization area, 7 out of 7 (100%) were on
“Target” with their responses. On the Curriculum and Instruction question, 6 out of 7 candidates (86%) were on target while 1 candidate’s response was met with weakness. Scholarly writing was generally strong, with 6 out of 7 candidates (86%) scoring on “Target.” The question where candidates struggled most was with inquiry question. 5 out of 7 (71%) met
this standard with weakness, while only 2 (29%) candidates were on target.
2012
(N = 7)
Percentage of
students scoring
Met with
Weakness and
Target
2013
(N = 9)
Percentage of
students scoring
Met with Weakness
and Target
Total
(N = 16)
Percentage of students
scoring
Met with Weakness
and Target
Knowledge of Curriculum
100%
100%
100%
Knowledge of
Specialization
100%
100%
100%
Knowledge of Research
100%
100%
100%
Application of Content
Knowledge
100%
100%
100%
Scholarly Writing
100%
100%
100%
C&I Standards Achieved
by the Doctoral
Comprehensive Exam
4. Interpretation of Data Findings
While 100% of test takers passed all three sections of the doctoral comprehensive exam, 10
candidates (66%) met the research (inquiry) question with weakness. One possible explanation
for the low performance on the research question is that the question writers and raters were
not the same individuals. Based on these results, we recognize the need for writers and raters to
be familiar with the content, students, and expectations. Furthermore, in earlier cohorts, faculty
teaching the research and C&I core courses tended to lean more heavily toward qualitative
methods, resulting in a majority of students preferring qualitative over quantitative methods in
their research papers and dissertations. This imbalance has since been addressed with the hiring
of additional research faculty, who have a strong background in quantitative methodologies.
Recent and future cohorts will receive a more balanced coverage of qualitative and quantitative
methods through their courses. It is expected that as the improvements take effect, the
performance
on
the
research
(inquiry)
question
will
improve.
5. Full Description of the Assignment
The doctoral comprehensive examination consists of three, four-hour written examinations, each one
pertaining to a specific area or topic that is addressed in a doctoral-level education courses. To allow a
more comprehensive picture of what the students know, the questions are drawn from the program
content areas of Research Applications (i.e., EDCI 8300 Research Methods in Education, EDCI 8301
Qualitative Research, or EDCI 8302 Quantitative Research and Research Electives), from the Core (ex.:
47
the Ed.D. Program’s Curriculum Core), and from the areas of Specialization (i.e., Bilingual Studies, Early Childhood, Educational Leadership, Educational Technology, or Higher Education Teaching).
The comprehensive examination questions are developed by the lead faculty in the areas of
Research, C&I and the Specializations in cooperation with the students’ faculty advisors. Thus at least three different full-time faculty members in the College of Education will write the
questions. The scoring of each student’s answers will be conducted by a total of six instructors, the initially selected three (who wrote the questions) and an additional three faculty (proposed
by the Department Chairs and confirmed by the Dean), one from each of the three
Comprehensive Examination areas. In each examination administration the same C&I and
Research question is given to everyone and the same specialization question is given to the
specialization group in a Cohort. The questions are listed below:
Question 1: Curriculum and Instruction
You have been tasked by leadership of your organization/school district to redesign the current
system of administering professional development in your area (Early Childhood, Bilingual, Ed
leadership). If you had the opportunity to use best practices and had high levels of resource
support, what would your professional development look like and why? Take into account Adult
learning theory, curriculum theory, and mentoring as part of your answer.
Question 2: Inquiry
Inquiry in education encompasses different research methods that entail the search for new
understandings and meanings about problems in education. Two of these methods include
Quantitative and Qualitative research methods with corresponding research designs for data
collection.
Describe the research process related to your primary research interest. State a research problem
in education and choose a research method (quantitative, qualitative or mixed method) to show
how you would plan a research project to study the problem. Include in your discussion why you
choose a particular method, the initial plan, the kind and approximate number of subjects in the
study, the type of data you plan to gather and the data gathering approach including instrument(s)
to be used, and the analysis plan.
Organize your response using the following format: A) the research problem, B) the purpose of
the study, C) the need to study this problem, D) possible limitations to the study, E) research
questions, F) clearly identify the variables under study (if appropriate), and G) the research
method and design for data collection and analysis.
Please provide a rationale (line of reasoning) for why you have selected your methodological
framework (qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods). Describe how you would achieve
credibility, believability and or validity and reliability in your research project.
Depending on students’ specialization, they respond to one of the specialization questions below:
Question 3: Bilingual Studies
Address all parts of the following bringing in what you have learned in the coursework you have
taken in bilingual studies. You should bring in major theorists, researchers, theoretical concepts,
and research findings. Organize your time so that you give equal time to the three parts of the
question.
English language learners (ELLs) also referred to as emergent bilinguals are impacting schools
across the country.
1) Review demographics trends related to ELLs/emergent bilinguals especially considering
their schooling success/failures and their specific academic needs. Include in this discussion
the different types of ELLs, their characteristics, and their needs as described by Freeman
and Freeman. Then, bring in the two types of immigrants described by Ogbu and explain
which type shows more chances of success than the other. Discuss Grossjean’s ideas of language dominance as measured by language use and language fluency as well as his
48
complementarity principle. To complete this section, define academic language and how
educators can support the development of academic language. (Reference when appropriate:
Gándara and Contreras; O. García; O.García, Kleifgen, & Falchi; Freeman & Freeman; L.
Olsen; Short and Fitzimmons; Ogbu; G. Valdés)
2) Review key researchers and theorists and models related to bilingual education. Bring in the
rationale for bilingual education and why first language support for students is crucial. You
should explain Cummins’ interdependence hypothesis, common underlying proficiency
(CUP), and the iceberg theory as well as his thresholds hypothesis. You should also explain
Ofelia García’s models of bilingualism including subtractive monoglossic and additive views. Explain what she means by heteroglossic views and dynamic bilingualism. Review
briefly models of instruction that have been used for ELLs and then describe what program
or model is best for emergent bilinguals and why.
3) Explain Krashen’s hypotheses about how language is acquired and the implications for how educators can best support language acquisition. Then explain how educators can write
content and language objectives and use performance indicators to assess language
acquisition. Provide evidence from linguistics that supports Krashen’s innatist view of acquisition. More specifically, discuss the systematic nature of language using examples
from phonology or morphology. Explain Ofelia García’s view of how bilinguals translanguage and why she uses that term rather than “code switching.”
Question 3: Early Childhood
Based on your coursework and study in early childhood education, discuss how early childhood
theory, philosophy and research influence how you view early childhood education and how it
influences your work in early childhood education.
Question 3: Educational Leadership
According to Schlechty (2012), if schools are to be transformed, it is essential that those who
lead the transformation have a clear image of what is going on in the schools they are trying to
change. The way a school operates, largely determines the way teachers work with students. If
you’re school runs like a hospital, teachers are likely to see their jobs as diagnosing and prescribing work for students. Student compliance rather that student engagement is the goal. A
learning organization is structured to engage all students and teachers, increasing the likelihood
that they will learn at profound levels.
Respond to the following questions:
A. In general, what drives a learning organization?
Elaborate on how an organization
would go about building, implementing and sustaining a learning organization --specifically focus on what a leader should do to lead a school system through change and
build a community of practitioners. You may incorporate the use of a school
improvement model or models to make your point.
B. What leadership strategies and behaviors would support the development of a
professional learning community that engages students and teachers?
C. Explain how data driven decision making would relate to the process(es) you describe.
What do people talk about when they talk about schools? According to Spring (2011) in The
Politics of American Education, there have been conflicting and multiple voices that reflect
varying concerns and interests in education policies. However, the national media primarily and
uncritically report the voices of national figures, particularly politicians, on school conditions.
The overwhelming majority of politicians broadcast human capital ideology through the media to
the public. Does the influence of the media shape public thinking to accept that the purpose of
schooling should be to make the United States number one in the world economy through
common curriculum standards and high stakes testing? Please elaborate.
49
6. Grading Rubric
The comprehensive exam is assessed using the following rubric:
Criteria
Knowledge of
Curriculum
C&I
Standard(s):
1, 2, 4, 6
Knowledge of
Specialization
C&I
Standard(s):
3, 4, 5, 6
Not Met
Met with Weakness
Target
Demonstrates minimal
ability to plan, implement
or evaluate instruction.
Lacks knowledge of
major learning theories
and/or cannot explain how
they facilitate student
learning. Provides little or
no evidence of an
awareness of the cultural
and linguistic contexts of
learning.
Demonstrates ability to
plan, implement,
differentiate and evaluate
instruction to facilitate
student learning. Exhibits
knowledge of major
learning theories and how
they explain student
learning. Provides
evidence of an awareness
of the cultural and
linguistic contexts of
learning.
Demonstrates advanced
ability to plan, implement,
differentiate and evaluate
instruction to facilitate
student learning.
Demonstrates knowledge
of several major learning
and developmental
theories and how they
explain student learning.
Provides ample evidence
of an understanding of the
cultural and linguistic
contexts of learning.
Does not demonstrate
sufficient evidence of
knowledge and skills in
the academic discipline
and pedagogy. Exhibits
minimal ability to apply
current research and data
from the specialization to
plan and communicate
instruction.
Demonstrates evidence of
knowledge, skills, and
dispositions in the
academic discipline and
pedagogy. Exhibits
adequate ability to apply
current research and data
from the specialization to
plan and communicate
instruction.
Demonstrates advanced
depth and breath of
knowledge, skills, and
dispositions in the
academic discipline and
pedagogy. Exhibits highlevel ability to apply
current research and data
from the specialization to
plan and communicate
instruction or fulfill other
professional
responsibilities.
50
Knowledge
of Research
C&I
Standard(s):
5, 6
Application
of Content
Knowledge
C&I
Standard(s):
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Evidence of research
knowledge is weak.
Research evidence is
narrative or anecdotal, or
awkwardly or incorrectly
incorporated; or, evidence
is not always relevant,
sufficient, or integrated
into the response.
Demonstrates nominal
ability to use quantitative,
qualitative and/or mixed
research methods to
investigate education
problems or articulate the
findings. Provides little/no
evidence of rationale for
selection of research
designs. Citations are
inadequate and/or not in
appropriate format.
Demonstrates ample
evidence of knowledge of
inquiry. Provides
sufficient and appropriate
evidence (literature in text
of response) and makes an
effort to contextualize it.
Understands how to apply
quantitative, qualitative
and/or mixed methods to
investigate education
problems and articulate
the findings. Offers
acceptable rationale for
choice of research
designs. Overall, citations
are appropriate and in
APA format.
Provides substantial, wellchosen evidence (research
or textual citations)
establishing a clear
foundation and
framework; definitions
are used to strengthen
response. Demonstrates
ability to use quantitative,
qualitative and/or mixed
methods to investigate
education problems and
articulate findings in a
variety of forms. Makes
logical connections
between one's chosen
research designs and
problems encountered.
Describes how specific
elements of research
designs provide a unique
justification for the
assessment plan. Citations
are excellent and in the
appropriate APA format.
Demonstrates minimal
proficiencies to plan and
communicate instruction
or other professional
practice in ways that
make content meaningful,
cursory critical thinking
and problem solving.
Demonstrates nominal
ability incorporate
appropriate instructional
strategies and current
research and theory from
the specialization area.
Demonstrates acceptable
proficiencies to plan and
communicate instruction
or other professional
practice in ways that:
make content meaningful;
account for diversity and
the developmental needs
of learners; encourage
critical thinking and
problem-solving; create a
positive, motivating
learning environment; and
incorporate appropriate
instructional strategies
and current research and
theory from the
specialization area.
Demonstrates excellence
and proficiency in
planning and
communicating
instruction or other
professional practices in
ways that: make content
meaningful; account for
diversity and the
developmental needs of
learners; encourage
critical thinking and
problem-solving; create a
positive, motivating
learning environment; and
incorporate appropriate
instructional strategies
and current research and
theory from the
specialization area.
Provides clear evidence of
ability to effectively
practice in the
discipline/profession.
51
Scholarly
Writing
C&I
Standard(s): 8
Misunderstands the
prompts and/or confuses
some significant concepts,
including some of those in
the prompt. The main
ideas are not clear;
information is randomly
presented; and, supporting
details and information
are typically unclear or
inaccurate. Citations are
not relevant or present.
Includes occasional
grammatical errors,
imprecise diction, or
awkward syntax.
Responds adequately to
the prompts but may
have some factual,
interpretive, or
conceptual errors or
irrelevancies. Main
ideas are generally clear
may require additional
supporting information.
Supporting details and
information are
relevant, but several
key issues or portions
of the response are
unsupported and/or
incorrectly cited.
Distinct units of thought
are coherently
organized into
paragraphs. Some
minor mechanical
difficulties are present,
with occasional
problematic word
choices or awkward
syntax errors, and
sporadic grammatical
errors.
Responds incisively to the
prompts. Analysis is
relevant, sophisticated,
and original. Main ideas
stand out and are
supported by relevant
research and detailed
information. Appropriate
sequence of paragraphs;
clear and adequate
transitions between
sentences and paragraphs;
proper and precise
diction, and clear
command of standard
English is evident
throughout all responses.
7. Data derived from the Assessment
Data for Summer 2013 (N=1)
Not Met
Met with
Weakness
Target
Knowledge of Curriculum
0
1
0
Knowledge of Specialization
0
1
0
Knowledge of Inquiry
0
0
1
Application of Content Knowledge
0
0
1
Criteria
52
Scholarly Writing
0
1
0
Not Met
Met with
Weakness
Target
Knowledge of Curriculum
0
1
7
Knowledge of Specialization
0
5
3
Knowledge of Inquiry
0
5
3
Application of Content Knowledge
0
5
3
Scholarly Writing
0
2
6
Not Met
Met with
Weakness
Target
Knowledge of Curriculum
0
1
6
Knowledge of Specialization
0
0
7
Knowledge of Inquiry
0
5
2
Application of Content Knowledge
0
0
7
Scholarly Writing
0
1
6
Data for Spring 2013 (N=8)
Criteria
Data for Spring 2012 (N=7)
Criteria
53
ATTACHMENT 6
KEY ASSESSMENT 6: DOCTORAL DISSERTATION
1. Brief Description of the Assessment and Use in the Program
Doctoral candidates must successfully complete a doctoral dissertation that reflects their ability
to conduct rigorous, in-depth, original research in an area they identified as a need in education
and/or gap in educational research. The dissertation is used in the program to assess candidates’ ability to apply advanced depth and breadth of knowledge and research skills in pedagogy and
their academic discipline.
2. How the Assessment Aligns with C&I Standards
This assessment demonstrates proficiencies in the following Curriculum and Instruction
standards:
1- Knowledge of Curriculum; 3- Knowledge of Content; 4- Knowledge of Students; 5Knowledge of Inquiry; Standard 6- Knowledge of Assessment; 7- Professional Practices; and 8Technology Integration The chart below illustrates the performances that fulfill the C&I
standards. This assessment is also aligned to College of Education Conceptual Framework.
Criteria
Curriculum &
Instruction Standards
COE Conceptual
Framework
Dissertation Topic
Std. 1: Knowledge of
Curriculum
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Introduction
Std. 1: Knowledge of
Curriculum
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Review of Literature
Std. 1: Knowledge of
Curriculum
Std. 3: Knowledge of Content
Std. 4: Knowledge of Students
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Methodology
Std. 5: Knowledge of Inquiry
Std. 6: Knowledge of
Assessment
Std. 8: Technology Integration
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
COE-6: Technology
Findings/Results
Std. 5: Knowledge of Inquiry
Std. 6: Knowledge of
Assessment
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
Conclusions, Implications,
Recommendations
Std. 5: Knowledge of Inquiry
Std. 6: Knowledge of
Assessment
Std. 7: Professional Practices
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
54
Scholarly Writing
Std. 5: Knowledge of Inquiry
Std. 7: Professional Practices
Std. 8: Technology Integration
COE-1: Knowledge in
Practice
COE-2: Reflection
COE-5: Professionalism
COE-6: Technology
APA Format
Std. 5: Knowledge of Inquiry
Std. 7: Professional Practices
Std. 8: Technology Integration
COE-5: Professionalism
COE-6: Technology
55
3. Brief Analysis of Data Findings
The dissertation is the assessment used to evaluate doctoral candidates’ achievement of the curriculum and instructional standards for the Doctorate in Education in Curriculum and
Instruction at The University of Texas at Brownsville. A total of 12 candidates presented their
doctoral dissertations during 2011 and 2012. All 12 candidates (100%) successfully defended
their proposal, continued to dissertation, and graduated. 100% of the candidates satisfied all of
the requirements all of the standards by scoring Target and/or Met with Weakness. In the next
section, results are further broken down and analyzed, and specific recommendations for
improvement are discussed.
2011
(N = 6)
C&I Standards
Achieved by the
Doctoral Dissertation
2012
(N = 6)
Percentage of
Percentage of
candidates scoring
candidates
Met with
scoring Met with
Weakness &
Weakness
Target
& Target
2013
(N = 1)
Total
(N = 13)
Percentage of
Percentage of
candidates
candidates scoring
scoring Met with
Met with
Weakness &
Weakness &
Target
Target
Dissertation Topic
100%
100%
100%
100%
Introduction
100%
100%
100%
100%
Review of Literature
100%
100%
100%
100%
Methodology
100%
100%
100%
100%
Findings/Results
100%
100%
100%
100%
Conclusions,
Implications,
Recommendations for
Policy, Practice, and
Future Research
100%
100%
100%
100%
Scholarly Writing
100%
100%
100%
100%
APA Format
100%
100%
100%
100%
4. Interpretation of Data Findings
The doctoral dissertation addresses the Curriculum and Instruction Standards 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
The 2011, 2012, and 2013 data on candidate performance on the dissertation provides evidence
that 100% of the candidates achieved the standards measured by this key assessment. Further
analysis is merited regarding those who scored Met with Weakness rather than Target. There are
two reasons why 100% of the candidates achieved Target for the standard indicators measured
by the dissertation in 2011, and most in 2012: (1) dissertation chairs and faculty do not let a
dissertation continue forward unless it meets all of the standards and is publishable. Dissertation
committee members provide ongoing guidance to the dissertations they supervise; and (2) for the
doctoral program review, the final, edited draft of the dissertation is reviewed. Although in the
56
2012 results, all candidates scored Target, and in the 2011 data, only 1 student received Met with
Weakness, several measures have been instituted over the past year to ensure continued
attainment of the standards.
1. In Fall 2011, the new doctoral program coordinator developed and implemented a doctoral student
handbook (available printed and online). In addition to procedural information, the doctoral handbook
includes an overview of each assessment, including the dissertation. In the Fall 2012, detailed
descriptions of each of the assessments, as well as the rubrics will be added to the doctoral student
manual to help candidates be aware of and to start working to specifically develop the skills required
by each standard.
2. In order to improve students’ performance in the standards that did not meet the 100% Target score,
increased opportunities for students to develop their skills in these areas will be provided, starting in
the first course in the sequence and finalizing with one-to-one collaboration with the dissertation
committee chair in the Dissertation credits (6) taken at the end.
3. Additional instructions and samples will be provided to increase candidates’ understanding of the expectations and criteria required by the standards. As new candidates enter the program, they will be
encouraged to begin to develop their dissertation topics, review of literature, and methodology from
the first semester. They will be expected to further develop their skills in all subsequent courses.
5. Full Description of the Assignment
Doctoral candidates, who have successfully presented dissertation proposal defense, receive
approval of their dissertation Chair, the specialization coordinator, and the doctoral program
coordinator, under the supervisor of their dissertation committee members, to advance in their
doctoral dissertation.
Doctoral candidates must successfully complete a doctoral dissertation that reflects their ability
to conduct rigorous, in-depth original research in an area of identified educational need in their
specialization area. In completing the dissertation, candidates apply comprehensive researchbased planning and systematic inquiry that recognizes the needs of the target audience and
advanced depth and breadth of knowledge and skills in the academic discipline and pedagogy
that was developed over the course of the program.
The doctoral dissertation includes, but is not limited to the following chapters: Chapter 1:
Introduction; Chapter 2: Review of Literature; Chapter 3: Methodology; Chapter 4: Findings and
Results; and Chapter 5: Conclusions, Implications, Recommendations for Policy, Practice, and
Future Research. Guidelines for dissertation format (cover page, signature page, table of
contents, margins, and references) are provided to students in the research courses throughout the
program, but emphasized during the 2 (03 hour) Dissertation courses taken at the end of the
program. APA format is strictly abided by for in-text citations and references. Candidates
collaborate closely with their dissertation committee chairs and members to define the topic,
research question(s), and methodology, as well as monitor data collection, data analysis, and
dissertation completion.
6. Grading Rubric
The doctoral dissertation will be assessed using the following rubric:
Criteria
Not Met
Met with Weakness
Target
57
Dissertation
Topic
Limited or no evidence
of research-based
planning that recognizes
the needs of the target
audience; demonstrates
C&I Standard(s): basic knowledge and
1, 3
skills in the academic
discipline and
curriculum.
Provides limited
evidence of researchbased planning that
recognizes the needs of
the target audience;
demonstrates adequate
knowledge and skills in
the academic discipline
and curriculum.
Reveals in-depth
research-based
planning that
recognizes the needs of
the target audience;
demonstrates advanced
depth and breadth of
knowledge and skills in
the academic discipline
and curriculum; looks
at the research
question(s) in a way
that is creative and
insightful.
Introduction
Weak or no argument
for the need and
significance of the
study;; chapter’s focus is C&I Standard(s): inconsistent; chapter
1, 3
does not address all
elements of the
dissertation outline.
Argument for the need
and significance of the
study is presented, but
not consistently
developed throughout
the chapter;; chapter’s focus is inconsistent;
chapter addresses most
elements of the
dissertation outline.
Builds a strong,
consistent, and
persuasive argument
for the need and
significance of the
study;; chapter’s focus
is consistent; explains
clearly theoretical
underpinnings of the
study; states clearly
research question(s);
addresses all elements
of the dissertation
outline.
Review of
Literature
Adequate review of
literature; demonstrates
basic knowledge of
major theories,
philosophies, and
current issues in
curriculum; relies on
mostly older sources;
research-based
evidence of the need
and significance of the
study requires further
development.
Comprehensive review
of literature;
demonstrates in-depth
knowledge of major
theories, philosophies,
and current issues in
curriculum;; effectively
incorporates a variety
of relevant current and
classic (older) sources;
organizes review
logically leading up to
research question(s)
and methodology;
consistently provides
research-based
evidence of the need
and significance of the
study.
Insufficient review of
literature; demonstrates
minimal knowledge of
major theories,
philosophies, and
C&I Standard(s): current issues in
1, 3, 4
curriculum; sources are
outdated and/or not
relevant; no researchbased evidence of the
need and significance of
the study.
58
Methodology
Description of the
process by which data
were generated,
gathered, and recorded
C&I Standard(s): is attempted, but lacks
5, 6, 8
detail and/or is loosely
organized; research
design (ex. qualitative
and/or quantitative) and
data analysis methods
demonstrate a
superficial
understanding of
assessment, research
principles, and research
methodologies; lacking
several required
components of the
chapter (ex.: Human
Subjects, participants,
research design, data
collection procedures,
etc.).
Process by which data
were generated,
gathered, and recorded
is described; research
design (ex. qualitative
and/or quantitative) and
data analysis methods,
demonstrate a basic
understanding of
assessment, research
principles, and research
methodologies; most
required components of
the chapter are included
(ex.: Human Subjects,
participants, research
design, data collection
procedures, etc.).
Process by which data
were generated,
gathered, and recorded
is detailed and
demonstrates high level
academic rigor;
research design (ex.
qualitative and/or
quantitative) and data
analysis methods,
demonstrate an indepth understanding
and application of
assessment, research
principles, and research
methodologies; all
required components of
the chapter are included
and addressed in depth
(ex.: Human Subjects,
participants, research
design, data collection
procedures, etc.).
Findings/Result Use of tools, methods,
s
approaches, or types
need to be further
developed; forms used
to articulate findings
C&I Standard(s): (ex.: narrative, charts,
5, 6
figures, tables) are
unclear; weak analysis
and little to no
interpretation; emerging
patters and relationship
are not identified and/or
not clearly identified.
Used standard tools,
methods, approaches,
and/or types of
analyses; articulates the
findings using a few
forms as applicable
(ex.: narrative, charts,
figures, tables);
demonstrates
satisfactory level of
analysis and
interpretation;
emerging patterns and
relationships in the
findings are vaguely
identified.
Developed or employed
new tools, methods,
approaches, and/or
types of analyses;
clearly articulates
findings using a variety
of forms as applicable
(ex.: narrative, charts,
figures, tables);
demonstrates high-level
analysis and
interpretation;
emerging patterns and
relationships in the
findings are distinctly
identified.
59
Conclusions,
Implications,
Recommendatio
ns for Policy,
Practice, and
Future
Research
Relevant sources from
the review of literature
are not integrated to
clarify, support, or
challenge study’s findings; no evidence of
ability to use assessment
data to identify
longitudinal trends,
achievement gaps,
C&I Standard(s): and/or implications and
5, 6, 7
recommendations for
policy and/or practice;
does not contribute to
the field or contribution
is unclear.
A few sources from the
review of literature are
cited to clarify, support,
and/or challenge
study’s findings;; minimal evidence of
ability to use
assessment data to
identify longitudinal
trends, achievement
gaps, and/or
implications and
recommendations for
policy and/or practice;
makes some
contributions to the
field.
Relevant sources from
the review of literature
are meaningfully
integrated to clarify,
support, and/or
challenge study’s findings; consistent
evidence of ability to
use assessment data to
identify longitudinal
trends, achievement
gaps, implications, and
recommendations for
policy and/or practice;
makes significant
contributions to the
field that will impact
policy, practice, and or
future research.
Scholarly
Writing
Publishable after major
editing; writing level
meets the scholarly
expectation of doctoral
work; research is
satisfactorily
paraphrased and
properly quoted;
structure and
organization are clear
and organized; some
transitions needed to
help readers see the
relationship between
paragraphs, sections,
and chapters; some
spelling, grammar, and
punctuation errors.
Publishable after minor
editing; writing level
exceeds the scholarly
expectation of doctoral
work; research is
skillfully paraphrased
and properly quoted;
structure and
organization are
consistently clear and
well organized; skillful
transitions help readers
clearly see the
relationship between
paragraphs, sections,
and chapters; few
spelling, grammar, and
punctuation errors.
Not publishable; writing
level does not meet the
scholarly expectation of
doctoral work; research
is not satisfactorily
C&I Standard(s): paraphrased and
properly quoted;
5, 7, 8
structure and
organization are unclear;
transitions between
paragraphs, sections,
and chapters are weak;
many spelling,
grammar, and
punctuation errors.
APA Format
APA style guidelines are Overall, APA style
inconsistently applied;
guidelines are applied;
frequent errors.
numerous errors.
C&I Standard(s):
5, 7, 8
APA style guidelines
are strictly and
consistently applied;
few errors.
7. Data derived from the Assessment
Data for 2013 (N=1)
Criteria
Not Met
Met with Weakness
Target
60
Dissertation Topic
0
0
1
Introduction
0
0
1
Review of Literature
0
0
1
Methodology
0
0
1
Findings/Results
0
0
1
Conclusions, Implications,
Recommendations
0
0
1
Scholarly Writing
0
0
1
APA Format
0
0
1
Not Met
Met with Weakness
Target
Dissertation Topic
0
0
6
Introduction
0
0
6
Review of Literature
0
1
5
Methodology
0
1
5
Findings/Results
0
1
5
Conclusions, Implications,
Recommendations
0
0
6
Scholarly Writing
0
1
5
APA Format
0
0
6
Data for 2012 (N=6)
Criteria
61
Data for 2011 (N=6)
Criteria
Not Met
Met with Weakness
Target
Dissertation Topic
0
0
6
Introduction
0
0
6
Review of Literature
0
0
6
Methodology
0
0
6
Findings/Results
0
0
6
Conclusions, Implications,
Recommendations
0
0
6
Scholarly Writing
0
0
6
APA Format
0
0
6
62
ATTACHMENT 7
PROGRAMS OF STUDY FOR EACH SPECIALIZATION
The University of Texas at Brownsville
DOCTORAL DEGREE IN EDUCATION- CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION
PROGRAM OF STUDY
BILINGUAL STUDIES SPECIALIZATION
Instructions: This Program of Study must be prepared in consultation with the doctoral advisor.
It must reflect the degree requirements listed in the Graduate Catalog. Any changes to the degree
requirements as shown on the POS must have written approval and justification of the graduate
advisor and the Program Director prior to submission to the Office of Graduate Studies.
Information given must be complete. The POS must be typed. Program pending final
approval by Office of Graduate Studies.
Name:
Student ID:
Address:
Home Phone:
Cell Phone:
Degree Program: Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Curriculum and Instruction
Specialization: Bilingual Studies
Email:
1.Courses that have been or will be completed at UTB/TSC.
Course Prefix
& Number
EDFR 8300
EDFR 8301
EDFR 8302
EDFR 8304 or
EDFR 8306
EDCI 8320
EDCI 8321
EDFR 8322
EDCI 8323
EDCI 8324
EDCI 8325
EPSY 8318
BILC 8340
BILC 8341
BILC 8342
BILC 8344
BILC 8346
Course Name
Advanced Research Methods in Education
Qualitative Research
Quantitative Research
Topics in Research: Ethnographic Methods or Field Methods
Semester/Year
Fall/year 1
Spring/ year 1
Fall/ year 2
Su 1&2/ year 3
Advanced Curr.: Instructional Design and Development
Adult Learning Strategies
Advanced Sociological Applications for Education
Advanced Models of Teaching
Literacy Across the Curriculum
Mentoring, Induction, and Professional Development
Advanced App. Of Human Development and Cognition
Su 1 /year 1
Spring /year 3
Su /year 2
Su /year 3
Fall /year 3
Su 1 /year 2
Fall /year 3
Spec.#1 History, Politics, and the Models of Bilingual Education Spring/ year 1
Spec.#2 Bilingualism and Second Language
Fall /year 1
Acquisition
Spec.#3 Content Area Instruction in Bilingual
Programs
Spec.#4 Language Use in Bilingual Classrooms
(English)
Spec.#5 Issues & Assessments in Bilingual/ESL Programs (English)
2012
2013
2013
2015
2013
2015
2014
2015
2014
2014
2014
2013
2012
Fall /year 2
2013
Spring /year 2
2014
Spring/ year 2
2014
63
BILC 8345
EDCI 8380
EDCI 8390
EDCI 8391
BILC 8362
BILC 8345
Elective#3: Literacy and Biliteracy Development
Spring/ year 3
2015
Fall /year 4
Spring/year 4
Su /year 4
Elective #1 Principles of Curriculum Development in Dual Su 1 /year 1
Language and ESL Programs
Elective#2 Seminar in Bilingual Studies
Fall /year 4
2015
2016
2016
2013
Dissertation I
Dissertation II/1
Dissertation II/2
2015
2. Transfer courses.
If applicable, list the courses you are requesting to transfer (attach transcript). Transfer course must
meet guidelines set forth in the Graduate Catalog.
Transfer Course
Institution
UTB Equivalent Course
Year Taken
3. Projected dates for program benchmarks:
Month/Day/Year
Admission to Program:
First Doctoral Course Registration:
Advancement to Candidacy:
Comprehensive Examination:
Graduation:
Students must complete all doctoral work for a degree within seven years of the time of their first
doctoral course registration. Graduate courses more than seven years old will not be accepted
for credit toward a degree program.
4.Signatures and Approvals:
Doctoral Student Signature:
Faculty Advisor Approval:
Coordinator Doctor in Education
C&I Program Approval:
Graduate Office Approval:
cc:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Doctoral Student
Faculty Advisor
Coordinator Doctor in Education C&I, College of Education
Office of Graduate Studies retains original
64
Coordinator Doctor in Education C&I Program
College of Education
EDBC 1.302
80 Fort Brown
Brownsville, TX 78520
Office of Graduate Studies
University Boulevard Classroom Building 1.202
80 Fort Brown
Brownsville, TX 78520
(956) 548-6552, [email protected]
(956) 882-5765, [email protected]
65
The University of Texas at Brownsville
DOCTORAL DEGREE IN EDUCATION- CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION
PROGRAM OF STUDY
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIZATION
Instructions: This Program of Study must be prepared in consultation with the doctoral advisor.
It must reflect the degree requirements listed in the Graduate Catalog. Any changes to the degree
requirements as shown on the POS must have written approval and justification of the graduate
advisor and the Program Director prior to submission to the Office of Graduate Studies.
Information given must be complete. The POS must be typed.
Name:
Student ID#
Address:
Home Phone:
Cell Phone:
Degree Program: Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Curriculum and Instruction
Specialization: Educational Technology Email:
1. Courses that have been or will be completed at UTB/TSC.
Course
Prefix &
Course Name
Number
EDFR 8300
Advanced Research Methods in Education
EDFR 8301
Qualitative Research
EDFR 8302
Quantitative Research
EDFR ____
Research Elective: 7303, 7304, 7305, 7306, 7307, 7308
EDCI 8320
Advanced Curr.: Instructional Design & Development
EDCI 8321
Adult Learning Strategies
EDFR 8322
Advanced Sociological Applications for Education
EDCI 8323
Advanced Models of Teaching
EDCI 8324
Literacy Across the Curriculum
EDCI 8325
Mentoring, Induction, and Professional Development
EPSY 8318
Advanced Appl. Of Human Development & Cognition
EDTC 8371
Spec. #1: Theories and Practices in Effective Online
Pedagogy
EDTC 8372
Spec. #2: Advanced Instructional Design
EDTC 8373
Spec. #3: Evaluation & Assessment in Instructional
Technology
EDTC 8374
Spec. #4: Course Management & Instructional Systems in
K-16
EDTC 8375
Spec. #5: Trends in Educational Technology K-16
EDCI or
*Elective # 1
other
EDCI 8381
Dissertation I
EDCI 8390
Dissertation II/1
Semester/Year
Fall/year 1
Spring/year 1
Fall/year 2
Spring/year 2
Su 1/year 1
Su 2/year 1
Spring/year 2
Fall/year 1
Spring/year 1
Su 1/year 2
Fall/year 3
Fall/year 1
Fall/year 2
Spring/year 2
Su 1/year 3
Spring/year 3
Fall/year 3
Su 1&2/year 3
Su 2/year 3
66
EDCI 8391
EDTC/CI __
EDTC/CI __
Dissertation II/2
*Elective #2
*Elective #3
Fall/year 4
Su 1/year 1
Fall/year 3
Coordinator Doctor in Education C&I Program
Office of Graduate Studies
College of Education
University Boulevard Classroom Building
EDBC 1.302
1.202
80 Fort Brown
80 Fort Brown
Brownsville, TX 78520
Brownsville, TX 78520
(956) 882-5765, [email protected]
(956) 548-6552, [email protected]
*Applicable Post-Graduate Transfer Courses maybe used
as Electives.
2. Transfer courses.
If applicable, list the courses you are requesting to transfer (attach transcript). Transfer
course must meet guidelines set forth in the Graduate Catalog.
Transfer Course
Institution
UTB Equivalent Course
Year Taken
3. Projected dates for program benchmarks:
Month/Day/Year
Admission to Program:
First Doctoral Course Registration:
Advancement to Candidacy:
Comprehensive Examination:
Graduation:
Students must complete all doctoral work for a degree within seven years of the time of their first
doctoral course registration. Graduate courses more than seven years old will not be accepted
for credit toward a degree program.
4. Signatures and Approvals:
Doctoral Student Signature:
Date:
Faculty Advisor Approval:
Date:
Coordinator Doctor in Education
C&I Program Approval:
Date:
Graduate Office Approval:
Date:
cc:
Doctoral Student
67
Faculty Advisor
Coordinator Doctor in Education C&I Program
College of Education
Office of Graduate Studies (retains original)
Coordinator Doctor in Education C&I
College of Education
EDBC 1.302
80 Fort Brown
Brownsville, TX 78520
(956) 882-5765, [email protected]
Office of Graduate Studies
University Boulevard Classroom Building
1.202
80 Fort Brown
Brownsville, TX 78520
(956) 548-6552, [email protected]
The University of Texas at Brownsville
DOCTORAL DEGREE IN EDUCATION- CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION
PROGRAM OF STUDY
HIGHER EDUCATION TEACHING
Instructions: This Program of Study must be prepared in consultation with the doctoral advisor.
It must reflect the degree requirements listed in the Graduate Catalog. Any changes to the degree
requirements as shown on the POS must have written approval and justification of the graduate
advisor and the Program Director prior to submission to the Office of Graduate Studies.
Information given must be complete. The POS must be typed.
Name:
Student
ID#
Address:
Home Phone:
Degree Program:
Specialization:
Cell
Phone:
Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Curriculum and Instruction
Higher Education
Teaching
Email:
1. Courses that have been or will be completed at UTB/TSC.
Course
Prefix &
Number
EDFR 8300
EDFR 8301
EDFR 8302
one
EDFR___
EDCI 8320
Course Name
Advanced Research Methods in Education
Qualitative Research
Quantitative Research
Research Elective: 8303, 8304, 8305, 8306, 8307, 8308
Advanced Curr.: Instructional Design and
Semester/Year
Fall/year 1
Spring/year 1
Fall/year 2
Su1&2/year 2
Su 1/year 1
68
EDCI 8321
EDFR 8322
EDCI 8323
EDCI 8324
EDCI 8325
EDCI 8326
EDFR 8380
HIED 8381
EDFR 8382
HIED 8383
HIED 8384
Development
Adult Learning Strategies
Sociological Applications for Education
Advanced Models of Teaching
Literacy Across the Curriculum
Mentoring, Induction, and Professional Development
Teacher Leadership in Education
Specialization #1 Comparative Higher Education
Specialization #2 Advanced Human Learning and Motivational
Development
Specialization #3 History and Philosophy of Higher Education
Specialization #4 Higher Education: Equity, Inclusion, &
Diversity
Specialization #5 Current Issues in Higher Education
EDCI or other
EDCI 8380
EDCI 8390
EDCI 8391
EDCI ____
EDCI ____
Elective #3
Dissertation I
Dissertation II/1
Dissertation II/2
*Elective #1
*Elective #2
Coordinator Doctor in Education C&I
College of Education
EDBC 1.302
80 Fort Brown Brownsville, TX 78520
(956) 882-5765, [email protected]
*Applicable Transfer Courses may be used as electives
Su 2/year 1
Spring/year 2
Fall/year 1
Spring/year 1
Su 1/year 2
Fall/year 3
Fall/year 1
Fall/year 2
Spring/year 2
Su 1/year 2
Spring/year 3
Spring/year 3
Su1&2/year 3
Fall/year 4
Spr/year 5
Su 1/year 2
Fall/year 3
Office of Graduate Studies
University Boulevard Classroom
Building 1.202
80 Fort Brown
Brownsville, TX 78520
(956) 548-6552, [email protected]
2. Transfer courses.
If applicable, list the courses you are requesting to transfer (attach transcript). Transfer
course must meet guidelines set forth in the Graduate Catalog.
Transfer Course
Institution
UTB Equivalent Course
Year Taken
3. Projected dates for program benchmarks:
Month/Day/Year
Admission to Program:
First Doctoral Course Registration:
Advancement to Candidacy:
Comprehensive Examination:
69
Graduation:
Students must complete all doctoral work for a degree within seven years of the time of their first
doctoral course registration. Graduate courses more than seven years old will not be accepted
for credit toward a degree program.
4.Signatures and Approvals:
Doctoral Student Signature:
Date:
Faculty Advisor Approval:
Date:
Coordinator Doctoral Studies
Approval:
Date:
Graduate Office Approval:
Date:
cc:
Doctoral Student
Faculty Advisor
Coordinator Doctor in Education C&I, College of Education
Office of Graduate Studies retains original
Coordinator Doctor in Education C&I
College of Education
EDBC 1.302
80 Fort Brown
Brownsville, TX 78520
(956) 882-5765, [email protected]
Office of Graduate Studies
University Boulevard Classroom Building
1.202
80 Fort Brown
Brownsville, TX 78520
(956) 548-6552, [email protected]
The University of Texas at Brownsville
DOCTORAL DEGREE IN EDUCATION- CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION
PROGRAM OF STUDY
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Instructions: This Program of Study must be prepared in consultation with the doctoral advisor.
It must reflect the degree requirements listed in the Graduate Catalog. Any changes to the degree
requirements as shown on the POS must have written approval and justification of the graduate
advisor and the Program Director prior to submission to the Office of Graduate Studies.
Information given must be complete. The POS must be typed.
Name:
Address:
Home Phone:
Degree Program:
Student ID:
Cell Phone:
Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Curriculum and Instruction
70
Specialization: Educational Leadership
Email:
1.Courses that have been or will be completed at UTB/TSC.
Course Prefix
Course Name
& Number
EDCI 8300
Advanced Research Methods in Education
EDCI 8301
Qualitative Research
EDCI 8302
Quantitative Research
one EDCI ___ Research Elective: 8303, 8304, 8305, 8306, 8307, 8308
EDCI 8320
Advanced Curr.: Instructional Design and Development
EDCI 8321
Adult Learning Strategies
EDCI 8322
Sociological Applications for Education
EDCI 8323
Advanced Models of Teaching
EDCI 8324
Literacy Across the Curriculum
EDCI 8325
Mentoring, Induction, and Professional Development
EDCI 8326
Teacher Leadership in Education
EDLR 8360
Specialization #1 Leadership Theory and Practice
EDLR 8361
Specialization #2 Decision-Making for School Improvement
EDLR8362
Specialization #3 Leading School Reform
EDLR 8363
Specialization #4 Politics in Educational Leadership
EDLR 8364
Specialization #5 Policy Planning and Development in
Education
EDCI or other
*Elective #3
EDCI 8380
Dissertation I
EDCI 8390
Dissertation II/1
EDCI 8391
Dissertation II/2
EDCI ____
*Elective #1
EDCI ____
*Elective #2
Semester/Year
Fall/Year 1
Spring/Year 1
Fall/Year 2
Summer/Year 2
Summer/Year 1
Summer/Year 1
Spring/Year 2
Fall/Year 1
Spring/Year 1
Spring/Year 3
Fall/Year 3
Fall/Year 1
Fall/Year 2
Spring/Year 2
Summer/Year 2
Spring/Year 3
Spring/Year 3
Summer 1/Year 3
Summer 2/Year 3
Fall/Year 4
Summer/Year 1
Fall/Year 3
*Applicable Transfer Courses maybe used as Electives.
2. Transfer courses.
If applicable, list the courses you are requesting to transfer (attach transcript). Transfer course must
meet guidelines set forth in the Graduate Catalog.
Transfer Course
Institution
3.Projected dates for program benchmarks:
UTB Equivalent Course
Year Taken
Month/Day/Year
Admission to Program:
First Doctoral Course Registration:
71
Advancement to Candidacy:
Comprehensive Examination:
Graduation:
Students must complete all doctoral work for a degree within seven years of the time of their first
doctoral course registration. Graduate courses more than seven years old will not be accepted
for credit toward a degree program.
4.Signatures and Approvals:
Doctoral Student Signature:
Faculty Advisor Approval:
Coordinator Doctoral Studies
Approval:
Graduate Office Approval:
cc:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Doctoral Student
Advisor
Coordinator of Doctor in Education C&I Program, College of Education
Office of Graduate Studies retains original
Coordinator Doctor in Education C&I
College of Education
EDBC 1.302
80 Fort Brown
Brownsville, TX 78520
(956) 882-5765, [email protected]
Office of Graduate Studies
University Boulevard Classroom Building
1.202
80 Fort Brown
Brownsville, TX 78520
(956) 548-6552, [email protected]
72
The University of Texas at Brownsville
DOCTORAL DEGREE IN EDUCATION- CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION
PROGRAM OF STUDY
EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIALIZATION
Instructions: This Program of Study must be prepared in consultation with the doctoral advisor.
It must reflect the degree requirements listed in the Graduate Catalog. Any changes to the degree
requirements as shown on the POS must have written approval and justification of the graduate
advisor and the Program Director prior to submission to the Office of Graduate Studies.
Information given must be complete. The POS must be typed.
Name:
Student ID:
Address:
Home Phone:
Cell Phone:
Degree Program: Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Curriculum and Instruction
Specialization: Early Childhood
Email:
1.Courses that have been or will be completed at UTB.
Course Prefix
Course Name
& Number
EDCI 8300
Advanced Research Methods in Education
Fall/Year 1
EDCI 8301
Qualitative Research
Spring/Year 1
EDCI 8302
Quantitative Research
Fall/Year 2
Semester/Year
one EDCI ___ Research Elective: 8303, 8304, 8305, 8306, 8307, 8308
Summer/Year 2
EDCI 8320
Advanced Curr.: Instructional Design and Development
Summer/Year 1
EDCI 8321
Adult Learning Strategies
Summer/Year 1
EDCI 8322
Sociological Applications for Education
Spring/Year 2
EDCI 8323
Advanced Models of Teaching
Fall/Year 1
EDCI 8324
Literacy Across the Curriculum
Spring/Year 1
EDCI 8325
Mentoring, Induction, and Professional Development
Spring/Year 3
EDCI 8326
Teacher Leadership in Education
Fall/Year 3
EDEC 8350
Specialization #1 Theories in Early Childhood Education
Fall/Year 1
EDEC 8351
Specialization #2 Research in Early Childhood Education
Fall/Year 2
EDEC 8352
Specialization #3 Advanced Curriculum in Early Childhood Education Spring/Year 2
EDEC 8353
Specialization #4 Families, Schools & Community Partnerships
Summer/Year 2
EDEC 8354
Specialization #5 Leadership in Early Childhood Education
Spring/Year 3
EDEC or other
*Elective #3
Spring/Year 3
EDCI 8380
Dissertation I
Summer 1/Year 3
EDCI 8390
Dissertation II/1
Summer 2/Year 3
EDCI 8391
Dissertation II/2
Fall/Year 4
EDCI ____
*Elective #1
Summer/Year 1
73
EDCI ____
*Elective #2
Fall/Year 3
*Applicable Transfer Courses may be used as Electives
2.Transfer courses.
If applicable, list the courses you are requesting to transfer (attach transcript). Transfer course must
meet guidelines set forth in the Graduate Catalog.
Transfer Course
Institution
3.Projected dates for program benchmarks:
UTB Equivalent Course
Year Taken
Month/Day/Year
Admission to Program:
First Doctoral Course Registration:
Advancement to Candidacy:
Comprehensive Examination:
Graduation:
Students must complete all doctoral work for a degree within seven years of the time of their first
doctoral course registration. Graduate courses more than seven years old will not be accepted
for credit toward a degree program.
4.Signatures and Approvals:
Doctoral Student Signature:
Faculty Advisor Approval:
Coordinator Doctoral Studies
Approval:
Graduate Office Approval:
cc:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Doctoral Student
Advisor
Coordinator of Doctor in Education C&I Program, College of Education
Office of Graduate Studies retains original
Coordinator of the Doctor in Education, C&I
College of Education
EDBC 1.314
80 Fort Brown
Brownsville, TX 78520
(956) 882-5769, [email protected]
Office of Graduate Studies
University Boulevard Classroom Building 1.202
74
80 Fort Brown
Brownsville, TX 78520
(956) 548-6552, [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 8
FACULTY INFORMATION
JESUS “CHUEY” ABREGO
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
Ed.D., University of Texas at Pan American
Teaching graduate courses
Assistant Professor
Yes
SCHOLARSHIP
Abrego, J. & Abrego, M. Response to intervention: A school improvement model. In A.
Pankake, G. Schrotz & M. Littleton (Eds.), The administration and supervision of
special programs in education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing.
Pankake, A. & Abrego, J. (2012). One woman after another: Superintendent succession for
sustaining organizational change. Journal of Texas Women School Executives, 1(1).
Pankake, A. & Abrego, J. (2011). Building capacity: The foundation of developing others. In
A. Pankake and E. Murakami-Ramalho (Eds.), Educational leaders encouraging the
intellectual and professional capacity of others. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Abrego, C. & Pankake. A. (February 2011). The district-wide sustainability of a professional
learning community during leadership changes at the superintendency level. Administrative
issues journal: Education, practice, and research. 1(1), p. 3-13.
Abrego, J., Pace, N., Gilson, T. & Smith, P. (2012, February). Curriculum renewal at our
institutions. Paper accepted for presentation at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Association
of Teacher Educators (ATE) in San Antonio: TX.
Abrego, J. & Pankake, A. (2011, October). The district-wide sustainability of a professional
learning community during leadership changes at the superintendency level. Paper
accepted for presentation at the 2011 inaugural Administrative Issues Journal Academic
Conference in Weatherford: OK.
Abrego, J. & Pankake, A. (2010, October). A superintendent’s influence on building a school district’s capacity to sustain a professional learning community. Paper accepted for
presentation at the 2010 annual meeting of the University Council of Educational
Administration (UCEA) in New Orleans: LA
Abrego, C. & Pankake, A. (2010, May) Superintendent Succession in Sustaining Organizational
Change: One Woman After Another. Paper accepted for presentation at the 2010 annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Denver, CO.
Abrego, M & Abrego, J. (2010, Fall/Winter). Preparing educators to engage families: Case
studies using an ecological systems framework. [Review of the book]. The School
Community Journal. Volume 20(2), pp. 211-214.
Abrego, J., Pankake, A.M., Moller, G. (2010) Sustaintability: A constant process for continuing
improvement. In K/K/ Hipp and J.B. Huffman (Eds.) Demystifying professional learning
75
communities: School leadership at its best (pp. 121-132). Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Education.
Abrego, C. & Pankake, A. (Spring 2010) PK-12 Virtual Schools: The challenges and roles of
school leaders. Educational Considerations Journal. 37(2), p. 7-13.
SERVICE
Faculty for the First Year Seminar [FYS] course, Master and Commander of Your Life – UNIV
1101
Officer, Academic Senate Secretary, University of Texas and Texas Southmost College
Academic Senate.
Member, University Welfare Committee of Academic Senate [university-wide committee]
Member of Doctoral Committee for Program Coordinators
Member, Joint Committee UTB/UTPA to explore EDLR Partnership Program at the MITC
Member, NCATE Field-Based Committee
Faculty mentor for EPLS
Co-Chair of Welfare Committee of Educational Psychology and Leadership Studies
NCATE EDLR team member and contributor to ELCC Building and District Level SPA report
for NCATE
Co-Organizer for e-PORTFOLIO Project
Principal for a Day at tBen Brite Elementary 19th Annual BISD Principal for a Day
Technology Strategic Planning Committee member at Episcopal Day School, Brownsville,
Texas.
President of the Congregation at Abiding Savior Lutheran Church
Member of Abiding Savior Lutheran Church
Sunday Bible School Teacher at Abiding Savior Lutheran Church
Vacation Bible School instructor at Abiding Savior Lutheran Church
AERA Superintendency SIG National Office
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
EDLR 8326
EDLR 6338
EDLR 6398
UNIV 1101
EDLR 6389
EDLR 7384
MICHELLE ABREGO
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
Ed.D., University of Texas at Austin
Teaching graduate courses
Associate Professor
Tenured
SCHOLARSHIP
Abrego, M., Morgan, B., Abrego, J. (2008). Adding relevance to school leadership preparation.
Academic Exchange Quarterly,12(2), pp. 165-170.
SERVICE
Community involvement; recruitment, retention, support and development of new
teachers.
76
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
Principal preparation; and instructional supervision
KATHY BUSSERT-WEB
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
PhD., Language Education, Indiana University
Faculty
Associate Professor
Tenured
SCHOLARSHIP
Diaz, M.E., & Bussert-Webb, K. (In Press). “He prefers to read in Spanish because he’s so dumb”: Reading and language beliefs and practices of Latino/a children in a border
community. Journal of Latinos and Education, 12(1). * This journal has a 12% acceptance
rate.
Bussert-Webb, K. (2012). “So they can feel sure of themselves”: Community service learning impact on female walkers. Journal for Civic Commitment, 18. Retrieved from
http://www.mesacc.edu/other/engagement/Journal/
Bussert-Webb, K., & Diaz, M. E. (2012). New literacy opportunities and practices of Latino/a
children of poverty in and out of school. Language and Literacy, 14(1), pp. 1-25. * This is
an international journal of the Language and Literacy Researchers of Canada (LLRC).
Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/langandlit/issue/current
Bussert-Webb, K. (2011). Becoming socially just disciplinary teachers through a community
service learning project. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 7(2). 44-66.
Retrieved from http://www.coe.uga.edu/jolle/2011_2/bussert_webb.pdf
Bussert-Webb, K. (2011, Fall). Book Review. [N. González, L. Moll, C. Amanti, Funds of
Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities, and Classrooms].
Routledge. (Newest edition not published yet.)
Bussert-Webb, K., Diaz, M.E. (2011). Children and preservice teachers: Gardening,
academics, and situated disciplinary literacy. Paper proposal submitted in June 2011.
*This paper was accepted. It will be presented in April 2012 at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.
Bussert-Webb, K., & Diaz, M. (2011, December). Widening the circle to include colonia
children’s technology use: Literacy and language issues. Paper presented as part of a
symposium on Researching and Teaching Literacies in Texas Border Colonias at the
annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association, Jacksonville, FL
Bussert-Webb, K., Diaz, M. E. (2012). Latino/a children and disciplinary literacy in out-ofschool contexts. Paper proposal submitted to the annual meeting of the Literacy Research
Association, San Diego, CA. (to be held in Fall 2012)
77
Bussert-Webb, K., & Diaz, M. E. E. (2011, October). Which language do I use when accessing
digital technology? Implications for educators. Paper presented at the Ahead of the
Future Technology and Education Conference at UTB, Brownsville, TX.
Bussert-Webb, K., NCATE reports and assessments! 4-8 English and 8-12 English - Did 10
assessments and rewrote the context, response to our SPA, and how the assessments
connect to NCTE standards. Helped with Standard 5 committee for NCATE.
SERVICE
AERA Co-Program Chair for Service Learning/Experiential Ed.
SIG for two years and Treasurer for 1 year
Reviewer for journals, books, and AERA presentations.
Member. Doctoral Program in C&I with different specializations (October 2009 – January 2010)
Designer, Instructor, and Evaluator. Beginning Level SL Certificate for students, faculty, and
staff.(2009 – 2010)
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
Rural Public Schools for the U.S. Peace Corps, Ojojona, Francisco Morazón, Honduras. Taught
grades
second through seventh English as a foreign language
Applied Linguistics and also Residence Halls at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Taught ESL
to college-bound students for the Applied Linguistics Department.
Departamento de Lengua Inglesa at La Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain. Taught English as a
foreign language to college sophomores as part of a teaching scholarship from Indiana University,
Bloomington.
ESL Program at Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville, MO
Taught English as a second language to Japanese college-bound students, ages 17-19.
Language Education and C&I Departments at Indiana University, Bloomington, INTaught
undergraduate classes in content area literacy and also multicultural education. Research assistant
in workplace literacy.
C&I Department at Indiana University-Purdue University,
Indianapolis, IN. Taught graduate and undergraduate classes in multicultural education and
curriculum.
Reading Department at Rivera High School, B.I.S.D., Brownsville, TX. Taught remedial reading to
all grade levels. Department chair for one academic year.
Education Department at the College of Mount St. Joseph, Cincinnati, OH. Taught graduate and
undergraduate classes in curriculum, classroom management, adolescent literacy, children and
adolescent literature, and adolescent development.
Center for Civic Engagement at UTB, Brownsville, TX
Director for the Center for Civic Engagement for 12 months, while continuing to teach classes as a
faculty member in the LLIS Department.
LLIS Department, formerly the Curriculum and Instruction (C&I) Department at UTB,
Brownsville, TX. Have taught undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral classes in literacy and curriculum
CERTIFICATIONS
Life-long certification in secondary reading, English, and speech communications in Texas
Received 40 hours of English Advanced Placement training in Texas
Life-long certification in secondary reading, journalism, social studies, and ESL in Indiana
78
COURSES TAUGHT
EDLI 3325
EDLI/EALI 3451
EDLI 3329
EDLI/EALI 4367
EDLI 6320
EDCI 8391
EDLI 6340
EDCI 8324
EDLI 6360
EDCI 8324
JOSEPH RENE CORBEIL
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Instructional Technology Specialization
University of Houston
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
Faculty, Educational Technology Program
Associate Professor
Tenured
SCHOLARSHIP
Corbeil, M.E., & Corbeil, J.R. (In Press). Creating ongoing online support communities
to promote professional learning. In V. Dennen & J. Myers (Eds.), Virtual Professional
Development and Informal Learning Via Social Networks. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI
Global.
Corbeil, J.R. & Corbeil, M.E. (In Press). E-learning past, present, and future. In M. Ally & B. Khan (Eds.), The International Handbook of E-learning. Canada: Athabasca University.
Corbeil, J.R. & Valdes-Corbeil, M.E. (2013). Faculty and Student Perceptions of their Learning
Management System’s Social Learning Tools. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (pp. 2561-2565).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/48490
Corbeil, M.E., & Corbeil, J.R. (2012). Creating ongoing online support communities to promote
professional learning. In V. Dennen & J. Myers (Eds.), Virtual Professional Development
and Informal Learning Via Social Networks. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global.
Corbeil, J.R., & Corbeil, M.E., (2011). The birth of a social networking phenomenon. In C.
Wankel (Ed.), Educating educators with social media. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.
Corbeil, M.E., & Corbeil, J.R. (2011). Getting started: Academic podcasting made simple for
any level of instruction. In M. Abdous & B.R. Facer (Eds.), Academic podcasting and
mobile assisted language learning: Applications and outcomes. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI
Global.
79
Pan, C., & Corbeil, J. R. (2011) Marketing an online master’s degree program in light of the
marketing mix model:
A Web 2.0 application. Full paper and presentation proposal
submission to the 16th Technology, Colleges & Community Worldwide Online Conference
(TCC 2011), Honolulu, HI. April 5, 2011.
SERVICE
2011 University of Texas System Regents’ Outstanding Teaching Awards
2011 – Present. Chair of NCATE Assessment Committee for the Department of Teaching
Learning & Innovation.
UTB/TSC representative for the UT System Shared Service Alliance for Distance Education.
Member of the Finish@UT Academic Affairs Committee. This UT System committee
coordinates undergraduate online programs participating in the Finish@UT Accelerated
Bachelor’s Degree Completion Program through the UT Online Consortium..
Program Evaluator for the Department of Education Title III/Title V PPOHA (Promoting
Post Baccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans) Grant for Math and Computer
Science.
Teaching or other professional experience in P-12 schools
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
Work with in-service and pre-service teachers in developing instructional resources for use
in the classroom. Serves on the technology committee for a local K-6 private school.
CERTIFICATIONS
Secondary Physical Science, Grades 6-12
Secondary Biology, Grades 6-12
Driver Education
MARIA ELENA CORBEIL
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction, Instructional
Technology Specialization
University of Houston
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
Faculty, Educational Technology Program
Assistant Professor
Yes
SCHOLARSHIP
Corbeil, M.E., & Corbeil, J.R. (In Press). Creating ongoing online support communities
to promote professional learning. In V. Dennen & J. Myers (Eds.), Virtual Professional
Development and Informal Learning Via Social Networks. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI
Global.
Corbeil, J.R. & Corbeil, M.E. (In Press). E-learning past, present, and future. In M. Ally & B. Khan (Eds.), The International Handbook of E-learning. Canada: Athabasca University.
80
Corbeil, J.R. & Valdes-Corbeil, M.E. (2013). Faculty and Student Perceptions of their Learning
Management System’s Social Learning Tools. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (pp. 2561-2565).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/48490
Banker, D. & Corbeil, M.E. (2013). Not Your Mother's Teacher Ed Course: Using Immersive
Online Worlds and Online Technologies to Prepare Teachers for Next Century Learners. In
Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference 2013 (pp. 198-205). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org/p/48092
Corbeil, M.E., & Corbeil, J.R. (2012). Creating ongoing online support communities to promote
professional learning. In V. Dennen & J. Myers (Eds.), Virtual Professional Development
and Informal Learning Via Social Networks. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global.
Corbeil, J.R., & Corbeil, M.E., (2011). The birth of a social networking phenomenon. In C.
Wankel (Ed.), Educating educators with social media. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.
Corbeil, M.E., & Corbeil, J.R. (2011). Getting started: Academic podcasting made simple for
any level of instruction. In M. Abdous & B.R. Facer (Eds.), Academic podcasting and
mobile assisted language learning: Applications and outcomes. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI
Global.
COURSES TAUGHT
EDTC 8373
EDTC 8374
EDTC 6320
EDTC 6323
SERVICE
2011 Ben Bauman Award for Teaching Excellence
Member, University Research Council
UT Representative, Finish@UT
Doctoral Dissertation Committee Chair- Maria Eugenia Perez (EdTech Doctoral Candidate)
Chair, Graduate Curriculum Committee (Teaching, Learning, and Innovation)
Secretary & Commissioner at Large (Texas Catholic Conference Accreditation Commission
Secretary & Board Member (Episcopal Day Elementary School, Brownsville, Tx.)
Chair, Technology Committee (Episcopal Day Elementary School, Brownsville, Tx.)
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
Work with in-service and pre-service teachers in developing instructional resources for use
in the classroom
Serve on the technology committee for a local K-6 private school
GEORGIANNA DUARTE
81
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University
Faculty
Professor
Tenured
SCHOLARSHIP
Duarte, G. & Butler. J. W. (2012). Children’s perspectives on play and electronic video games. The Association for the Study of Play Annual Conference. Albuquerque, NM.
Duarte, G. (2010) “Cultural Connections: Building Bridges”Association of Child Education International, Fall, vol. 86, no. 4.
Perez-Butron, M. & Duarte, G. (2010) “Please Let the Children Play” International Journal of Early Childhood Education, Volume 18, pages 29-39.
Duarte, G. (2010) “Cultural Connections: Building Bridges” Association of Child Education
International, Fall, vol. 86, no. 4.
Perez-Butron, M. & Duarte, G. (2010). Please Let the Children Play. International Journal of
Early Childhood Education, Volume 18, pages 29-39.
Duarte, G. (2011). Convention on the Rights of the Child: Article 31: The Right to Speak My
Own Language, Paper presentation at the College of Education Ahead of the Future
Conference, Brownsville, Texas October 25-29.
Duarte, G. (2011). The Importance of International Study Abroad Programs, Paper presentation
at the College of Education Ahead of the Future Conference, Brownsville, Texas October
25-29.
Duarte, G. (2011). The National Latino Special Interest Forum: Panel Presentation of
“Authentic Family Engagement” at the Annual Conference of the National Association
for the Education of Young Children, Orlando, Florida.
Duarte, G. (2011). The International Play Association USA Panel Presentation, “The Role of Play in the Curriculum” at the Annual Conference of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, Orlando, Florida.
Duarte, G. (2010). Parents and Play: Advocacy for Children in the Border, Round Table Panel
Presentation at the National Association for the Education of Young Children,
Anaheim, CA., Nov 4-6.
Duarte, G. (2010). Science matters in early childhood education”, paper presentation at the Annual Conference of Texas Association for the Education of Young Children, El Paso
Texas, October 27-29
Duarte, G. (2010). Culturally Responsive Teaching in Early Childhood Classrooms, Paper
presentation at the Annual Conference of Texas Association for the Education of
Young Children, September 27-October 2.
Duarte, G. & Flores, J. (2010). Research presentation, United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child: What do children believe about their rights and choices? Phoenix, AZ
April 28-May 1st.
82
Duarte, G. (2010). Key Note Speaker at the Annual Conference of East Coast Migrant Head
Start Program, “Migrant Children and Families: Culturally Responsive Teaching in the Head Start Classroom”, Raleigh, North Carolina, March 9th.
Duarte, G. (2010) La Integracion de Dichos en Curiculo de Ninos Migrante, Presentation at the
Annual
Conference of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start, Washington DC, February 2326th.
Duarte, G. (2010) “La importancia de ciencia en curiculo” Presentation at the Annual Conference of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start, Washington DC, February 23-26.
Duarte, G. & Capiello, C. (2010) Utilizing Community Resources in Relevant Ways: Co-Chair
of Early Childhood Special Interest Group at the Annual Conference of the National
Association of Bilingual Education. February 3-6.
Duarte, G. & Garza, A. (2010) “Young Investigators: La importancia de observacion y exploracion de ciencia” Paper presentation and workshop at the Annual Annual Conference of the
National Association of Bilingual Education. February 1-3.
SERVICE
Book & Journal Reviewer (January 2009-present)
International Play Association USA, Guest Editor (June 1998 - Present)McMillan
Publishing Company
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
New Mexico State University: Taught a variety of early childhood graduate courses, and
redesigned the program to reflect a more comprehensive developmental foundation. Also served
as Coordinator of five early childhood programs: Multilingual Preschool, Gifted Preschool
Program, TRESCO (infant, toddler, preschool program for mildly handicapped), Preschool for the
Deaf, and the Dona Ana Head Start Program.
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: Taught undergraduate courses in early childhood
development, and supervised student teachers in over 14 different schools in urban Milwaukee.
Pennsylvania State University: Graduate Research Assistant
Centre County Head Start Program: Head Start Teacher
Erie Community Action Committee, Erie, Pennsylvania: Director/ Coordinator: Head Start
Program
Start: Head Start Teacher
Greater Erie Community Action Committee/ Erie, Pennsylvania: Teacher Assistant-Head
Start Program
MIGUEL ANGEL ESCOTET
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
Ph.D., Research and Educational Foundations
The University of Nebraska at Lincoln
Dean & Professor of Research and Sociocultural Foundations of
Education
Professor
Tenured
83
SCHOLARSHIP
Scholarly Books
Villa, A., Escotet, M.A., Goñi, J.J. (In Press). The Measurement of University Innovation.
London/Madrid. Horreum Publishing.
Escotet, M.A., Aiello, M. & Sheepshanks, V. (2010). La Actividad Científica en la Universidad [The
Scientific Activity in The University]. Buenos Aires: UNESCO United Nations University Chair and
Palermo University. 240 pages. ISBN: 9789871716197
Book Chapters
Escotet, M.A. (2009). University Governance. In GUNI & UNESCO (Eds.)
Education at a Time of Transformation. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 126-132.
Villa, A, Escotet, M.A. & Goñi, J.J. (2009) Elementos para un modelo de innovación de las instituciones
de educación superior. In Fernández-Lamarra, N. (Ed.). Universidad, sociedad e innovación: una
perspectiva internacional. (pp. 131-144). Buenos Aires: Editorial de la Universidad Nacional Tres de
Febrero.
Refereed Journals
Escotet, M.A. (2010). Responsabilidades académicas, éticas y estéticas de la Universidad.
Actas de Investigación y Creación Intelectual, Universidad Metropolitana, 1-10
Conference and Proceedings
Escotet, M.A. (2012). Internationalizing in the age of planetary. Chair and Presenter, Comparative and
International Educational Society. University of Pennsylvania/ University of Puerto Rico, San Juan.
Escotet, M.A. (2012). The UNESCO Chairs and their Contribution in Defining the new Transformation
Agenda for the Creation of a Higher Education Space in Latin America, the Caribbean Region and
Beyond. Presenter, Comparative and International Educational Society. University of Pennsylvania/
University of Puerto Rico, San Juan.
Escotet, M.A. (2011). Prospectivas Anticipando las transformaciones educativas por medio de las
tecnologías que se están desarrollando. Closing Keynote, Villa A. & Villa. (Eds.), MieSfera: III Foro
Internacional para la Innovación Universitaria (Tercer Eje.) Bilbao, Spain: International Association for
Innovation in Higher Education.
Escotet, M.A. (2010). La Misión de las Universidades en el Desarrollo de la Investigación Científica y
Tecnológica. Invited Closing Keynote, In Villa A. & Castro, M. (Eds.), MieSfera: II Foro Internacional
para la Innovación Universitaria (1-23) Mexico City: International Association for Innovation in Higher
Education.
Leadership in Associations in the last 3 years:
American Educational Research Association, USA.
American Philosophical Association, USA
American Psychological Association, USA
American Sociological Association, USA
Association for the Study of Higher Education, USA
Club of Rome, Italy-Spain
84
Comparative and International Education Society, USA
European Community Studies Association, Spain
European Union Studies Association, USA
Grupo Universitario Latinoamericano para la Reforma de la Educación (GULERPE)
Venezuela/Brazil
Interamerican Society of Psychology, USA
International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, USA
International Association for Innovation in Higher Education, Spain
Society for International Development, Italy-Spain
International Society for Educational Planning, USA
Spanish Comparative Education Society, Spain
Society for Cross-Cultural Research, USA
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
Supervising student teachers and students field work experiences (Psychological and sociological
foundations of education) in Dade County, Florida and Florida International University from
1993-2004
DAVID FREEMAN
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
PhD, Linguistics, University of Arizona
Faculty & Chair of LLI Department
Professor
Tenured
SCHOLARHIPS
Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2011). Between Worlds: Access to Second Language Acquisition (3rd
ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Freeman, Y., & Freeman, D. (2011). Bilingual Books, Bridges to Literacy for Emergent Bilinguals In R.
Meyer & K. Whitmore (Eds.), Reclaiming Reading: Teachers, Students and Researchers Regaining
Spaces for Thinking and Action (224-235). New York: Taylor and Francis/ Routledge.
Freeman, Y., & Freeman, D. (2012). What are the Best Instructional Approaches for English Language
Learners? In R. Freeman & E. Hamayan (Eds.), English Language Learners at School: A Guide for
Administrators. (2nd ed.) (170-171, 175-176, 212-213). Philadelphia: Caslon.
Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2010) Forward. In J. Pilgreen, English Learners and the Secret
Language of School: Unlocking the Mysteries of Content-Area Texts. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
SERVICE
Review Board, Voices from the Middle
Keynote speaker Texas State University - spoke to faculty and teacher education students,
keynote speaker, keynote, Diverse Literacies Conference , PA,
Spoke to teacher educators and student teachers, ELL Symposium Brigham Young
Spoke to student teachers and faculty, New York Dept. of Ed.
Invited scholar at Hofstra and Texas Christian University- Worked with students and
faculty
85
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
High school English teacher for 8 years
Consulting La Paz Community School, Costa Rica
High Scope Schools, Jakarta
Professor of Language Arts and ESL
University of Texas at Brownsville 2005-present
Teach courses in reading and linguistics
Department Chair – Language, Literacy, and Intercultural Studies
Professor of Language Arts and - ESL 2002-2005, University of Texas Pan American
Professor: 1986 - 2002, Fresno Pacific University, Fresno, CA
Director of TESOL Program and Director of Language Development Program
Taught courses in linguistics, sociolinguistics, reading assessment, ESL methods, TESOL
reading and writing, and second language acquisition.
Visiting professor Fall 2000, Lithuania Christian College, Klaipeda, Lithuania. Taught
courses in reading assessment and second language acquisition.
Adjunct professor, The College of New Jersey, Mallorca, Spain, summer 2000, co-taught
courses in ESL assessment and second language acquisition
Fulbright Senior Scholar: Universidad de los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela, 1993-94.
Teaching Assistant: 1/85-5/86 University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
Taught bilingual-ESL methods courses. Supervised intern teachers in M.A. ESL program
Adjunct Instructor: 9/84-6/85
Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. Taught courses in psycholinguistics and
ESL methods to teachers in a bilingual M.A. program
Graduate Assistant Teacher: 9/82-12/84 University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona Taught
composition to graduate and undergraduate foreign university students at all levels
ESL Instructor: 9/77- 5/79 California State University at Humboldt, Arcata, CA.
Taught ESL in an intensive English program
ESL Instructor: 9/75 - 6/79 Eureka City Schools, Eureka, Ca.
English Teacher, Language Arts Department Chair 9/70-6/78 Fortuna Union High School,
Fortuna, CA
Taught English, French and journalism. Directed a department of 12 teachers
EFL Teacher: 1/80 - 6/81Instituto Mexicano Norteamericano, Mexico City.
Taught EFL at all levels from beginner to teacher education for Mexican adults
EFL Teacher 9/69 - 6/70 Colegio Bolivar, Cali, Colombia. Taught English to Colombian
high school students
CERTIFICATIONS
Life secondary English credential, California
YVONNE FREEMAN
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
PhD, Elementary Education with Bilingual Ed. Emphasis
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
Faculty
Professor
Tenured
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
86
Editorial review Board, Voices from the Middle
Editor 2 books for Heinemann on ESL learning
NCTE Nominating committee (elected position)
Keynote speaker Texas State University
Spoke to faculty and teacher education students
Keynote speaker, keynote, Diverse Literacy’s Conference , PA. Spoke to teacher educators and student teachers, ELL Symposium Brigham Young
Spoke to student teachers and faculty, New York Dept. of Ed.
Gave workshops for administrators and teachers
Invited scholar to Hofstra University and Texas Christian University
SCHOLARSHIP
Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2011). Between Worlds: Access to Second Language Acquisition (3rd ed.).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Freeman, Y., & Freeman, D. (2011). Bilingual Books, Bridges to Literacy for Emergent Bilinguals In R.
Meyer & K. Whitmore (Eds.), Reclaiming Reading: Teachers, Students and Researchers Regaining
Spaces for Thinking and Action (224-235). New York: Taylor and Francis/ Routledge.
Freeman, Y., & Freeman, D. (2012). What are the Best Instructional Approaches for English Language
Learners? In R. Freeman & E. Hamayan (Eds.), English Language Learners at School: A Guide for
Administrators. (2nd ed.) (170-171, 175-176, 212-213). Philadelphia: Caslon.
Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2010). Forward. In J. Pilgreen, English Learners and the Secret
Language of School: Unlocking the Mysteries of Content-Area Texts. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
Present Professor of Bilingual Education
Position University of Texas at Brownsville 2005-present
Teach courses in second language acquisition, biliteracy, and literatura infantil
Previous Professor of Bilingual Education 2002-2005
University of Texas Pan American – Taught courses in biliteracy and second language
acquisition
Professor: 1987 - June, 2002 Fresno Pacific University, Fresno, CA
Director - Bilingual Education, Director – Literacy for Multilingual Learners, Director of
Project Voice
Title VII Grant and Co-Director of EXCELL-Title VII Grant
Taught courses in bilingual education, ESL methods, second language acquisition,
sociolinguistics, and biliteracy
ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE
ESL/Bilingual Acquisitions Editor for Heinemann publishers
Visiting professor fall 2000, Lithuania Christian College, Klaipeda Lithuania. Taught
courses in reading assessment and second language acquisition
Adjunct professor - College of New Jersey, Mallorca Spain, summer 2000, co-taught
courses in second language acquisition and ESL assessment
Fulbright Senior Scholar: Universidad de los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela, 1993-94.
Graduate Research Assistant: University of Arizona, Office of Language and Literacy,
1985-86
Edited manuscripts, worked on grants, organized workshops
Graduate Teaching Assistant: Department of Spanish,1983-85. Taught courses in Spanish
ESL Instructor: California State University at Humboldt, 1978-79.
High School/ English teacher: Salpointe High School, Tucson, Az.
1982-83. Taught literature and composition
ESL Instructor: Eureka City Schools, Eureka, CA.
87
High School and Adult ESL, 1970-79
Spanish Teacher: Sequoia High School, Redwood City, Ca. 1967-69
EFL Teacher: Instituto Mexicano-Norteamericano
Mexico City, México, 1980-81. Taught adults
EFL Teacher: Colegio Bolivar, Cali, Colombia, 1969-70, Taught fifth grade to Colombian
students.
Directora de Inglés: Instituto Ovalle Monday [bilingual elementary school] in Mexico
City, 1980-1981
Organized curriculum, inserviced teachers, taught EFL.
JUAN O. GARCIA
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
Ed.D. University of Texas – Pan American
Faculty
Assistant Professor
Yes
SCHOLARSHIP
Garcia, J.O., Herrera, A. J. (2012) Memorization techniques using mnemonics to learn fifthgrade science terms. National Technology and Social Science Conference (April 1-3, 2012)
Garcia, J.O., Herrera, A.J. (2012). Transfer of mnemonic methods in a fifth-grade science
classroom. (Will submit for publication, March 2012) National Social Science Journal
SERVICE
NCATE Fellow
AERA member
Administrative Structures Working Group Member
Foundations of Excellence Transfer Student Improvements Committee
Dual Enrollment Faculty Advisory Committee Member Bobbette M. Morgan, Academic Senate
President.
Dissertation Committees
NCATE Fellow
Participated in the Doctoral Program Interviews 2011
Volunteer Recruiter for SOE-EDLR Harlingen Co-Hort
Proctor Comps-COE-Master Level Students
Foundation Representative, Phi Delta Kappa International Club
Proctor Comps-COE 2010
Attendee/Presenter UTB/TSC Scorpiontation
Volunteer Recruiter – COE Recruitment Visit – San Benito ISD
Member of the EPLS Department Assessment Committee
Member, Search Committee for Special Education Vacancy
Co-Presenter, TExES Principal Review Session
Assigned Random Department Mentor for Michelle Abrego
Vice-President, Board of Directors, Senior Community Outreach Services, Inc. for the Rio Grande
Valley
Member, Board of Directors, South Texas Educational Technologies, Inc.
Motivational speaker for Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID)
Judge, Science Fair, Kenmont Montessori School
Judge, Science Fair Judge Salinas Elementary School
American Educational Research Association member
AIJ Manuscript Review Notification-Second Year
88
Reviewed Manuscript – “Reengineering the schoolhouse: Using relational andragogy to facilitate accountability in an educator preparation program”
Accepted as Reviewer for the Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice and Research.
Foundation Representative, Phi Delta Kappa International Club
AERA membership
COURSES TAUGHT
EDLR 7389
EDLR 7398
EDLR 8363
EDLR 6398
EDLR 7338
EDLR 7384
EDAD 7389
EDAD 7390
EDAD 7338
Assistant Professor- Educational Leadership
Senior Lecturer
Graduate Research Assistant- Educational Leadership Doctoral Program
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
Assistant Superintendent
Superintendent of Schools
Assistant Superintendent
Administrative Assistant for Alternative School/Student Discipline/ Non-Professional Personnel
Director, Alternative School/Student Hearings
Director, Student Services/ Discipline Management
Director, Student Services/Discipline Management
Director, Operations/Paraprofessional Services
District Evaluator
Interim District Evaluator
Principal
Vocational Counselor
Assistant Principal
Project Counselor, Summer Voc. Exploration Program
Vocational Counselor
Creative Dramatics
Part-Time bus driver
Occupational Orientation Teacher
English as a Second Language Teacher
Basic Jr. High
PETER B. GAWENDA
Highest Degree, Field, & University
Assignment
Faculty Rank
Tenure Track
Ed.D. Educational Leadership HIED
The University of Houston
Coordinator of the Ed.D. C&I Program and Instructor
Professor
Tenured
SCHOLARSHIP
Gawenda, P. B. (2012). Irma’s Story, American by Birth, Hispanic by Choice. Dallas, Texas: Brown
Books Publishing Group.
89
Gawenda, P. B. (2010). The Children’s War, Germany 1939-1949. Dallas, Texas: Brown Books
Publishing Group.
Military Subjects in German-language Journals; Political/Economic Evaluation (limited distribution):
Power Base of the People’s Republic of China, Foreign Aid Programs of Israel in Africa, German Democratic Republic; Historical Articles in German Regional Journals and Newspapers
Articles in Books on Texas History and Folk Tales
Art in Churches of Eastern and Southern Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East
Language Patterns and Cultures of Minorities, Cross-cultural Communications
Alternative Education and Training Programs
Alternative Energy (Solar, Photo-Voltaic); Alternative Building Materials and Energy Efficient
Construction
SERVICE
Bellwether Finalist Award of the Community College Futures Assembly
Selection for Membership into the German General Staff (Several Citations)
2007-2010 THECB Applied Baccalaureate Taskforce, Chairman
2012- current National World War II Museum in New Orleans, Charter Member
2011 - US Department of the Interior (Gettysburg)
2006-2011 University Center at MCC – on-line programs (BAT, BAAS, BMS)
2006-2012 STC and TSTC - on-line programs (BAT, BAAS, BMS)
2009-2012 THECB – Degree Completion Project
1996-2012 UTSA – TexPREP for Regional Public Schools
2012 Mexican Consulate Border Publication Project
Until 2011 Dean College Applied Technologies and General Studies
FRG – Simultaneous Translator/Interpreter English/German
Director of Cooperative EdD Program with UofH on PAU-B/UTB campus
Teaching or other professional experience in P-12 schools
2011-2012 Presentations WWII - Private Schools in Dallas
CERTIFICATIONS
Mathematics
Social Studies, Composite
Govt./Political Science
Supervisor
KIP HINTON
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
Ph.D. Cultural Studies in Education, UCLA
M.A. Bicultural-Bilingual Studies, UT San Antonio
Faculty
Assistant Professor
Yes
SCHOLARSHIP
90
Hinton, K.A. (2011). Thriving in The Contaminated Valley: Media Education for Chicana/o Farmworker Students [Doctoral dissertation]. UCLA, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. Van Heertum, R. & Hinton, K.A. (2010, October). “Deconstructing the Superhero: American Idols in Film.” Center for the Study of Women: Update. 26-29. [newsletter]
www.csw.ucla.edu/publications
Hinton, K.A. (2012, April). “Asymmetrical Equity: Reconciling Cultural Relevance with School Finance to Serve Students of Color.” Paper accepted for presentation at American Educational Research
Association Annual Meeting, Vancouver, B.C. April 13-17.
Hinton, K.A. (2011, April). “Thriving in The Contaminated Valley: Media Education for Chicana/o Farmworker Students.” Paper presentation for session “Research in and With Youth: Filmmaking, Artmaking, and Photovoice,” at AERA Annual Meeting, New Orleans. April 12.
Hinton, K.A. (2010, April). “Undocumented Paradox: Activist Immigrants and the California Dream Act.” Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, Denver. April 30. SERVICE
Proposal reviewer, Session chair, and Div G Membership Committee, AERA
Proposal reviewer, AATC
“School and Classroom Contexts With Diverse Learners.” Session chair, AERA Annual Meeting (April 12, 2011)
“Tools for Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Education.” Session chair, AERA Annual
Meeting (April 8, 2011)
Proposal reviewer, AERA Division B section 4 – Ecological and Community Justice (2011)
Membership Committee, AERA Division G – Social Context of Education (2010-2011) “The Push and Pull of Neoliberalism: Curriculum, Capitalism, and Change.” Session chair, AERA
Annual Meeting (April 30, 2010)
Proposal reviewer, AERA. Division J section 6 – Society, Culture & Change (2010)
Proposal reviewer, AERA. SIG - Democratic Citizenship in Education (2010)
Proposal reviewer, AERA. SIG - Qualitative Research (2010) Member, Center for Teaching and Learning Advisory Board/CTL Paragraph Writing Group (2011present)
Chair, NCATE Accreditation, Diversity Committee [Standard 4] (2011-present)
Member, LLIS Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (2011-present)
ESL in Content Areas Common Syllabus Ad-hoc Committee (2011-present)
ESL in Content Areas Common Syllabus Ad-hoc Committee (2011-present)
LLIS Ad-hoc Hiring Committee (2012)
Mentor, Conversation Exchange Program, Santa Monica College (2010)
Member, Faculty Association of California Community Colleges (2009-2011) UCLA certified in “Protecting Human Research Subjects in Social and Behavioral Research” (2009present)
Member, United Auto Workers 2865 – University of California Academic Workers (2007-Present)
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
Observer & teacher's aide, Desert Mirage HS, California; mentor, E.T. Wrenn MS, Texas
91
COURSES
TAUGHT
BILC 6367
EDSL 4306
EDUC 2301
EDLI 6351
EDUC 2301
LAURA JEWETT
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
PhD in C&I and Leadership
Faculty
Assistant Professor
Yes
SCHOLARSHIP
Jewett, L. & Smolen-Santana, J. (2013) The curriculum that care forgot. Espinosa, M. (Ed.),
Liminal
Spaces and Call for Praxis(ing). NY: Taylor & Francis.
Jewett, L., Trevino, E., & Zuniga, L. (2013, May). Border Violences: Epistemology, Inquiry,
and a
Lived Curriculum of Solastalgia. Paper presented at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA.
Jewett, L & Barshes, D. (2013, May). Crafting Transnational Curriculum. Paper presented ion
at the
2013 Annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum
Studies. San Francisco, CA.
Jewett, L., Zuniga, L., & Trevino, E. (2013, May). Bordering Curriculum. Paper presented at
the 2013 Annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Curriculum Studies. San Francisco, CA
Jewett, L. (2012, November). The Curriculum that Care Forgot. A paper presented at the 13th
Annual
Curriculum and Pedagogy Conference. New Orleans, LA.
Jewett, L. (2012, November). El Otro Lado, Este Lado, and Epistemology In-between. A paper
presented at the 13th Annual Curriculum and Pedagogy Conference. New Orleans, LA.
Jewett, L. (2011). Casting Curricular Circles, or The Sorcerer, the Phantom and the Troubadour.
Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education 8(2
Jewett, L. (2011, October). With an Apple in her
Hand: A Border Ballad of a Curricular
Contrabandista. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Curriculum and Pedagogy Conference.
Akron. OH.
Jewett, L. & Telese, J. ( 2011, October).Teacher Education, Accreditation and Emergent
Change. Paper accepted Annual Conference of the Consortium of State Organizations for
92
Texas Teacher Education. Corpus Christi, TX.
Jewett, L. (2011, July). Realigning Continuous Improvement: An Epistemological
Autobiography of Emergent Change. Paper to be presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jewett, L. (2011, July). Between El Otro Lado and Este Lado: Corrido Educorrido, and
Narrative Inquiry. Paper to be presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jewett, L. (2010, October). Bootlegging Curricular Borders. Paper presented at the 11th Annual
Curriculum and Pedagogy Conference, Akron, OH.
Jewett, L., Plummer, C. & Smolen, J. (2010, December). Negotiating the Balance: ServiceLearning as a Generatively Liminal Space. Paper presented for the Hawaii International
Conference on Education. Honolulu, Hawaii.
SERVICE
Co-Editor, Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education
Vignette Section
Secretary /Treasurer John Dewey Society/Sig
Editorial Board Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy
Manuscript Reviewer, Taylor & Francis, Studies in Curriculum Theory Series
Manuscript Reviewer: International Journal of Qualitative Research in Education
Manuscript Reviewer, National Curriculum & Pedagogy Group (C & P) Edited Book,
2013
Proposal Reviewer American Education Research Association
Division B: Curriculum Studies
Division G: Social Context of Education
Chaos and Complexity SIG
Critical Issues in Curriculum SIG
Educational Development in Cities SIG
Qualitative Research SIG
American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies (AAACS)
American Educational Research Association (AERA)
International Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies (IAACS)
Louisiana Folklore Society
National Association of Bilingual Educators (NABE)
National Curriculum and Pedagogy Association (C&P)
Southern Anthropological Society (SAS)
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12 SCHOOLS
Educational Director/Teacher Heritage Ranch East Feliciana
Parish and East Baton Rouge Parish, LA: Grades 7-9, Grades 4-12,
Regional Service-Learning Coordinator/ Oklahoma State Department of Education
Louisiana Workforce Commission, Office of the Governor, Baton Rouge, LA: Educational
Consultant
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA: General Supervisor
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA: Research Assistant
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA: Instructor
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK: Grant Coordinator Oklahoma Higher Education
Partners in Service-Learning
93
State Department of Education, Oklahoma City, OK: Regional Service Learning
Coordinator
English Language Institute, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK: Instructor
SANDRA MERCURI
Highest Degree, Field, & University
PhD in Education with emphasis in Language. Literacy and
Culture, University of California at Davis
Assignment:
Faculty
Faculty Rank
Assistant Professor
Tenure Track
Yes
SCHOLARSHIP
Mercuri, S. (2010). Oral language development. In Lacina, J., & Silva, C. (Eds.), Cases of
successful literacy teachers. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Mercuri, S., & Ebe, A. (2011). Developing Academic Language and Content for Emergent
Bilinguals Through a Science Inquiry Unit. Journal of Multilingual Education Research (2)
Spring (pp. 81-102).
Ebe, A., & Mercuri, S. (2011). Developing Science Content within a Balanced Literacy
Framework: A Spiral Dynamic Process for English Learners. The Journal of Balanced
Reading Instruction, Vol (18), Spring. pp. 12-20.
Mercuri, S. (2010). Using graphic organizers as a tool for the development of scientific language.
Colombian Journal of Bilingual Education: GIST 4, 30-49.
Mercuri, S. (2010). Moving forward: New alternatives to the teaching of science and language.
Electronic Journal of Literacy Through Science. 9(1)Spring 2010.
Mercuri, S. The Re-Definition of the Cultural Self of a Latina Educator: Understanding the
Interconnectedness between Language, Culture and Identity. Development. Submitted for
publication to Colombian Journal of Bilingual Education on August 2011 (Status: accepted
for publication)
Mercuri, S. (2011). Ongoing professional development for English language teachers: A Sixstep framework. TESOL Connections (2).
SERVICE
Chair elect for the Bilingual Interest section of the International TESOL association
Invited scholar at (Univ. of Hong Kong and Uni. Nacional de Costa Rica)
Invited speaker at international conferences 6 (Spain, Hong Kong, Argentina, and Costa
Rica)
National Conference presentation 18 (TESOL,IRA, NABE, ASCD, NCTE)
Keynotes and presentations at Regional and State conferences 6 (Texas, Kentucky) 8
(TABE)
Reviewer for The Colombian Journal of Bilingual Education and the Journal of
Multilingual education Research
Bilingual Specialist Credential, California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, May
1999
94
Licenciada en Letras (equivalent of a M.A. degree) Universidad Nacional de Mar del
Plata, Argentina, March 30, 1996. with a specialization in Spanish linguistics and
literature
Created partnerships with Spring Branch ISD and Donna ISD in Texas
Wrote an interdisciplinary NSF grant with collagues for the Physics department at UTB
(under review)
Collaborate with faculty and TESOL staff as a Bilingual Interest Section officer
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12 SCHOOLS
Elementary bilingual teacher in California for 5 years
Taught newcomer students
Provide professional development to teacher working with ELLs K-12 nationwide
Provided consultant services for dual language program in the area of curriculum
development and linguistic support
Evaluated field experiences for students in Student teaching courses
Bilingual Specialist Credential, California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, May
1999
Director of Biliteracy Cross-Cultural Program and the TESOL Masters
Bilingual Education Program Director – Fresno Pacific University
TESOL Program Director – Fresno Pacific University
Teacher Education Lead Instructor – Fresno Pacific University
Teacher - Sun Empire Elementary School, Kerman Unified School District
Summer 2006 -Lecturer – Weber State University, Salt Lake City, Utah
2005-2006 – UC Davis Teacher Assistant
2004-2005 - Visiting Professor - National Hispanic University, San José, California.
2004-2006 – Visiting Professor – Weber State, Salt Lake City Utah
2000-2004: Adjunct Faculty - Fresno Pacific University
1988-1996 - Chairperson and Instructor in the Language and Literature. Department,
Instituto General Alvarado High School, Miramar, Argentina
1988-1996 Director of the Arts and Modern Languages Institute, Miramar, Argentina.
Summer 2010 & 2011 – Interim Language, Literacy and Intercultural Studies Department
Chair
2009 - Present - Bilingual Programs Coordinator
2010-2012 – Member at Large, Bilingual Interest Section of TESOL
BOBBETTE MORGAN
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
Ed.D. Higher and Post Secondary Ed (Adult Learning)
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Faculty
Professor
Tenured
SCHOLARSHIP
Morgan, B., Rosenberg, G. & Wells, L. (2010). Undergraduate Hispanic student response to
cooperative learning. College Teaching Methods & Style Journal, 6(1).
95
Morgan, B. & Keitz, R. (2010). Cooperative learning effectiveness with undergraduate Hispanic
students. National Forum of Multicultural Issues Journal, 7(1).
Morgan, B. & Rosenberg, G. (2010). Redesigning curriculum to meet society needs on both sides of the
border. International Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity, 12(1).
Morgan, B. & Rosenberg, G. (2012). ESL Classrooms: Using drama and cooperative learning. National
Association of Bilingual Educators, Dallas, TX.
Morgan, B. (2011). Teaching children’s literature using cooperative learning. Oxford Round Table, Oxford, UK.
Rosenberg, G. & Morgan, B. (2011). Drama, music, and cooperative learning in the ESL
classroom. National Association of Bilingual Educators, New Orleans, LA.
Morgan, B. & Keitz, R. (November, 2010). The “art” of cooperative learning and sculpture. Texas Art Education Association, Austin, TX.
Morgan, B. & Rosenberg, G. (2010). Redesigning curriculum to meet society needs on both
sides of the border. World Congress on Comparative Education Societies, Istanbul, Turkey.
Rosenberg, G. & Morgan, B. (2010). The power of drama, music, and cooperative learning in
the ESL classroom. National Association of Bilingual Educators, Denver, CO.
Morgan, B., Rosenberg, G. & Wells, L. (2010). Undergraduate Hispanic student response to
cooperative learning. American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
SERVICE
Phi Delta Kappa
Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development
National Association of Bilingual Educators
American Educational Research Association
International Association for the Study of Cooperation in Education
Transition Advisory Council
TLI Personnel Committee
ETS Trainer, Critical Thinking Skills
Trainer, Cooperative Learning, Johnson and Johnson Model
Treasurer, UTB/TSC Academic Senate, 2011-2013.
Transition Advisory Council, Faculty Representative, 2011-2012.
Secretary and Member of The University of Texas System Faculty Advisory Council,
2009-2010, 2010-2011.
Secretary and Member of The University of Texas System Faculty Advisory Council
Executive Board, 2009-2010, 2010-2011.
Member of the Faculty Life and Academic Affairs Sub-Committee of the UT System
Faculty Advisory Council 2009-2011.
President of UTB/TSC Academic Senate, 2009-2011. Met monthly during academic year
with Provost and VPAA to review and set agenda for Academic Senate Meetings.
Represent academic faculty at state and local meetings. Facilitate monthly senate
meetings
UTB/TSC Strategic Planning Committee member, 2010-2012
Institutional Effectiveness, Partnership and Research Committee Member, 2009-2011
96
Foundations of Excellence, Steering Committee, 2009-2011
Community Advisory Partnership Committee Member, 2009-2010
University Budget Committee Member, 2009-2011
Faculty Electronic Activity Reports and Portfolio Software Selection Committee
SACS Oversight Committee Member, 2009-2011
Resource Generation and Cost Containment Task Force Member, 2009-2010
Freshman Convocation Committee Member, 2009-2010
Freshman Convocation Participant, Fall 2010, Fall 2011
Committee to design Doctoral Robes, 2009-2010
Participated in McLemore Building Management Custodial Services presentation
Participated in the Sodexco Food Services Proposal presentation, July 21, 2010
Participated in the Luby’s Food Services Proposal presentation, July 23, 2010.
Smoke-Free Campus Committee Member, Summer 2010
20th Anniversary Planning Committee Member, 2009-2011
Committee Member, Foundations of Excellence Implementation Committee on Pedagogy
and Curriculum, 2010-2011
Academic Senate Retreat-Fall 2009 and Fall 2010. Jointly planned and delivered half day
retreat with Academic Senate Officers for all senators
Facilitated the development and review process for two new specializations in the Doctor
of Education in Curriculum and Instruction degree: 1) Educational Technology, 20092010, and 2) Higher Education Teaching, 2010-2011
Facilitated the development and review process for three new specializations in the
Doctor of Education in Curriculum and Instruction degree: 1) Early Childhood, 2)
Literacy), and 3) Educational Leadership, 2009-2010
Co-Chair, Foundations of Excellence, Faculty Dimension, Fall 2009-Fall 2010
Served on Search Committee for the Director of Dual Enrollment, Spring 2010
Appointed as guardian ad litem for children in immigration proceedings, Immigrant Child
Advocacy Project at the University of Chicago. University of Chicago Law School, 2011
Serving as the Chair of National Defense for the Daughters of the American Revolution,
DuBois-Hite Chapter, Brownsville, Texas, Fall 2009-Spring 2011
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
Teacher, Middle School Life Science
Teacher, High School Biology and English
Observed 40 Field-based Students, Fall 2011
COURSES TAUGHT
EDCI 8323 Advanced Models of Teaching
EDCI 8325 Mentoring, Induction & Professional Development
EDCI 8321 Adult Learning Strategies
EDSC, EDCI, EDMG Designing Instruction and Assessment to promote Student Learning
EDCI 4311, EDMG4648 Student Teaching
SANDRA MUSANTI
97
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
PhD, Educational Thought and Sociocultural Studies
University of New Mexico
Faculty
Assistant Professor
Yes
SCHOLARSHIP
Musanti, S. I., Marshall, M., Ceballos, K., & Celedón-Pattichis, S. (2011). Situating
mathematics professional development: A bilingual teacher and researchers’ collaboration. In Téllez, K., Moschkovich, J. N., & Civil, M (Eds.), Latinos and
mathematics: Research on learning and teaching in classrooms and communities.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. (pp.
215-232).
Celedón-Pattichis, S., Musanti, S. I., & Marshall, M. (2010). Bilingual teachers’ reflections on students’ native language and culture to teach mathematics. In M. Foote (Ed.), Mathematics teaching and learning in K-12: Equity and professional development. New
York, NY: Palgrave Mcmillan. (pp. 7-24).
Pini, M. E., Musanti, S. I., Gorostiaga, J., Feldfeber, M., & Oliveira, D. A. (2010). Teacher
education and professional development in the context of Argentinean educational
policies: Current trends and challenges. In K. Karras and C.C. Wolhuter, International
Handbook of Teacher Education World Wide: Issues and Challenges, Vol. II. Greece:
Athens-Atrapos Editions.
(pp. 571-586)
Pini, M. E. y Musanti, S. I. (2010). Consumos culturales, cultura escolar y tecnología. Un
estudio descriptivo de los saberes de niños y adolescentes en una escuela de la periferia
de Buenos Aires In R. Hernandez Castañeda (Coord.), Investigaciones y Ensayos sobre
Innovación e Internacionalización Educativa.Vol. II. Guadalajara, Mexico: Universidad
de Guadalajara.
(pp. 132-159).
Halquist, D. & Musanti, S. I. (2010). Critical incidents and reflection: Turning points that
challenge the researcher and create opportunities for knowing. The International Journal
of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(4), 449-461.
Musanti, S. I., & Pence, L. (2010) Collaboration and teacher development: Unpacking
resistance, constructing knowledge, and negotiating identity. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 37 (1), 73-90.
Musanti, S. I. (2010) Socialización profesional docente. En Dicionario de Trabalho, profissao e
condicao docente. CD ROM. (Dictionary on Teacher Work and Teaching conditions). Grupo
de Estudios sobre Política Educacional y Trabajo Docente de la Facultad de Educación de
La UFMG - GESTRADO/FAE/UFMG. Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Pini, M. E., & Musanti, S. I. (2010) Cultural consumption, school culture and technology. A
descriptive study of children and youth in an outskirt school of Buenos Aires. In News on
Children, Youth and Media in the World. The International Clearinghouse on Children,
Youth and Media, at NORDICOM, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
98
Musanti, S. I., Celedón-Pattichis, S., & Marshall, M. E. (2012, March) Scaffolding and
transferring mathematical concepts in a bilingual kindergarten classroom. Proposal
accepted for the TESOL Convention. March 28-31, 2012. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Celedón-Pattichis, S., & Musanti, S. I. (2012, April). “I wanted to make a difference…”: Building mathematics academic literacy in bilingual kindergarten classrooms. In M.
Fránquiz (Chair), Knowing English is not enough! Cultivating academic literacies among
bilingual learners. Proposal accepted to the meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, British Columbia, Vancouver.
Celedón-Pattichis, S., Musanti, S. I., & Marshall, M. E. (2012, February) “They can do it!” Learning challenging mathematics andstlanguage transfer in a bilingual kindergarten
classroom. Proposal accepted to the 41 National Association for Bilingual Education
(NABE) Annual Conference, February 2012, Dallas, Texas.
Celedón-Pattichis, S., Musanti, S. I., Marshall, M. E. (2012, April). “Make them fly…”: Prioritizing problem solving and transferring mathematical concepts in a bilingual
kindergarten classroom. In J. Aguirre (Chair), Re-imagining mathematics teaching
quality for K-12 ELL and Latin@ students. Proposal accepted to the annual meeting of
the American Education Research Association 2012,Vancouver, Canada.
Celedón-Pattichis, S., Musanti, S. I., & Marshall, M. E. (2011, April). Equity Issues in
Mathematics: Researchers' and Bilingual Teachers' Collaborative Professional
Development. In J. Aguirre (Chair) Advancing Mathematics Learning for Latina/o
Students: Innovative Models of Teacher Professional Development. Symposium
conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, Louisiana. Unable to attend, paper presented by first author.
Celedón-Pattichis, S., Musanti, S. I., & Marshall, M. E. (2010, April). Placing language,
culture, and mathematics at the center: A study of bilingual elementary teachers’ growth.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Denver, Colorado. Paper presented by first author.
Celedón-Pattichis, S., Musanti, S. I., & Marshall, M. E. (2010, January). Situating mathematics
professional development: A bilingual kindergarten teacher and researchers’ collaboration. In J. M. Menéndez (Chair), Equity in mathematics education: Experiences
and reflections from a teacher preparation program and professional development
initiatives. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Association of Mathematics
Teacher Educators, Irvine, California. Paper presented by first author.
Musanti, S. I.; Marshall, M., Pattichis, S. (2011, May) “Ellos necesitan saber que pueden
aprender matemática”: Cuestiones de equidad en la enseñanza de matemáticas en los
primeros años de la escuela primaria. Paper accepted for presentation at VI Jornadas
Nacionales sobre la Formación del Profesorado: "Currículo, Investigación y Prácticas en
contexto(s)". Mar del Plata, Argentina. Unable to attend.
Musanti, S. I.; Marshall, M., Pattichis, S. (2010, February) Desarrollo profesional docente situado en
el aula: Un proceso colaborativo entre una maestra bilingüe principiante e investigadores
cualitativos. II Congreso Internacional sobre Profesorado Principiante e Inserción
Profesional a la Docencia, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Musanti, S. I., Celedón-Pattichis, S., & Marshall, M. E. (October, 2011). Language, culture and
learning challenging mathematics in two bilingual kindergarten classrooms. Proposal
presented at the Texas Association for Bilingual Education 2011 Conference. October 1922, 2011. McAllen, Texas.
99
Musanti, S. I. (2011, October) Equity, Connectivity and Innovation in Education: Exploring the
Implementation of the “One Laptop per Student Program” in Argentina. Proposal submitted to
“Ahead of the Future 2011 - Today's look at the technology and education of tomorrow.” College
of Education. The University of Texas at Brownsville. October 25-29, 2011.
Pini, M. E., Musanti, S. I., Kauffman, G. (2011, June). Encuentro de Presentación de Informes de
Investigación [Presentation of research reports], Componente Estudios Especiales de
Evaluación y Seguimiento del Programa Conectar Igualdad. Ministerio de Educación de
la Nación Argentina, Buenos Aires. Presented by first author, unable to attend. Invited
presentation
Freeman, Y. (Principal Investigator). Mercuri, S., Rodriguez, A., Hinton, K., Musanti, S. I. (Coprincipal Investigators). (Submitted, September 22, 2011). Texas EL Research Project:
Academic Language Support Through Teachers and Administrators. United States
Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. Education Research Grants:
IES-84.305A. School District Partners: Harlingen Consolidated Independent School
District, Point Isabel Independent School District and Spring Branch Independent School
District. Amount and Project Period: $915,000 over 3 years.
SERVICE
Member of Academic Board, Centro de Estudios Interdisciplinarios en Educación, Cultura
y Sociedades, Universidad Nacional de San Martin, Argentina
External Committee Member. Board of the CUADERNOS DE CÁTEDRA. Journal of the
Teacher Education School, Escuela Normal Nº 1 de Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina
Reviewer for AERA and PME-NA presentations
Collaborated with Dr. Mario Diaz and Dr. Phillip Dukes from CSMT at UTB for the
submission of an NSF grant (DRK-12). PI: Dr. S. Mercuri
Ongoing collaboration on data analysis and research writing with Dr. Sylvia CeledonPaticchis from University of New Mexico, research funded by NSF under the umbrella of
the Center for the Mathematics Education of Latinos/as (CEMELA)
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
Middle and high school teaching experience in public/private schools
Taught humanities and social studies related courses (7 years. Argentina)
Special education teacher (2 years. Argentina)
Consultant for the Secondary education department in Argentina
Developer of a nationwide online professional development program for science and social
studies high school teachers (EXPLORA)
Middle/High School Teacher: 3rd, 4th and 5th grades secondary level
Pre-service Teacher Education Instructor (1987-1994)
Special Education Teacher
APAND Private School, Baradero, Argentina
Consultant on teacher professional development projects and materials. Office of
Secondary Education
Coordination of teacher professional development initiatives. Office of Secondary
Education
Institute for Professional Development
Graduate Assistant- College of Education, The University of New Mexico.
Youth and Society Journal
Graduate Assistant- Department of Language, Literacy and Sociocultural Studies, College
of Education, The University of New Mexico
Technology Mentor for Faculty Development
Project Shared Visions: Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology Initiative
100
Coordinator. Albuquerque Public Schools/The University of New Mexico ESL/Bilingual
Summer Institute 2001
Student Teachers’ Supervisor. Dual License Program. Special Education.
Regional Coordinator. National Program for Teachers Professional Development. National
Department of Culture and Education
Academic Advisor. Curriculum Innovation Program, University of El Salvador, Buenos
Aires, Argentina
Professional Development Coordinator. Teacher Professional Development Project.
Language, Science and Mathematics. School of Teaching "Mariano Acosta"
Pedagogical Advisor. Kindergarten and Elementary School Level. Baradero School District
Pedagogical Advisor. Homeless children’s shelter "German Frers" (Hogar de niños). Baradero, Argentina
CHEN-CHANG “SAM” PAN
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
PhD, Instructional Technology
Faculty
Associate Professor
Tenured
SCHOLARSHIP
Pan, C. (2008). A year-long investigation of self-efficacy for technology integration and
behavior pattern in a pre-service technology course using Hispanic student population.
International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 34–44.
Pan, C. (2012). Marketing for a Web-based master’s degree program in light of marketing mix model. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 15(1). Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring151/pan.html
Pan, C. (2012). A symbiosis between instructional systems design and project management.
Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 38(1). Retrieved from
http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/591
Pan, C. (2011). Guidelines, challenges, & recommendations for digital game-based learning.
International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 8(7), 29-50
Pan, C., & Corbeil, J. R. (2011) Marketing an online master’s degree program in light of the marketing mix model:
A Web 2.0 application. Full paper and presentation proposal
submission to the 16th Technology, Colleges & Community Worldwide Online Conference
(TCC 2011), Honolulu, HI. April 5, 2011.
SERVICE
AECT
ICEM
CAERDA
SICET
PMI
AECT International Division Board
Graduate Curriculum Committees
AECT/NCATE Taskforce
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12 SCHOOLS
101
Taught middle school
ITIL V3 Foundation by EXIN; Project Management Professional (PMP) by PMI;
Educational/Instructional Technology Graduate Certificate by University of Central
Florida; Certified Middle School Teacher Taiwan
2010 September-present, Associate Professor, Graduate Faculty, Educational Technology Program,
College of Education, University of Texas at Brownsville, Brownsville, Texas
2004 September-2010August, Assistant Professor, Graduate Faculty, Educational Technology
Program, School of Education, University of Texas at Brownsville, Brownsville, Texas
2004 July-2004 August, Instructor, Graduate Adjunct Faculty, School of Education, University of
Texas at Brownsville, Brownsville, Texas
2002 May-2002 August, Co-Instructor, Doctoral Internship, College of Education, University of
Central Florida, Orlando, Florida
2001 August-2001 December, Instructor, Undergraduate Adjunct Faculty, College of Education,
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida
2000 August-2000 December, Instructor, Undergraduate Adjunct Faculty, College of Education,
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida
1997 August-1999 July, Certified English Teacher, Liouchiou Junior High School, Pingtung,
Taiwan
REYNALDO RAMIREZ
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
Ed.D, Educational Leadership HIED
The University of Houston
Faculty & Chair, Department of Teaching, Learning, Innovation
Associate Professor
Tenured
SCHOLARSHIP
Ramirez, R., Williams-Santana, Z., Henderson, I., Olvera-Perez, Y., & Ramirez, I. (2012).
Compare scaffolded lesson/Webb models to traditional “Drill and Kill: interventions to
impact student achievement in elementary classrooms.
Ramirez, R., Olvera, Y, & Ramirez, I (2011). Identifying the value of outdoor learning 9field
experiences) in teaching. The purpose is to determine changes in behavior and depositions
toward the environment.
SERVICE
Texas Association for Environmental Education
Science Teacher Association of Texas
Texas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Texas Environmental Education Advisory Committee, TEA
NCATE Executive Council, UT-Brownsville College of Education
Texas Regional Collaboratives for Excellence Advisory Committee, UT- Austin
COURSES TAUGHT
EDCI 6342 - Models and Methods in Science Education
EDCI 6344 - Current Issues and Research in Science Education
EDCI 6346 - Environmental Education Methods
EDCI 6348 - Science Education Project
EDMG 4378 - Teaching Science in the 4-8 Classroom
EDMG 4379 - Teaching Science in the 8-12 Classroom
102
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
Lifetime Provisional, Biology
Lifetime Provisional, Health and Physical Education
Science Teacher
Dean of Instruction
Science Curriculum Specialist
Federal Program Coordinator
ALMA DOLORES RODRIGUEZ
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction - Univ. of Houston
Faculty
Associate Professor
Tenured
SCHOLARSHIP
Rodríguez, A. D., Rubin, R., & Abrego, M. (2012, February). Differentiated coaching for
diverse teachers. Presentation at the Literacy Summit: What’s Hot in Literacy for 2012, San Antonio, TX.
Rodríguez, A. D. (2011, February). Bilingual learners’ perceptions of culturally relevant books. Presentation at the National Association for Bilingual Education conference, New Orleans, LA.
Freeman, Y., Rodríguez, A. D., & Freeman, D. (October 2011) Choosing and Using Culturally
Relevant Bilingual Books to Support Reading. Presentation at the Texas Association for
conference.
Rodríguez, A. D. (October, 2011). Improving Online Instruction: Listening to Student Input. Presentation
at the Consortium of State Organizations for Texas Teacher Education conference.
Abrego, M.; Rodríguez, A. D., & Rubin, R. (October 2011). Literacy Coaches: A Support system for
New Teachers. Presentation at the Consortium of State Organizations for Texas Teacher Education
conference.
Rodríguez, A. D. (2011, June). Preparing Master Teachers of English Language Learners
through Technology. Presentation at the Texas Association of Teacher Educators summer
conference, Austin, TX.
Rodríguez, A. D. (2010). La cultura y la educación bilingüe. In M. Gómez Medina & D. J. Méndez
Domínguez (Eds.), Interculturalidad: Educación, sujetos y saberes (pp.119-123). Ciudad Victoria,
Tamaulipas, Mexico: Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas.
Rodríguez, A. D. (2010, June). Preservice Teachers Learn About Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
Through Culturally Relevant Books. Presentation at the Texas Association of Teacher
Educators summer conference, Austin, TX.
103
Rodríguez, A. D. (2011, January). Research-based writing activities for the bilingual
classroom. Presentation at the 19th Annual Rio Grande Valley Texas Association for
Education conference, South Padre Island, TX.
Rodríguez, A. D. (2010, November). La escritura en el aula bilingüe. Presentation the Tercera
Jornada Binacional de Educación Intercultural. Brownsville, TX.
Rodríguez, A. D. (2010, March). Connecting
ELLs to the Curriculum through Culturally
Relevant Books. Presentation at the 36th Annual Spring Bilingual Conference, Kingsville,
TX.
Rodríguez, A. D. (2010, January). Developing Literacy through Poetry. Presentation at the
18th Annual Rio Grande Valley Texas Association for Bilingual Education conference,
South Padre Island, TX.
Rodríguez, A. D., Freeman, Y., Mercuri, S. & Freeman, D. (October, 2011). Providing
an M.Ed to Support English Learners via Videoconferencing. Presentation at the Ahead of
the Future 2011 conference.
SERVICE
Board Member of Texas Association for the Improvement of Reading (TAIR)
Chair of Standing Committee for International Concerns for National Council for Teachers
of English (NCTE)
Director of the Sabal Palms Writing Project affiliated with the National Writing Project
Collaborated with other Texas National Writing Project directors and co-directors to gather data on
adolescent writing and 15 Texas schools, Project entitled, Culturally Mediated Writing Instruction
Collaborate with faculty committee members and NCTE staff to offer two conference slots on
research and author panel
Collaborate with Arte Publico Press to sponsor Hispanic Authors for author visits to UTB and local
schools
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
Certifications in the State of Texas:
Principal (grades EC-12);
Elementary self-contained (grades 1-8); Elementary Spanish (grades 1-8);
Elementary bilingual/ESL (grades 1-8).
Collaborate with faculty from the English Department in designing and implementing Language Arts
professional development programs for K-12 teachers in local school districts
GRACIELA ROSENBERG
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
Ed.D. Bilingual/ESL Education. Texas A & I University
Faculty
Professor
Tenured
SCHOLARSHIP
Morgan, B., Rosenberg, G. P. & Wells, L. (2010). Undergraduate Hispanic student response to
cooperative learning. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal. 6 (1):7-12
104
Morgan, B., & Rosenberg,G. P. (2010). Redisigning curriculum to meet society needs on both
sides of the border. International Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity. 12
(1).
Morgan, B., & Rosenberg,G. P. (2010). The use of drama techniques and cuture for second
language acquisition. Interculturalidad: Educacion, Sujetos y Saberes. Coleccion:
Conciencias Humanas y Sociales: 2. Universidad Autonoma de Tamaulipas. 127-134.
Rosenberg, G. P. (2010). Science Cognates English-Spanish for K-6 Bilingual Teacher
Candidates. Written by doctoral students enrolled in the course EDCI 8342 Content Area
Instruction in Bilingual Programs. http://www.utb.edu/VPAA/coe/llis/essc/Pages/default.aspx
Rosenberg, G. P. (2010). Lingüística comparada en la enseñanza del inglés y técnicas
dramáticas. Segunda Jornada Binacional de Educación Intercultural. Universidad de
Tamaulipas, México.
Rosenberg, G. P. (2011). Teaching Children’s Literature Using Drama. Oxford Round Table Children’s Literature: Allusion to Culture, Religion and Philosophy. Harris Manchester
College, Oxford University, United Kingdom.
Morgan, B. & Rosenberg, G. P. (2010). Crossing the borders of race, culture and language in
higher education: Re-designing curriculum to meet society needs on both sides of the
border. World Council of Comparative Education Societies, Istanbul, Turkey.
Rosenberg, G. P. (2010). Mexican women playwrights and their socio-cultural context. Oxford
Round Table: Women in Literature the 19th and 20th Centuries, Wadham College, Oxford
University, United Kingdom.
Rosenberg, G. P. & Morgan, B. (2011). Using Drama, Music, and Cooperative Learning in the
ESL Clasroom. Demonstration session presented at he Annual Convention of the
NationalAssociation of Bilingual Education (NABE). New Orleans, LA.
Rosenberg, G. P. & Morgan, B. (2011). Using cooperative learning, music, and drama in the
ESL classroom. National Association of Bilingual Education, New Orleans, LA. (under
review)
Morgan, B., Rosenberg, G. P.& Wells, L. (2010). Undergraduate Hispanic student response to
cooperative learning. American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
Rosenberg, G. P. & Morgan, B. (2010). The power of drama, music, and cooperative learning in
the ESL classroom. National Association of Bilingual Education, Denver, CO.
SERVICE
Member, BILPT (Bilingual Target Language Proficiency Test)- Spanish
Participated in creating this new Texas Certification Test for Bilingual Education Teachers
in the State of Texas
Discussion Leader at the Oxford Round Table for Children's Literature at Harris
Manchester College, Oxford University, UK
Member and organizer of the First, Second, and Third Jornada Binacional de Educación
Intercultural with the University of Tamaulipas, Mexico
Collaboration with faculty from other universities in Texas to design the new BILPT
(Bilingual Target Language Proficiency Test Spanish
Working with Matamoros professor and Dr. Morgan to establish a Master Degree in
Curriculum and Instruction with specialization in ESL for Mexican teachers. (2009-2010)
105
Member, Doctoral Program Committee. Attended most of the monthly meetings for
College of Education Faculty to learn and provide input for the Doctoral Program. (2007present)
Participated in reviewing the applications for the Doctoral Program and I served in the
interviews to select first, second, third, and fourth cohorts. (Spring 2007, 2008, 2009, and
2010)
Discussion leader, Oxford Round Table: Women in Literature: the 19th and 20th
Centuries, for The Elements of Existentialism in Emily Dickinson’s Poetry, and Versifying
the Voyage: Women’s Poetry of the Mormon Maritime Migration-Liverpool to New York.
Wadham College, Oxford University, United Kingdom. (2010).
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
National Association of Bilingual Education (NABE)
Texas Association of Bilingual Education (TABE)
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)
American Educational Research Association (AERA)
International Reading Association (IRA)
Popular Culture Association
American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese (HISPANIA)
Texas Foreign Language (TFL)
Southwest Theatre ASSOCIATION (swat)
South Council of Latin American Studies (SCOLAS)
Asociación de Licenciados y Doctores Españoles en los Estados Unidos (ALDEEU)
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
Elementary teacher High School Spanish Teacher Consultant Bilingual/ESL Education
Supervisor Certification
JOHN A. SUTTERBY
Highest Degree, Field, & University
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
Ph.D., UT Austin
Faculty
Associate Professor
Tenured
SCHOLARSHIP
Rodriguez-Garcia, A.L. & Sutterby, J. (2012, February). “Tú eres un huevo de weenies:” A case study
of playful encounters during journal time and at the writing center. Presentation at the annual
international conference for the Association for the Study of Play, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Sutterby, J. (2011, November). Play and social justice. Paper presented at Annual Conference
of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Orlando, FL.
Murillo, S., Aguilar Crandall, M., & Sutterby, J. (2011, October). Selecting high quality
children’s literature for Latino children. Texas Association for Bilingual Education, McAllen, Tx.
Rubin, R., Abrego, M. and Sutterby, J. (May, 2012). Engaging families of English language
learners: Ideas, resources and activities. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Sutterby, J. (2011). Social Capital. In Words on Play: A treatise on its value by leading play
scholars. P. 20. Playcore.
106
Sutterby, J. (2011), The Early Childhood Educator Professional Development Grant: Research and
Practice. Advances in Early Education and Day Care Volume 15. London: Emerald.
Frost, J., Keyburn, D., & Sutterby, J. (2010). Notes from the land down under: Transforming a
sterile urban schoolyard into a nature wonderland. In J. Hoot & J. Szente (Eds.) The earth is
our home: Children caring for the environment pp. 131-148. Olney, MD: Association for
Childhood Education International.
Rubin, R., Sutterby, J., & Hoffman, J. (2010). Professional development in culturally diverse
settings. In S. Neuman & M. Kamil (Eds.) Preparing teachers for the early childhood
classroom: Proven models and key principles pp. 163-172. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Rubin, R., Sutterby, J. & Sailors, M. (2010). The easy, the difficult and the almost impossible.
In. J. Cassidy, S. Garrett, & M. Sailors (Eds.) Literacy coaching: Research and Practice pp.
95-112. Corpus Christi, TX: Texas A & M. University Corpus Christi.
Sutterby, S., Sutterby, J., & Aguilar Crandall, M. (2010, November). Selecting High-Quality
Children’s Literature for Latin American and Caribbean Children. Presented at the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Anaheim California.
Sutterby, J. (2010, November). Slug bugs and teasing: The importance of signaling during play.
Presented at the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Anaheim
California.
Aguilar-Crandall, M., & Sutterby, J. (May, 2010). Changing Practice: The effect of
professional development in Latino child care. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association. Denver, Colorado.
Sutterby, J. & Rubin, R. (May, 2010). Early childhood educator professional development adds
up to higher mathematical achievement in young children. Presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association. Denver, Colorado.
Sutterby, J. (2010, March). Controversial Dolls. Presented at the Annual Conference of The
Association for the Study of Play. Atlanta, GA.
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
Pre – Kindergarten Teacher – American School of Valencia, Valencia, Spain
Pre – Kindergarten Teacher – Davila Elementary, Houston ISD
Substitute Teacher – Austin ISD
JAMES TELESE
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track;
PhD, Mathematics Education, Texas A&M
Faculty & Supervise student teachers
Professor
Tenured
107
SCHOLARSHIP
Telese, J. (2012). Middle school mathematics teachers’ professional development and student achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 105(2), 102-111. doi:
10.1080/00220671.2010.521209
House, J.D., & Telese, J.A. (2012). Effects of mathematics lesson activities and computer use
on algebra achievement of eighth-grade students in the United States and Japan: Findings
from the TIMSS 2007 assessment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(1), 6779.
House, D., & Telese, J. (2011). Effects of computer activities and classroom lesson strategies on
motivation for mathematics learning for eighth-grade students in the United States and
Korea. International Journal of Instructional Media, 38(3), 295-305.
Telese, J. (2011, November). Mathematics Teachers self-efficacy and professional
development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the School Science and Mathematics
Association, Colorado Springs, CO.
Telese, J., & Junk, D. (2010, November). Impacting teachers’ algebra pedagogical content
knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the School Science and Mathematics
Association, Ft. Myers, FL.
Telese, J., & Aguilar, M. (2011, June). A line in the sand: Connecting Texas history and
geometry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Texas Regional Collaboratives
for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching, Austin, TX.
Telese, J. (2011, July). Desgining middle grades situational performance assessments. Paper
presented at the annual Conference for the Advancement of Mathematics Teaching,
Dallas, TX.
Telese, J., & Aguilar, M. (2011, November). A line in the sand: Texas history and geometry.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rio Grande Valley Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, Edinburg, TX.
Telese, J. (2010, February). Improving inservice van Hiele Geometric Thinking Levels. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Southwest Education Research Association
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Society of Information Technology in Teacher Education
School Science and Mathematics Association
Board member of SERA
Reviewer of the Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science
TEACHING OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN P-12
Middle school math Teacher
High School Math Teacher
High School Math Tutor
Mathematics 6-12 Texas Teacher certification
School Counselor Texas Certification
108
ZHIDONG ZHANG
Highest Degree, Field, & University:
Assignment:
Faculty Rank:
Tenure Track:
PhD – McGill University, Psychometrics and Statistics Methods
PhD – McGill University, Quantitative Psychology
Faculty
Assistant Professor
Yes
SCHOLARSHIP
Lu, J. & Zhang, Z. (2011). Facilitating InformalArgumentation through online rubricbased assessment. Computers and Education. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lu, J. & Zhang, Z. (2011). The effects of online peer assessment on assessors and
assesses: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research. Manuscript
has been accepted on 9th December 2011.
Zhang, Z. & Lu, J. (2011). Quantitative assessment of medical student learning in solving a
deteriorating patient problem through effective cognitive Bayesian representation. The
International Journal of Learning Sciences. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Zhang, Z & Telese, J. (2011). Determining a model to predict Hispanic student pre-service teachers’ success on the TeXES examination. The Journal of Teacher Education. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Zhang, Z, & Takane, Y. (2010). Statistics: Multidimensional scaling.
In E. Baker, B. McGaw &
P. Peterson (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd Edition). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Zhang, Z. Quantitative assessment of medical student learning in solving a deterioratingth patient
problem through effective cognitive Bayesian representation. Paper presented at 18
International Conference on Learning, July 5-8, 2011, Mauritius.
Lu. J., & Zhang, Z. Facilitating informal argumentation skills through online rubricbased assessment. Paper presented at the Conference of Chinese America Educational
Research and Development Association (CAERDA), April 7-10, 2011, New Orleans,
LA.
Zhang, Z. Quantitative Structural Representations of Cognitive Tasks for Both Learning and Assessment
in Complex Cognitive Environments. Paper presented at the AERA annual meeting, April 7-9, 2011,
New Orleans, LA.
Zhang, Z. Developing and modeling cognitive tasks for dynamically diagnostic assessment: A Bayesian
network representation. Presented at 17th International Conference on Learning, July 5-9, 2010,
Hong Kong, HK.
Zhang, Z. Modeling cognitive feature trajectories in a clinical learning environment with Bayesian
Network. Presented at the Conference of Chinese America Educational Research and Development
Association (CAERDA), April 29-30, 2010, Denver, CO.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
109
AERA
Psychometrics Society
National Council on Measurement in Education
The member of the UTB data team
Member of the Doctoral Program Committee
Member of the Graduate Curriculum Committee
110
Master of Education Degree in Curriculum & Instruction
NCATE PROGRAM REVIEW
SECTION I: CONTEXT
1. Description of any state or institutional policies that may influence the application of
Curriculum and Instruction standards. (Response limited to 4,000 characters).
There are no state or institutional policies that may influence the development and application of
the standards for a Master’s of Education (M.Ed.) Curriculum and Instruction. The mission of The University of Texas at Brownsville (UTB) and the College of Education (COE) fully support
the application of these standards. The mission of the University is to provide accessible,
affordable, postsecondary education, i.e. Master of Education, which prepares master teachers
and graduates with instructional and curriculum development expertise to be leaders, mentors
and peer coaches, as well as, conduct high quality research in curriculum and pedagogy, in their
chosen field.
The standards of the Curriculum and Instruction program are to (1) provide knowledge, skills,
attitudes, and applicable research skills in curriculum and pedagogy; (2) develop master teachers
to serve as instructional leaders, teacher educators, clinical teaching faculty, and peer coaches;
and (3) provide experience in educational research related to effective educational practice.
These standards serve as a foundation for career opportunities as campus, district, state, or
national leaders (e.g., instructional facilitators, dean’s of instruction, assistant principals, principals, superintendents, state program officers). Individuals serving on advisory committees
at the local, state, regional, and national level have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions
necessary to make broad reaching curricular and policy decisions.
That Master of Education in Curriculum and Instruction was designed in response to the needs to
provide discipline based leaders in curriculum and instruction in the south Texas educational
community. The concentrations under the Master of Education in Curriculum and Instruction
include the (Curriculum and Instruction General, Mathematics Education, and Science Education
have existed since the UTB/TSC Partnership begun in 1992. New programs have been added and
are listed below.
111
Currently, there are 8 Master of Education in Curriculum and Instruction concentrations areas.
The original program is a Master of Education in Curriculum and Instruction and is referred to in
this report as M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction General.
The student completing the coursework toward a Master of Education in Curriculum and
Instruction is such noted on their transcript. However, the transcript does not denote the
concentrations.
Therefore, the concentration areas will be reported here as a single program and also include the
M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction General. Some programs have a large percentage of students
(e.g., Concentration in Elementary Math and Science) and others are emerging as popular
concentrations which have recently been opened; however, these concentrations have no
graduates at this time (e.,g., Concentration in Digital Literacy and Concentration in Reading).
The concentrations in the M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction include:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction (referred to in this report as M.Ed. Curriculum &
Instruction General)
Concentration in Elementary Math and Science
Concentration in Health and Human Performance
Concentration in Secondary Math Education
Concentration in Secondary Science Education
Concentration in Reading
Concentration in Digital Literacy
Concentration in Art Education
Faculty members, through coursework, advisement and their modeling, support students by
developing problem solving and critical thinking skills, as well as, instilling a passion for
lifelong love of learning. Within the M.Ed. program tracks faculty members assign work to
graduate students to encourage and facilitate becoming leaders in the education community. In
addition faculty members strive to ensure the success of all students and work to integrate
community, regional, and global needs for a well-rounded student. If a student presents a
weakness in content knowledge or application of knowledge, the faculty provide advice and
support to ensure a successful completion, this may include additional coursework or activities.
The College of Education is fully committed to the fundamental principles of accreditation
established by entities such as Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) and
NCATE and strives to continuously to meet their specific accreditation standards. Moreover, the
112
COE is dedicated to the quality enhancement of its programs and services within the context of
UTB’s mission, resources, and capabilities, and to the creation of an ideal environment in which leading, teaching, and public service occurs.
2. Description of 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).
Due to the objective of the Master of Education program field and clinical experiences may not
be required in all concentrations, although, they are highly encouraged. The objective of the
M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction program is to build a skilled educational professional beyond
that of the undergraduate programs that will assume leadership roles and positions in their
respective fields. The preparation within the M.Ed. Curriculum & Instruction program is
expected to have the rigor needed to prepare the candidates for continued education into a Ph.D.
or Ed.D. program.
The Master of Education in Curriculum and Instruction is a 36-credit hour option that is designed
to serve the many educators who desire a program with an emphasis on instructional leadership
and effective teaching. This major is responsive to the needs of the South Texas educational
community and to state and national priorities for restructuring and delivering teacher education
programs. Each of the eight concentration areas has the same Curriculum and Instruction core
courses, as listed below in Table 1: Masters of Education in Curriculum and Instruction Core
Course Listing. In addition to the core and noted in Table 1, the M.Ed. student takes support and
elective courses in their concentration.
Table 1: Masters of Education in Curriculum and Instruction Core Course Listing
Curriculum and Instruction Core: EDCI 6300 – Fundamentals in Research Methods
(12 hours)
EPSY 6304 – Foundations of Learning, Cognition, and Human Development
EDCI 7334 – Curriculum Development – Problems and Processes
EDFR 6388 - Socio-Cultural Foundations of Education
113
Concentration Courses
Courses to be selected from another area in education or an academic discipline
with approval of the concentration designated Graduate Advisor.
(9 hours)
Curriculum Electives
Candidates may select courses from the Curriculum and Instruction Inventory with
approval of the concentration designated Graduate Advisor.
(18 hours)
M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction General
The concentration of M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction General is designed to prepare master
teachers and graduates with instructional leadership skills. It has three major objectives:
• Provide knowledge, skills, attitudes and applicable research skills in curriculum and
pedagogy
• Develop master teachers to serve as teacher educators, mentors, clinical teaching faculty and peer coaches
• Provide experience in educational research related to effective educational practice in field-settings
This major is responsive to the needs of the south Texas’ educational community and to state and national priorities for restructuring and delivering teacher education programs.
The following are descriptions of concentrations within the M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction to
address specific needs of the community and educational entities that request individuals with
specific curriculum and curriculum development.
- Concentration in Reading
114
The concentration of M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction Reading is designed to prepare master
teachers and graduates with instructional leadership skills in the area of reading. Careers upon
completion of the program include: K-12 teacher, Independent school district curriculum
specialist, Independent school district staff development, Consulting and training, Regional
Educational Service Center staff, Texas Education Association staff, or Master reading teacher.
The concentration was added to support reading teachers who desired to obtain a Master of
Education degree. Originally this concentration was a program designated as Reading Specialist,
but failed to meet the number of students needed to keep it as a viable program.
- Concentration in Digital Literacy
The concentration of M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction Digital Literacy involves “social situated
practices supported by skills, strategies, and stances that enable the representation and
understanding of ideas using a range of modalities enabled by digital tools. This concentration
may lead to the following careers: K-12 teacher, Independent school district curriculum staff
development, Independent school district curriculum specialist, consulting and training, Regional
Educational Service Center staff, Texas Education Association staff, Master technology teacher,
or Master Reading teacher. The Master reading teacher only applies if the student completed the
MRT POS, which includes the capstone course, EDLI 6380.
- Concentration in Mathematics Education
The concentration of M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction Math Education is designed for
secondary mathematics teachers who desire to improve their knowledge of pedagogy and
content. Elementary teachers with a proficiency in mathematics may also enter this program. The
concentration is designed to emphasize instructional leadership and effective teaching in
mathematics.
- Concentration in Science Education
The concentration of M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction Secondary Science Education is
designed for secondary science teachers who desire to improve their knowledge of pedagogy and
science content. The concentration is designed to emphasize instructional leadership and
effective teaching in K-12 science classrooms.
- Concentration in Elementary Mathematics and Science Education
The concentration in M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction Elementary Math and Science Education
is designed for elementary teachers who desire to improve their teaching and understanding of
mathematics and science at the elementary level. The concentration includes mathematic
education and science education courses and supports elementary teachers who are often
responsible for both disciplines.
115
- Concentration in Art Education
The concentration of M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction Art Education is designed to serve an
artist-teacher who seeks a concentration on instructional leadership and effective teaching in the
area of art education. This major is responsive to the needs of the educational community and to
state and national priorities for restructuring and delivering teacher education programs in the
area of art education.
- Concentration in Health and Human Performance
The concentration of M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction Health and Human Performance is
designed to prepare master teachers and graduates with instructional leadership skills in the areas
of health, physical education, and human performance. This major is responsive to the needs of
the South Texas educational community and to state and national priorities for restructuring and
delivering teacher education programs for health, physical education, and human performance.
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).
Criteria for Admission
Evidence of academic achievement and potential for advanced study and research is required for
the M.Ed. admission. Specific criteria for unconditional admission for mater’s degree in Curriculum and Instruction are:
·
·
·
Undergraduate GPA of 3.0, or higher in the last 60 hours of undergraduate study
Applicants whose undergraduate GPA in the last 60 credit hours is less than 3.0 must
submit official Graduate Record Examination (GRE) scores above 150 verbal, 141
Quantitative, and 4.0 Analytical
Curriculum Vita or Resume
The above criteria apply to all eight concentrations for the M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction
program. However, two of the concentrations have additional requirements:
Master of Education in C&I with a concentration in Health and Human Performance
·
Background in health, physical education, or human performance fields
116
·
At least 24 hours of undergraduate work in health, physical education, or exercise science
areas, 12 of which must be upper-level courses
Master of Education in C&I with a Concentration of Art Education
·
·
·
·
Background in art education, art history, and criticism, and studio art
At least 51-54 hours of undergraduate work in art: 12 hours of art education, 9-12 hours
of art history and criticism, and 35 hours of studio art, 9 of which must be upper level
courses
Texas Teaching certificate: Art, all levels EC-12
Demonstrated teaching experience
Criteria for Exit from the Program
There are three different methods a candidate may choose to exit the Master of Education in
Curriculum and Instruction.
·
·
·
Candidate withdraws or stops out, or
Candidate graduates, or
Candidate is released from the program due to low GPA (i.e. below 2.5), two failing
grades, three grades of C, or failing results on the Comprehensive Examinations.
Criteria for Retention
In collaboration with administration, faculty, student advisor, and students COE is committed to
and places high emphasis on helping masters candidates persist and complete their respective
programs. The vision for the M.Ed. C&I program of UTB includes:
The Master of Education Curriculum and Instruction program is research-based and knowledgebased and covers several dimensions that may include instructional leadership, mentoring, and
curriculum development specified in their program of study. Candidates understand that they
must move through and complete these dimensions one at a time. Although these dimensions
seem to overlap, candidates are made aware not to do all at the same time. In the master’s program there are distinct reading, researching, and writing processes that are culminating in a
comprehensive assessment which may include a comprehensive examination or the submission
of an E-portfolio.
Work toward meeting these dimensions may be accomplished through:
·
Successful Completion of Course Work (36 hours)
117
·
·
Summative Program Evaluations (these evaluations reflect how candidates bring all their
course work together, understand scholarship, and identify their own interests within a
larger representation of educational inquiry)
Submission and assessment of documents, such as, case studies, reports, or other artifacts
that provide evidence of proficiency as a master level education leader.
4. Description of the relationship of the program to the unit’s conceptual framework. (Response limited to 4,000 characters)
The faculty and staff of the master’s program view the College of Education conceptual framework as a living, coherent set of concepts that co-evolve in relation with the capacities,
needs and opportunities of stakeholders in all aspects relevant to the preparation of highly skilled
educational professionals. Our framework has developed over the last 10 years in response to
institutional assessment efforts and with input from COE faculty, representatives from the dean’s office, faculty and administrators from UTB colleges outside the COE, students, local school
districts and community members.
District leaders inform our vision, mission, and conceptual framework across our state region via
the Lower Rio Grande Valley P-16 Council. Similarly, our unit now relies on feedback from our
Community Advisory Committee and our Student Advisory Committee. Our conceptual
framework has provided guidance for the coherent development and consistent implementation
of the M.Ed. C&I program and specializations. The multilayered COE conceptual framework
revolves around the COE’s mission to prepare highly skilled professionals to assume roles and positions in teaching, research, educational leadership, service and human development. The
COE carries out its mission through the collaborative interaction among departments within the
college, through collaborative efforts with other academic colleges and schools of UTB, other
Colleges and universities in the region, and PK-12 schools in the region.
The mission of the Master of Education Curriculum and Instruction program compliments
COE’s conceptual framework. It is to prepare highly skilled professionals to assume roles and positions in teaching, research, educational development, and human development. In addition it
is the mission of the M.Ed. program to provide graduate programs that are grounded in evidencebased professional practice, collaboration, knowledge acquisition, reflective inquiry, pedagogical
leadership, and respect for the culturally and linguistically diverse learner. Finally we
continuously assert ourselves as an integral part of local, state, national, and international
scholarly networks and communities of practice that promote innovation, and contribute to
scientific, educational, economic, and social change.
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. (Response limited to 4,000 characters).
118
Since a Speciality Program Area is not available for advanced Curriculum and Instruction
programs, the Masters in Curriculum and Instruction has adopted a unique set of program
assessments. The attached Key Assessment (Attachments 3-8) reports describe the assessments
and include scoring rubrics and results.
The program relies on six key assessments to provide data to determine program viability and
students’ knowledge, skills, and their application in affecting school change. These key assessments include: (1) a summative program assessment of knowledge, (2) an assessment of
curricular application through a curriculum project proposal, (3) an assessment of knowledge
application in the field, (4) a summative assessment of the ability to conduct research, (5) an
assessment to measuring the impact of application of knowledge in the field, and (6) a
comprehensive examination of the students knowledge and application when faced with a
potential scenario. Assessments 3 and 5 occur during the student’s involvement in an extensive mentoring experience.
6. Please attach files to describe the 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.)
Please see Attachment 1: Program of Study for each M.Ed. Program tract.
7. Candidate Information
M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction Candidates by specialty and year
Concentration
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Curriculum and
Instruction (General)
18
17
24
0
5
1
1
Art Education
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Reading
*
*
*
*
*
10
0
Digital Literacy
*
*
*
*
*
12
15
Mathematics Education
0
0
1
0
1
0
5
Science Education
0
0
0
0
25
5
14
Elementary Mathematics
and Science Education
0
0
1
18
26
5
3
119
Health and Human
Performance
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
* Please note: M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis in Reading and M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction with an
emphasis in Digital Literacy were both added as a degree options in 2012. As of August 2013 there are no graduates in this
program.
8. Faculty Information
Please refer to Attachment 2: Faculty Information for each M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction
concentration.
120
SECTION II: LIST OF ASSESSMENTS
1. In this section, list the 6-8 assessments that are being submitted as evidence for meeting
the C&I Standards. All programs must provide a minimum of six assessments. For each
assessment, indicate the type or form of assessment and when it is administered in the
program. (Response limited to 250 characters in each field.)
Assessment #
Name of Assessment
Type of Form of
Assessment
When is Assessment
Administered
Summative Program Evaluation
Rubric
After course work is
complete
Curriculum Project Proposal
Rubric
EDCI 7334
Application of knowledge in the
field - field experience
Rubric
Mentoring Assignment
in specified course
Research Project
Rubric
EDCI 6348
Measuring the impact of
application of knowledge in the
field
Rubric
Mentoring Assignment
in specified course
Final Exam
Exam Data
EDFR 6300
Assessment #1
– Content Knowledge
Assessment #2
– Content Knowledge
Assessment #3
– Application of knowledge in
the Field
Assessment #4
– Research
Assessment #5
– Assessment
Assessment #6
– Research
121
SECTION III: RELATIONSHIP OF ASSESSMENT TO STANDARDS
Matrix of Curriculum and Instruction standards with selected assessment from the core courses.
Standards
Measuring
impact on
knowledge in
the field
Summative
Program
Evaluation
Curriculum
Project
Proposal
Application of
Knowledge in
the Field
#1
#2
#3
X
X
X
X
Standard 1:
Knowledge of
Curriculum.
Program completers
will demonstrate
advanced ability to
design, implement,
and evaluate
curriculum that
promotes student
learning.
Standard 2:
Knowledge of
Instruction.
Program completers
will demonstrate
advanced ability to
plan, implement, and
evaluate instruction
to facilitate student
learning.
X
X
Standard 3:
Knowledge of
Content. Program
completers will
demonstrate
advanced depth and
breadth of
knowledge and skills
in the academic
discipline and
pedagogy.
X
X
Research
Project
#4
Final
Exam
#6
#5
X
X
122
Standard 4:
Knowledge of
Students. Program
completers will
demonstrate
advanced knowledge
of the student as
influenced by
cognitive, physical,
emotional, social,
cultural,
environmental, and
economic factors.
X
X
Standard 5:
Knowledge of
Research. Program
completers will
demonstrate ability
to use research to
promote student
learning and to
contribute to the
teaching profession.
X
X
X
Standard 6:
Knowledge of
Assessment.
Program completers
will demonstrate
advanced knowledge
of assessment and
the ability to use
multiple sources of
assessment for
maximizing student
learning.
X
X
X
Standard 7:
Professional
Practices. Program
completers will
demonstrate high
standards for
professional
practice.
X
X
Standard 8:
Technology
Integration.
Program completers
will demonstrate
ability to integrate
current technology
into instruction and
communications/coll
aboration activities
where appropriate.
X
X
X
123
124
SECTION IV: EVIDENCE FOR MEETING THE STANDARDS
Please refer to Attachments 3-8 for the Key Assessment Reports.
125
SECTION V: USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE PROGRAM
The process of NCATE program review for the M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction has been an
informative process. It began with individuals from each of the eight respective programs
meeting to review each program’s current process and learning outcomes. As each program was further explored through the lens of NCATE it became clear that current standards were
inadequate. One of the first major revisions was to develop new curriculum and instruction
standards for the M.Ed. program. The standards were adopted for both the M.Ed. and the
Ph.D./Ed.D. programs to maintain rigor and continuity. The following standards were adopted:
·
Standard 1: Knowledge of Curriculum. Program completers will demonstrate
advanced ability to design, implement, and evaluate curriculum that promotes student
learning.
·
Standard 2: Knowledge of Instruction. Program completers will demonstrate advanced
ability to plan, implement, and evaluate instruction to facilitate student learning.
·
Standard 3: Knowledge of Content. Program completers will demonstrate advanced
depth and breadth of knowledge and skills in the academic discipline and pedagogy.
·
Standard 4: Knowledge of Students. Program completers will demonstrate advanced
knowledge of the student as influenced by cognitive, physical, emotional, social, cultural,
environmental, and economic factors.
·
Standard 5: Knowledge of Inquiry. Program completers will demonstrate ability to use
research to promote student learning and to contribute to the teaching profession.
·
Standard 6: Knowledge of Assessment. Program completers will demonstrate
advanced knowledge of assessment and the ability to use multiple sources of assessment
for maximizing student learning.
·
Standard 7: Professional Practices. Program completers will demonstrate high
standards for professional practice.
·
Standard 8: Technology Integration. Program completers will demonstrate ability to
integrate current technology into instruction and communications/collaboration activities
where appropriate.
126
Adoption of these standards has resulted in changes to the curriculum, as well as to the six
targeted key assessments. Data from the six key assessments have been reviewed and
recommendations for improvement to the masters program have been identified.
1. Addition of course number EDFR 6388 Socio-cultural Foundations of Education. In this
course students analyze socio-cultural forces which shape the direction of American education
with emphasis on education in philosophical, sociological, psychological and anthropological
context, and the intercultural factors in society which affect public schools and influence learning
and acquiring skills important to educational growth and self-fulfillment are stressed.
2. Professional Portfolio. All students will be required to purchase instructional materials
including (but not limited to) Tk20 which is an online academic electronic workbook to be used
in building their professional portfolio designed to provide evidence of mastery of class and
state/professional standards. Additional information regarding Tk20 is available at
https://tk20.utb.edu/ or at the UTB Barnes and Noble bookstore.
127
SECTION VI: FOR REVISED REPORTS OR RESPONSE TO CONDITIONS REPORT
ONLY
This is the first submission of an accreditation report for the Master’s Program, so this section does not apply.
128
Attachment 1: Programs of Study
Each of the links provided is the most up-to-date Programs of Study for each of the M.Ed.
Curriculum and Instruction concentration areas. All where updated during the Fall semester
2012.
General Curriculum and Instruction
http://www.utb.edu/vpaa/graduate/Documents/EDCI.pdf
Concentration in Reading
http://www.utb.edu/vpaa/graduate/Documents/EDCI%20-%20Reading.pdf
Concentration in Digital Literacy
http://www.utb.edu/vpaa/graduate/Documents/EDCI%20-%20Digital%20Literacy.pdf
Concentration in Art Education
http://www.utb.edu/vpaa/graduate/Documents/EDCI-ART.pdf
Concentration in Mathematics Education
http://www.utb.edu/vpaa/graduate/Documents/EDCI-MATH.pdf
Concentration in Science Education
http://www.utb.edu/vpaa/graduate/Documents/EDCI-SCIE.pdf
Concentration in Elementary Mathematics and Science Education
http://www.utb.edu/vpaa/graduate/Documents/EDCIMS.pdf
129
Concentration in Health and Human Performance
http://www.utb.edu/vpaa/graduate/Documents/EDCI-HHPS.pdf
130
Attachment 2: Faculty Information by program
M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction (General)
Faculty Information
Faculty Member Name
Laura Jewett
Highest Degree, Field, and University
Ph.D. Curriculum & Instruction (Curriculum Theory,
Louisiana State University)
Faculty Primary Teaching Assignments
Doctoral Curriculum & Qualitative Research Courses, Master
Curriculum Courses and Undergraduate Pedagogy Courses
Faculty Rank
Assistant Professor
Tenure or Tenure Track
Tenure Track
Scholarship, Leadership in Professional
Associations: List 3 major contributions in past 3
years
Jewett, L.M. & Smolen-Santana, J. (2013) The curriculum
that care forgot. Espinosa, M. (Ed.), Liminal Spaces and Call
for Praxis(ing). NY: Taylor & Francis.
Jewett, L. (2011). Casting Curricular Circles, or The
Sorcerer, the Phantom and the Troubadour. Complicity: An
International Journal of Complexity and Education 8(2).
Fleener, M. J., Jewett, L., Smolen, J. & Carson, R. L. (2011).
Creating spaces for service learning research: Implications
for emergent action and civic ingenuity. In T. Stewart & N.
Webster (Eds.), Problematizing service-learning: Critical
reflections for development and action, 3-17. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Heritage Ranch Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Teaching or other Professional Experience in P-12
Schools
Developed, piloted and taught decision-making curriculum in
rural and urban alternative classrooms
2006-2007
State Department of Education, Oklahoma City, OK
Designed and implemented service-learning professional
development, outreach and technical assistance for PK-12
teachers, students, administrators and community partners in
12-county region. 1997-1998
English Language Institute, Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, OK Taught ESL courses to high school and
college level students in an institute setting. 1994-1996
131
M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction concentration in Art Education
Faculty Information
Faculty Member Name
Carlos G. Gomez
Highest Degree, Field, and University
MFA, Washington State University
Faculty Primary Teaching Assignments
Painting/Drawing/Experimental 2-D
Faculty Rank
Full Professor
Tenure or Tenure Track
Tenured
Scholarship, Leadership in Professional
Associations: List 3 major contributions in past 3
years
2013 5X7 Art Splurge and Exhibition, Group Show,
Arthouse Jones Center for Contemporary Art, Austin, Texas.
Ongoing Studies in the Rio Grande Valley History, edited by
Milo Kearney, Anthony Knopp, Antonio Zavalete, illustrated
by Carlos G. Gomez, volume 10, The Texas Center for
Border and Transnational Studies, UTB/TSC. 2011
El Chupacabra A South Texas College and University
Regional Competition, Co curator: Carlos G. Gómez, Angel
Cabrales and Samantha Garcia. UTB, Brownsville
Teaching or other Professional Experience in P-12
Schools
Children Museum of Brownsville, Adult Chalk Art, Judge.
2010
Faculty Member Name
Stephen Hawks
Highest Degree, Field, and University
MFA, Ceramics/Intermedia, Florida State University
Faculty Primary Teaching Assignments
Ceramics, Art History, Art Appreciation, graduate Art Ed
Faculty Rank
Lecturer
Tenure or Tenure Track
Non-tenure track
Scholarship, Leadership in Professional
Associations: List 3 major contributions in past 3
years
I recently graduated (May 2010) and joined the faculty in
Liberal Arts. I was, before that, a professional potter and
Artist, 30+ years. I have exhibited, sold, and published
regularly. My Graduate thesis has been published in several
places on the Internet. Recently I was been a member of
NCECA, National Council on Education for the Ceramic
Arts. The Columbus Museum in Columbus GA has invited
me to exhibit in a 2 person exhibit; the dates are being
determined.
132
Teaching or other Professional Experience in P-12
Schools
None
M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction concentration in Reading
Faculty Information
Faculty Member Name
Kathy Bussert-Webb
Highest Degree, Field, and University
Ph.D., Language Education, Indiana University
Faculty Primary Teaching Assignments
EDLI 3325, 4351, 4367, 6310, 6320, 6330, 6360, and EDCI
8324
Faculty Rank
Associate Professor
Tenure or Tenure Track
Tenured
Scholarship, Leadership in Professional
Associations: List 3 major contributions in past 3
years
(2012). Board Member. The International Journal of
Research on Service-Learning in Teacher Education, hosted
by Duke University and the SL and Experiential Education
SIG of the AERA.
Bussert-Webb, K., & Díaz, M. E. (2013). Digital literacy,
language, and Latinos: L1.4Word. Journal of Literacy and
Technology, 14(1). * This is an international journal.
Díaz, M.E., & Bussert-Webb, K. (2013). Reading and
Language Beliefs and Practices of Latino/a Children in a
Border Colonia. Journal of Latinos and Education, 12(1), 5973. * This journal has a 12% acceptance rate.
Bussert-Webb, K., & Díaz, M. E. (2012). New literacy
opportunities and practices of Latino/a children of poverty in
and out of school. Language and Literacy, 14(1), pp. 1-25. *
This is an international journal of the Language and Literacy
Researchers of Canada (LLRC).
Retrieved from
http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/langandlit/issue/
current
133
Teaching or other Professional Experience in P-12
Schools
1) Reading Teacher and also Reading Dept. Chair,
Brownsville Independent School District (BISD), TX, 19951998. 2) Life-long certification in secondary reading,
English, and speech communications in Texas; received 40
documented hours of English AP training in Texas. Life-long
certification in secondary reading, journalism, social studies,
and ESL in Indiana. 3) Collaborated with BISD in the 21st
Century Community Learning Center Grant application,
which was awarded by the Texas Education Agency. Assisted
in the hiring, training, supervision, and evaluation of UTB
pre-service teachers at nine elementary and middle schools,
and coordinated 7 children’s field trips to UTB. Completed 2 internal program evaluations and visited the schools twice
weekly (2011-2013).
M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction concentration in Digital Literacy
Faculty Information
Faculty Member Name
Kathy Bussert-Webb
Highest Degree, Field, and University
Ph.D., Language Education, Indiana University
Faculty Primary Teaching Assignments
EDLI 3325, 4351, 4367, 6310, 6320, 6330, 6360, and EDCI
8324
Faculty Rank
Associate Professor
Tenure or Tenure Track
Tenured
134
Scholarship, Leadership in Professional
Associations: List 3 major contributions in past 3
years
(2012). Board Member. The International Journal of Research
on Service-Learning in Teacher Education, hosted by Duke
University and the SL and Experiential Education SIG of the
AERA.
Bussert-Webb, K., & Díaz, M. E. (2013). Digital literacy,
language, and Latinos: L1.4Word. Journal of Literacy and
Technology, 14(1). * This is an international journal.
Díaz, M.E., & Bussert-Webb, K. (2013). Reading and
Language Beliefs and Practices of Latino/a Children in a
Border Colonia. Journal of Latinos and Education, 12(1), 5973. * This journal has a 12% acceptance rate.
Bussert-Webb, K., & Díaz, M. E. (2012). New literacy
opportunities and practices of Latino/a children of poverty in
and out of school. Language and Literacy, 14(1), pp. 1-25. *
This is an international journal of the Language and Literacy
Researchers of Canada (LLRC). Retrieved from
http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/langandlit/issue/
current
Teaching or other Professional Experience in P-12
Schools
1) Reading Teacher and also Reading Dept. Chair,
Brownsville Independent School District (BISD), TX, 19951998. 2) Life-long certification in secondary reading, English,
and speech communications in Texas; received 40
documented hours of English AP training in Texas. Life-long
certification in secondary reading, journalism, social studies,
and ESL in Indiana. 3) Collaborated with BISD in the 21st
Century Community Learning Center Grant application,
which was awarded by the Texas Education Agency. Assisted
in the hiring, training, supervision, and evaluation of UTB
pre-service teachers at nine elementary and middle schools,
and coordinated 7 children’s field trips to UTB. Completed 2 internal program evaluations and visited the schools twice
weekly (2011-2013).
M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction concentration in Math Education
Faculty Information
Faculty Member Name
James A. Telese
Highest Degree, Field, and University
Ph.D. Mathematics Education, Texas A&M University
Faculty Primary Teaching Assignments
Graduate and Undergraduate Mathematics Education
Faculty Rank
Associate Professor
Tenure or Tenure Track
Tenured
135
Scholarship, Leadership in Professional
Associations: List 3 major contributions in past 3
years
(in press) Six years of measuring effects of mathematics
professional development on teacher’s content knowledge. Proceedings of the International Consortium for Research in
Science and Mathematics Education. (ICRSME XIV), (in
press) Mathematics instruction and achievement of eighthgrade students in Korea: Results from the TIMSS assessment.
Education. (2012) Presidential Award for Excellence in
Mathematics and Science Teaching Selection Committee
Teaching or other Professional Experience in P-12
Schools
Mathematics and Earth Science Teacher. (1987) Discol
Junior High, (1987-1989) Tom Browne Middle School,
(1989-1990) Kaffie Middle School, (1990-1991) A&M
Consolidated High School
M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction concentration in Science Education
Faculty Information
Faculty Member Name
Reynaldo Ramirez, Jr.
Highest Degree, Field, and University
Higher Education Administration and Supervision, Science
Education Curriculum, University of Houston
Faculty Primary Teaching Assignments
Undergraduate and Graduate Science Education
Faculty Rank
Associate Professor in Secondary and Science Education
Tenure or Tenure Track
Tenured
136
Scholarship, Leadership in Professional
Associations: List 3 major contributions in past 3
years
Ramirez, R. (June 6-8, 2012). The University of Texas at
Brownsville Mathematics, Science, and Technology Teacher
Preparation Academy (MSTTPA). Association of Public and
Land-Grant Universities SMTI National Conference.
Washington, DC.
Ramirez, R. and Ramirez, I. (June 15, 2012). Writing
Connections: Using Writing to Improve Science Achievement.
A presentation presented at the Me by the Sea Conference,
Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi. Corpus Christi,
Texas.
Ramirez, R., Ramirez, I., and Perez-Olvera, Y. (September
17, 2012). Aquatic Habitat Mapping: An Angler’s Perspective. Conference for the Advancement of Science Teaching, Corpus
Christi, Texas.
Ramirez, R. (2012). Coordinated the implementation of
courses for the U-Teach program requirements involving the
College of Education. College of Education. University of
Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College.
Ramirez, R. (2012). Coordinated the development of courses
and programs to meet NCATE requirements for the Bachelor
of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies within the Department of
Teaching, Learning, and Innovation. College of Education.
University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost
College.
Teaching or other Professional Experience in P-12 6-12 Science – 13 years
Schools
Science Curriculum Specialist – 10 years
Faculty Member Name
Gregorio Garcia
Highest Degree, Field, and University
Ed.D. Curriculum and Instruction, University of Houston
Faculty Primary Teaching Assignments
Undergraduate and Graduate Science Education
Faculty Rank
Assistant Professor
Tenure or Tenure Track
Tenure Track
137
Scholarship, Leadership in Professional
Associations: List 3 major contributions in past 3
years
Ramirez Jr, R. & Garcia, G. (2013). Promoting Reflective
Practice through the Creation of E-Books in a Higher
Education Setting. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.),
Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher
Education International Conference 2013(pp. 2635-2639).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved October 8, 2013
fromhttp://www.editlib.org/p/48508.
Ramirez, R. and Garcia, G. (February 14, 2013). Designing
field experiences for maximum knowledge gains. A paper
presentation given to members of the National Association for
Hispanic and Latino Studies, Baton Rouge, LA.
Participate in Teacher Quality and Texas Regional
Collaborative Grant Projects
Teaching or other Professional Experience in P-12 Science Teacher - 15 years
Schools
Science Curriculum Specialist - 8 years
M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction concentration in Elementary Mathematics and Science
Education
Faculty Information
Faculty Member Name
Reynaldo Ramirez, Jr.
Highest Degree, Field, and University
Higher Education Administration and Supervision, Science
Education Curriculum, University of Houston
Faculty Primary Teaching Assignments
Undergraduate and Graduate Science Education
Faculty Rank
Associate Professor in Secondary and Science Education
Tenure or Tenure Track
Tenured
138
Scholarship, Leadership in Professional
Associations: List 3 major contributions in past 3
years
Ramirez, R. (June 6-8, 2012). The University of Texas at
Brownsville Mathematics, Science, and Technology Teacher
Preparation Academy (MSTTPA). Association of Public and
Land-Grant Universities SMTI National Conference.
Washington, DC.
Ramirez, R. and Ramirez, I. (June 15, 2012). Writing
Connections: Using Writing to Improve Science
Achievement. A presentation presented at the Me by the Sea
Conference, Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi.
Corpus Christi, Texas.
Ramirez, R., Ramirez, I., and Perez-Olvera, Y. (September
17, 2012). Aquatic Habitat Mapping: An Angler’s Perspective. Conference for the Advancement of Science
Teaching, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Ramirez, R. (2012). Coordinated the implementation of
courses for the U-Teach program requirements involving the
College of Education. College of Education. University of
Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College.
Ramirez, R. (2012). Coordinated the development of courses
and programs to meet NCATE requirements for the Bachelor
of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies within the Department of
Teaching, Learning, and Innovation. College of Education.
University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost
College.
Teaching or other Professional Experience in P-12
Schools
6-12 Science – 13 years
Faculty Member Name
Gregorio Garcia
Highest Degree, Field, and University
Ed.D. Curriculum and Instruction, University of Houston
Faculty Primary Teaching Assignments
Graduate and Undergraduate Science Education
Faculty Rank
Assistant Professor
Tenure or Tenure Track
Tenure Track
Science Curriculum Specialist – 10 years
139
Scholarship, Leadership in Professional
Associations: List 3 major contributions in past 3
years
Ramirez Jr, R. & Garcia, G. (2013). Promoting Reflective
Practice through the Creation of E-Books in a Higher
Education Setting. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.),
Proceedings of Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference 2013(pp. 26352639). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved October 8, 2013
fromhttp://www.editlib.org/p/48508.
Ramirez, R. and Garcia, G. (February 14, 2013). Designing
field experiences for maximum knowledge gains. A paper
presentation given to members of the National Association
for Hispanic and Latino Studies, Baton Rouge, LA.
Participate in Teacher Quality and Texas Regional
Collaborative Grant Projects
Teaching or other Professional Experience in P-12
Schools
6-12 Science – 13 years
Science Curriculum Specialist – 10 years
M.Ed. Curriculum and Instruction concentration in Health and Human Performance
Faculty Information
Faculty Member Name
Zelma Mata
Highest Degree, Field, and University
Ed.D., Higher Education Administration and
Supervision, University of Houston
Faculty Primary Teaching Assignments
Kinesiology
Faculty Rank
Associate Professor
Tenure or Tenure Track
Tenured
Scholarship, Leadership in Professional
Associations: List 3 major contributions in past 3
years
Vice President for the Dance Division: Texas Association
for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (2010
to 2012)
· Presented a session entitled, “Folkloric Dance for All,” at the Texas Association for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance Conference at Galveston, Texas
(2012)
· Presented a session entitled, “Zumbathon—Nonstop Latin
Dance!” at the Texas Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Conference at Galveston,
Texas (2012)
140
Teaching or other Professional Experience in P-12
Schools
· Consultant, BISD Century 21, Brownsville Housing
Authority, conduct presentations on fitness and nutrition at
the designated residential unit.
· Member, BISD School Health Advisory Committee, meet
monthly to discuss health issues in the school district and to
propose policy changes to the school board
Faculty Member Name
Christopher Ledingham
Highest Degree, Field, and University
Ph.D. Health Education, Texas A&M University
Faculty Primary Teaching Assignments
Personal Health, Nutrition, Elementary and Secondary
School Health, Selected Topics in Health Education, Human
Diseases, Community Health Methods
Faculty Rank
Assistant Professor
Tenure or Tenure Track
Tenure Track
Scholarship, Leadership in Professional
Associations: List 3 major contributions in past 3
years
Ledingham, C. and Mata, Z. (2011). NCATE/NASPE SPA
Program Review. Submitted September 2011.; Conatser, P.
& Ledingham, C. (2011, February). Obesity and the Adapted
Physical Education Environment. PELINKS4U Promoting
Active & Healthy Lifestyles, section: Adapted Physical
Education 13 (2). Retrieved from
http://www.pelinks4u.org/articles/conatser2_11.htm;
Conatser, P. & Ledingham, C. (2010, February/March). Tips
for Disease Prevention in Physical Education. PELINKS4U
Promoting Active & Healthy Lifestyles, section: Adapted
Physical Education 12(2). Retrieved from
http://www.pelinks4u.org/articles/conatser0210.htm
Teaching or other Professional Experience in P-12
Schools
None
Faculty Member Name
Phillip Conaster
Highest Degree, Field, and University
Ph.D. In: Adapted Physical Activity, Statistics, and Infant &
Family Intervention; University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Faculty Primary Teaching Assignments
Lifetime Fitness, Intro to Sports and Exercise Science, First
Aid, The Adapted Kinesiology Program, Measurement
Techniques in Physiology
Faculty Rank
Associate Professor
141
Tenure or Tenure Track
Tenured
Scholarship, Leadership in Professional
Associations: List 3 major contributions in past 3
years
Conatser, P. & Ledingham, C. (2010, February/March). Tips
for Disease Prevention in Physical Education. PELINKS4U
Promoting Active & Healthy Lifestyles, section: Adapted
Physical Education 12(2). Retrieved from
http://www.pelinks4u.org/articles/conatser0210.htm;
Conatser, P., Naugle, K., Tillman, M., & Stopka, C. (2009).
Athletic trainers attitude toward working with Special
Olympic athlete. Journal of Athletic Training, 44(3), 279285; Weber, R., & Conatser, P. (2008). Kinematic Analysis
of the Jumping Pattern of A Female with Cornelia de Lange
Syndrome. Expanding Horizons in Therapeutic Recreation,
23, 101-107
Teaching or other Professional Experience in P-12
Schools
1990 – 1995 Lubbock Independent School District, Lubbock,
Texas Therapy Pool Supervisor; Adapted Physical Education
Teacher
General Curriculum and Instruction Support Faculty
Faculty Member Name
Zhidong Zhang
Highest Degree, Field, and University
Ph. D. quantitative psychology and quantitative applied
cognitive sciences, McGill University Canada
Faculty Primary Teaching Assignments
EDFR8303 Statistical Analysis in Education, EDCI 6307
Statistical Methods, EDCI 6300 Fundamental of Research
Methods.
Faculty Rank
Assistant Professor
Tenure or Tenure Track
Tenure Track
Scholarship, Leadership in Professional
Associations: List 3 major contributions in past 3
years
Published four articles and complete four paper drafts
As a working group leader, I work with six professors to
develop a new syllabus of EDCI 6300, Fundamental of
Research Methods and two examination tests
I am an IRB member and evaluate IRB research proposals.
Teaching or other Professional Experience in P-12
Schools
I worked with Dr. James Telese to develop a K-12 teacher
professional program and a research grants.
142
Attachment 3
Key Assessment #1 – Summative Program Evaluation - Traditional Concentrations
After coursework is complete
Key Assessment #1 is separated into face-to-face/hybrid and online concentrations. The more
traditional concentrations are described in this section.
1a. Brief Description of the Assessment and Use in the Face-to-Face/Hybrid M.Ed.
Curriculum and Instruction Degree Program Concentrations
After all course work has been completed, each M. Ed. Candidate in the respective
concentrations of Secondary Science, Elementary Math and Science, Art Education, Secondary
Math, and Health and Human Performance takes a written comprehensive exam. Each
concentration develops prompts for their specific comprehensive exam. The concentrations in
reading and digital literacy complete a different type of summative evaluation. The
comprehensive examination is based upon the candidate’s program of study and questions given to the students will be developed and scored by faculty in the candidates program. Successful
completion of the Comprehensive Exams, along with all coursework, will result in the candidate
receiving their degree, a Master of Education in Curriculum and Instruction. The student’s transcript does not denote the concentration; however, the coursework matches the program of
study of the concentration.
2a. How the Assessment Aligns with C&I Standards
Curriculum & Instruction
COE
Standards
Conceptual Framework
Criteria
Content Knowledge
C&I Standard 3
Application of Content Knowledge C&I Standard 1, 2, 6, 7 8
Knowledge in Practice,
Pedagogical Leadership
Knowledge in Practice,
Professionalism, Inquiry,
Pedagogical Leadership,
Interrelatedness
143
3a. Brief Analysis of Data Findings
C&I Standards Achieved
Key Assessment 1
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Summer 2013
(N = 11)
(N = 9)
(N = 2)
Percentage of candidates
Percentage of candidates
Percentage of candidates
scoring Met with Weakness & scoring Met with Weakness & scoring Met with Weakness &
Target
Target
Target
Content Knowledge
27
100
100
Application of Content
Knowledge
36
100
100
4a. Interpretation of Data Findings
During the Fall of 2012, eleven students took the comprehensive examination described in the
next following sections. Of these only three (3) students scored Met with Weakness and Target
using the portion of the assessment that keyed on content knowledge. Similarly, the rubric
revealed a weakness in the application of content knowledge which indicated a proficiency at
Met with Weakness and Target for only four students or 36 percent. The exams were rated by
three faculty involved in the curricular and content discipline strands.
The low scores prompted a review of the preparation of candidates taking the exam. Initially, the
faculty met with the students to outline the expectations and how the exam would be assessed.
The faculty included Drs. Lori Petty, Gregorio Garcia, and Reynaldo Ramirez. Each subsequent
semester the candidates participated in a single two-hour review session.
144
The exam question was developed and agreed upon by the participating faculty and administered
during the Spring 2013 and Summer 2013 semesters. The exam questions are different from
semester to semester.
During the subsequent administrations the percentage of students who scored “Met with Weakness” or “Target” reached 100%. This is a complete turn around from the first
administration.
The Fall 2013 review session has been prepared as a series of tutorials that candidates can use to
prepare for the examination. Candidates are still given an opportunity to meet with professors
and ask questions about the administration and structure of the exam.
145
Assessment # 1 – Summative Program Evaluation
Overview
5a. Full Description of the Assignment
The following description includes the comprehensive examination. The first form was
developed prior to our current alignment process. It is composed of multiple parts, whereas, the
second form asks for a comprehensive response to assessment rubric.
Sample Prompt:
C&I General and concentrations in Science Education, Mathematics Education, and Elementary Mathematics and Science
Education:
Comprehensive Examination Question
Your campus administrator has tasked you in your new role as a facilitator to develop a project based learning initiative.
The administration in the small school district where you work does not have the resources to hire a consultant to
provide training to your campus’ teachers; however, they have heard that you have received training on project-based
learning. They feel that this is a great opportunity for you to demonstrate your skills as a curriculum developer.
Choose a grade level and discipline to establish your PBL initiative. If it helps for you to be specific, select a discipline. For
example, if it’s science use a life, earth/space, or physical science topic; for mathematics focus on algebraic or geometric
reasoning or problem solving; or apply the use of technologies that improve students’ ability to solve a problem.
Your answer should clearly articulate the rationale for your choices, identify theories or theorists that you have selected
to develop your professional development initiative, and specify the steps you will take to have campus level
administrators and teachers to embrace the PBL initiative.
Although the response should not necessarily be in this order consider providing the following information:
8. A well-articulated description of the problem
9. A clear set of goals and objectives that describe the intentions of your program and argue why they are
appropriate
10. A rationale for the selection of a curriculum model or models drawing from relevant curriculum theorists
11. A sound methodology describing the implementation
12. A description of formative and summative assessments that will be used to evaluate the success of your
implementation and their connection to the curriculum model chosen
146
When appropriate include information that indicates your knowledge and understanding of concepts that were gained
from the coursework you took throughout your graduate program. This may include:
3. Developmentally appropriate instruction
4. Inquiry Skills
5. Action Research Skills
6. Scholarly research supporting your arguments
7. Technology integration to support instruction
8. Cognitive practices and theories such as scaffolded instruction, social cultural theory, and curriculum theory
9. English Language Proficiency Standard implementation strategies
10. Models and methods to support discipline based instruction
2) Concentrations in Art Education and Health and Human Performance did not administer comprehensive exams given
in Fall 2012 and Spring 2013
6a. Grading Rubric
Content Knowledge
Not Met
Met with Weakness
Target
147
Demonstrates unacceptable
knowledge of the subject matter
through production of work that fails
to meet established standards.
Responses to posed questions:
Demonstrates minimal knowledge of
the subject matter through production
of work that meets some established
standards. Responses to posed
questions:
Demonstrates in-depth knowledge of
the subject matter through
production of work that goes beyond
established standards. Responses
to posed questions:
·
shows lack of insight or
original thinking
show minimal evidence of
insight or original thinking
·
are highly original and
creative
·
exhibit numerous or
substantial errors in
interpreting disciplinary
readings
exhibit some errors in
interpreting disciplinary
readings
·
exhibit reflective
interrogation of disciplinary
readings
incorporate minimal analysis
and synthesis of central
concepts of the subject
·
incorporate critical analysis
and synthesis of central
concepts of the subject
reflect vague understanding
of the nature of the discipline
and its links to other
disciplines
·
reflect a holistic view of the
nature of the discipline and
its links to other disciplines
·
provide detailed
descriptions and numerous
specific, vivid examples
·
avoid vague generalities
and clichés
·
do not incorporate analysis
or synthesis of central
concepts of the subject
·
reflect no understanding or
inaccurate understanding of
the nature of the discipline
and its links to other
disciplines
·
·
fail to provide supporting
details or examples
provide few details and
examples
exhibit substantial reliance on
vague generalities and clichés
rely on vague generalities
and clichés
Application of Content Knowledge
Not Met
Met with Weakness
Target
148
Fails to demonstrate minimal
proficiencies to plan and communicate
instruction or other professional practice
in ways that make content meaningful,
account for diversity and the
developmental needs of clients,
encourage critical thinking and problemsolving, create a positive, motivating
learning environment, and incorporate
appropriate technologies. Written
responses to posed questions:
show lack of insight or original thinking
exhibit numerous or substantial errors
in understanding of professional
literature and its implications for wise
practice
rely on experience without reference to
professional knowledge and standards
in formulating practice decisions
exhibit substantial gaps in knowledge
or application of disciplinary content
knowledge and the varied strategies
and resources that may be used to
engage learners in the target
population with that content
ignore the nature and needs of
learners in the target population
fail to demonstrate understanding of
the various contexts that impact
learning
fail to provide supporting details or
examples
rely on vague generalities and clichés
are unclear and include numerous
major grammatical and/or usage errors
Demonstrates minimal proficiencies to Demonstrates extraordinary
plan and communicate instruction or proficiencies to plan and
other professional practice in ways
communicate instruction or other
that make content meaningful,
professional practice in ways that
account for diversity and the
make content meaningful, account
developmental needs of clients,
for diversity and the developmental
encourage critical thinking and
needs of clients, encourage critical
problem-solving, create a positive,
thinking and problem-solving,
motivating learning environment, and create a positive, motivating
incorporate appropriate technologies. learning environment, and
Written responses to posed questions: incorporate appropriate
technologies. Written responses to
show minimal evidence of insight or posed questions:
original thinking
·
are highly original and creative
exhibit superficial understanding of
·
exhibit reflective engagement
professional literature and its
with professional literature and
implications for wise practice
its implications for sound
make few connections between
practice
professional knowledge and
·
integrate professional
experience in formulating practice
knowledge and experience in
decisions
formulating practice decisions
exhibit some gaps in knowledge or
application of disciplinary content
·
demonstrate a holistic view of
knowledge and the varied strategies
the disciplinary content and
and resources that may be used to
the varied strategies and
engage learners in the target
resources that may be used to
population with that content
engage learners in the target
population with that content
show little consideration of the
nature of learners in the target
·
demonstrate a nuanced
population
understanding of the nature of
learners in the target
show little understanding of the
population
various contexts that impact learning
provide few details and examples
exhibit substantial reliance on vague
generalities and clichés
are somewhat clear and include
some major grammatical and/or
usage errors
·
exhibit a deep understanding
of the various contexts that
impact learning
·
provide detailed descriptions
and numerous specific, vivid
examples
·
avoid vague generalities and
clichés
149
7a. Data derived from the Assessment
The data below has been reinterpreted from an original four point scale which was used to score
data Fall 2012, Spring 2013, and Summer 2013. The scale was originally “Poor”, “Marginal”, “Competent”, and “Exemplary”. The score of “Marginal” was converted to “Met with Weakness” and “Competent” and “Exemplary” were combined to create “Target”.
ALL PROGRAMS COMBINED (excluding M.Ed. C&I Reading and M.Ed. C&I Digital
Literacy)
Summary Analysis Table (n= 11 )
Fall 2012
Criteria
Not Met
Met with Weakness
Target
Content Knowledge
7
3
0
Application of Content
Knowledge
9
4
0
Raw Data Table
Fall 2012
Candidate
Content Knowledge
Application of
Knowledge
Overall score
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
4
3
0
1
1
4
2
2
4
5
2
2
4
6
1
1
2
150
7
1
1
2
8
0
1
1
9
1
1
2
10
1
1
2
11
0
1
1
Summary Analysis Table (n= 9)
Spring 2013
Criteria
Not Met
Met with Weakness
Target
Content Knowledge
0
5
4
Application of Content
Knowledge
0
4
5
Raw Data Table
Spring 2013
Candidate
Content Knowledge
Application of
Knowledge
Overall score
1
4
4
4
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
151
5
4
3
4
6
3
3
3
7
3
4
4
8
3
4
3
9
3
4
3
Raw Data Table
Summer 2013
Criteria
Not Met
Met with Weakness
Target
Content Knowledge
0
1
3
Application of Content
Knowledge
0
0
4
Raw Data Table
Summer 2013
Candidate
Content Knowledge
Application of
Knowledge
Overall score
1
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
152
Key Assessment #1 – Summative Program Evaluation - Reading and Digital Literacy
Concentrations
Described here is the M.Ed. C&I concentration in Reading and Digital Literacy. These
concentrations were designed as online programs and approved to address the needs of local,
regional, and national of students seeking these concentrations and certifications.
1b. Brief Description of the Assessment and Its Use for M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction with
Concentrations in Reading and Digital Literacy
The e-portfolio for Assessment 1, Content Knowledge, began in Fall 2012, with the first
C&I/Reading M.Ed. cohort and in Spring 2013 with the first C&I/Digital Literacy cohort. The
TExES domains and competencies for the Master Reading Teacher (MRT) certificate are aligned
to each EDLI course. The e-portfolio for other courses are aligned to course objectives. The eportfolio is a culminating experience and is intended for students to demonstrate they have
achieved the M.Ed. C&I/Reading or Digital Literacy professional objectives. Students must sign
the e-portfolio policy with their advisor during their initial meeting for the Program of Study
(POS) and they add artifacts and reflections during specified courses. The eight courses for the eportfolio follow the POS and consist of four EDLI courses and four non-EDLI courses. The four
EDLI courses are: EDLI 6310 (Emergent Literacy), 6320 (Adolescent Literacy), 6330 (Diverse
Learners), and 6360 (Literacy Assessment). The four non-EDLI courses for C&I/Reading are:
EDFR 6300 (Foundations of Research in Education), EDCI 6334 (Curriculum Development),
and EDCI 6367 (Statistical Methods), and EDFR 6388 (Socio-cultural Foundations of
Education). The four non-EDLI courses for the Digital Literacy Specialization are EDTC 6340,
6341, 6342, and EDCI 7334. It is beneficial to students if professors allow at least two artifacts
and two accompanying reflections per course, but only one of each is required per course. To
complete the requirements for the M.Ed. C&I/Reading or Digital Literacy program, students
must successfully present and defend their e-portfolio as a culminating evaluation after
completion of all coursework, or during the last semester of coursework.
2b. How this Assessment Aligns with NCTE Standards
Assessment 1 demonstrates proficiencies in 4 Curriculum and Instruction standards:, 2Knowledge of Instruction, 3- Knowledge of Content, 4 – Knowledge of Students, and 7Professional Practices. The chart below illustrates the performances that fulfill the C&I
standards. This assessment is also aligned to three of four core concepts in the College of
Education Conceptual Framework: Interrelatedness, Inquiry, and Pedagogical Leadership.
153
Artifact:
Criterion
Curriculum & Instruction
COE
Standards
Conceptual Framework
(Format and length) Professional Standard 7
Practices: Follows professional
guidelines and demonstrates
commitment and effort toward the
profession.
Pedagogical Leadership
Knowledge of Content: Makes
Standard 3
deep and appropriate disciplinary
connections.
Inquiry
E-portfolio Reflection:
Criterion
Unacceptable (1)
Acceptable (2)
(Format and length) Professional
Practices: Follows professional
guidelines and demonstrates
commitment and effort toward the
profession.
Standard 7
Pedagogical Leadership
(Written conventions)
Standard 7
Pedagogical Leadership
Standard 3
Inquiry
Professional Practices: Demonstrates
high standards for professional
writing.
(Connections to Master Reading
Teacher domains and competencies
for EDLI classes or to course
objectives for EDCI classes)
Knowledge of Content: Makes deep
and appropriate disciplinary
connections.
154
(Reflects on children’s learning) Standard 4
Knowledge of Students: Demonstrates
a keen awareness of children’s learning.
Interrelatedness
(Reflection on applications to
teaching) Knowledge of Instruction:
Connects the artifact to her/his own
instructional practices in terms of
planning, implementing, and
evaluating instruction.
Standard 2
Inquiry, Interrelatedness
Reflection on applications to
administrative experience or
leadership: Professional Practices:
Applies the artifact to her/his own
leadership in an educational setting.
Standard 7
Interrelatedness, Pedagogical
Leadership
3b. Brief Analysis of Data Findings.
This concentration does not currently have graduates. Defense of E-portfolios is expected Spring
2015.
4b. Interpretation of Data Findings
This concentration does not currently have graduates. Defense of E-portfolios is expected Spring
2015.
155
ATTACHMENT
Assessment #1 – E-portfolio Artifacts and Reflections
5b. Full Description of E-Portfolio Assessment Tool
Students who begin the M.Ed. C&I/Reading Program, non-thesis option, will complete the eportfolio. Students will submit (and possibly resubmit) applicable portfolio artifacts and
reflections during each course to the professor of record, who will determine due dates based on
the assignment calendar. The eight courses for the e-portfolio will follow the POS and will
consist of four EDLI courses and four non-EDLI courses. It is the student’s responsibility to inform the professor of record orally and through email that the student is in the C&I/Reading
M.Ed. program and that the student needs to complete at least one e-portfolio artifact and
accompanying reflection in Tk20. In case of extenuating circumstances, a professor may decide
to grant permission to extend the submission or resubmission deadline. No artifact or reflection
can be submitted or resubmitted after the course finishes; if a student gets to the end of the
program and does not have the required 85% score for the 12 artifacts and reflections of her/his
choice for the initial cut-off and then a score of 85% for the 6 artifacts and reflections for the
final defense, the student will not be allowed to redo artifacts or reflections at that time. The
professor of record for the particular artifacts and reflections must score all artifacts and
reflections in Tk20 within two weeks after the scheduled date of course finals.
Students will receive percentage scores on their artifacts in each course. Artifacts will be scored
in Tk20 using the following criteria:
·
·
·
Unacceptable/not met (1 point): The artifact had major problems in at least one area:
detail, demonstrated effort and thought, following all directions, organization and
neatness, application of course content, appropriateness, and correctness.
Acceptable/met with weakness (2 points) Follows most directions, demonstrates effort,
applies most course content, and is mostly correct.
Met/target (3 points): Includes much detail, demonstrates much effort and thought,
follows all directions, is organized and neat, successfully applies course content, and is
completely appropriate and correct.
In the Tk20 system, artifacts are scored on a 3 point scale:
1 = less than 80% (unacceptable/not met);
2 = 80-89% (acceptable/met with weakness); and
3 = 90-100% (fully met/target).
The scoring rubric for reflections is on a scale of 1 to 3, using the same conversion:
·
1 = less than 80% (not met/improvement needed);
156
·
2 = 80-89% (met with weakness/ developing); and
·
3 = 90-100% (met/mastery).
6b. Defense of the E-portfolio (Grading Scheme)
To complete the requirements for the M.Ed. C&I/Reading program, students must successfully
present and defend their e-portfolio as a culminating evaluation after completion of all coursework, or
during the last semester of coursework/
Students are allowed to defend their e-portfolio one more time if they do not pass their defense the
first time. To complete the requirements for the M.Ed. C&I/Reading program, they must pass the
second defense within a year after they initially apply for graduation. Also, the extension for a second
attempt to defend the e-portfolio must be done within the 7-year time limit for completing the degree.
A student must have a combined average score of 85% (2.55/3) for five artifacts and five reflections
(10 total) to apply for graduation; these documents must be from a range of EDLI and non-EDLI
courses specified in this document (III.A). It is the students’ responsibility to calculate the average of these 10 items before then to determine if the 85% average minimum has been met and if a range of
EDLI and non-EDLI documents are selected. The Graduate Program Reading Coordinator must
receive the student’s email, in which the student specifies the 10 items selected, as well as which courses go with each artifact or reflection. Calculations for these courses and documents will be also
verified by professors at this time. For the actual defense, the student must select the best artifacts and
reflections to present and discuss (six total) from a range of EDLI courses and non-EDLI courses in
the student’s POS to equal at least an average of 85%. For any part of the process delineated in IV.E.,
students may mix and match the six artifacts and reflections or may choose to defend reflections that
correspond with artifacts. If they choose reflections that do not match with artifacts, they still must be
prepared to discuss the relationship of an artifact to a reflection and vice-versa. No artifact or
reflection may be selected in any part of this process if it does not have a score of at least a 2 (out of a
3 maximum score).
Students have to submit the application to graduate, apply to defend their e-portfolio, and pay any
applicable fee determined by the UTB Graduate Office.
Students will defend their e-portfolios to at least three professors in the Teaching, Learning, and
Innovation Department and the Language, Literacy, and Intercultural Studies Department. At least
three faculty members must be in agreement that the student passed the defense for the student to
complete the requirements for the M.Ed. in C&I/Reading. If there is a disagreement on a pass or fail,
a neutral party will be asked to decide.
For the e-portfolio defense, each student will present the six applicable artifacts and reflections As
part of the defense, the student will also explain what was learned related to each artifact and
reflection and must demonstrate an understanding of how the artifacts and reflections connect to
course objectives (for non-EDLI courses) or MRT standards (for EDLI courses). The student will
explain in detail and will provide examples of how the skills and knowledge acquired in completing
the portfolio will be applied in an educational setting. Lastly, the student will describe in detail what
was learned as a professional educator in completing the portfolio. Students will be evaluated on a
157
pass/fail basis based on following directions, demonstrated effort, and a demonstrated mastery of the
coursework represented in their selections.
Professors in the non-EDLI courses will have set artifacts matching their course objectives. This
table is aligned to Master Reading Teacher (MRT) domains and competencies.
Domain I
Comp 1 (oral
language)
EDLI course for
artifact and
reflection
6310
Assignment
MRT practice test (objective section and case study essay) – all facets of
assignment
6330
Impact on Student (final draft)
6360
Early Literacy Standardized Test Analysis
Comp 2 (phonological 6310
& phonemic
6360
awareness)
MRT practice test (objective section and case study essay) – all facets of
assignment
Early Literacy Standardized Test Analysis
Comp 3 (alphabetic
principle)
6310
MRT practice test (objective section and case study essay) – all facets of
assignment
6360
Early Literacy Standardized Test Analysis
Comp 4 (phonics)
6310
MRT practice test (objective section and case study essay) – all facets of
assignment
6360
6360
Case Study Summary (spelling test and oral reading assessments relate
best)
Early Literacy Standardized Test Analysis
Domain II
Comp 5 (fluency at
word and paragraph
level)
6310
MRT practice test (objective section and case study essay) – all facets of
assignment
6360
Case Study Summary
6360
Early Literacy Standardized Test Analysis
Comp 6 (vocab. &
6310
reading comp.)
6320
MRT practice test (objective section and case study essay) – all facets of
assignment
Literacy Strategy 1: Think Aloud
6360
Case Study Summary
6360
Early Literacy Standardized Test Analysis
158
Comp 7 (w’g & concepts of print)
6310
MRT practice test (objective section and case study essay) – all facets of
assignment
6360
Case Study Summary
6360
Early Literacy Standardized Test Analysis
Domain III
Comp 8 (design and
grouping)
6310
Final draft of a Prezi (www.prezi.com) to the EDLI 6310 class: three models
and corresponding theories, and a book, picture, and video to represent
each model
6320
Viewing and Representing and Listening and Representing (Projects IA
and IB)
6330
Lesson Plan (all parts)
6330
Impact on Student (final draft)
6360
Lesson plan (completed lesson plan format, materials and resources,
verifications, and evaluation
Comp 9 (assess)
6310
MRT practice test (objective section and case study essay) – all facets of
assignment
6310
Action Research (Final Draft)
6330
Impact on Student (final draft)
6360
Early Literacy Standardized Test Analysis
6360
Case Study Summary
Domain IV
Comp 10 (ELLs)
6310
MRT practice test (objective section and case study essay) – all facets of
assignment
6320
6330
Viewing and Representing and Listening and Representing (Projects IA
and IB)
6330
Impact on Student (final draft)
Lesson Plan
Comp 11 (SPED,
including dyslexia)
6310
MRT practice test (objective section and case study essay) – all facets of
assignment
6320
6330
Viewing and Representing and Listening and Representing (Projects IA
and IB)
6330
Impact on Student (final draft)
Lesson Plan
Domain V
159
Comp 12 (collaborate) 6310
Comp 13
(professional
development)
Give each other feedback on the MRT case study section
6310
Professional Development Workshop
6320
Guthrie and Davis; Kohn (How to Create Nonreaders); Pavoretti
(Accelerated Reader). Summarize the articles and explain how you can
influence teachers and administrators regarding the studies’ findings on reading motivation.
6310
MRT practice test (objective section and case study essay) – all facets of
assignment
6310
Professional Development Workshop
6360
Based on a required reading: 1) Discuss why it is important for language
arts teachers to enjoy reading, writing, and diverse digital technologies for
aesthetic and efferent reasons. 2) Discuss why is it important for literacy
leaders to influence children and parents to enjoy reading, writing, and
technology for life-long learning. 3) Discuss how you can mentor other
teachers to be positive reading, writing, and technology role-models in
st
schools and communities so they can help children to develop 21 Century
skills and knowledge. Please use applicable page numbers from the
required reading throughout your answers.
Scoring Rubric for the E-portfolio Artifact
Criterion
(Format and length)
Professional Practices:
Follows professional
guidelines and
demonstrates commitment
and effort toward the
profession. (Standard 7)
Unacceptable (1)
Acceptable (2)
The artifact had major
Follows most directions and
problems in at least one
demonstrates effort.
area: detail, demonstrated
effort and thought, following
all directions, or organization
and neatness
Knowledge of Content:
Inadequate application of
Makes deep and appropriate course content,
disciplinary connections.
inappropriate, or incorrect
content.
(Standard 3)
Target (3)
Includes much detail,
demonstrates much effort
and thought, follows all
directions and is organized
and neat.
applies most course content Successfully applies course
adequately and is mostly
content, and is completely
correct in terms of content. appropriate and correct in
terms of content.
160
Scoring Rubric for the E-portfolio Reflection
(Note: A reflection using the specified format must accompany each artifact.)
Criterion
Unacceptable (1)
Acceptable (2)
(Format and length)
Professional Practices:
Follows professional
guidelines and
demonstrates commitment
and effort toward the
profession. (Standard 7)
May not follow correct
Follows correct format, but
format. It is too brief to meet not consistently. It is four
acceptable criteria.
paragraphs, but the
paragraphs are less than
four sentences.
(Written conventions)
Is not well-written, with
errors in spelling,
punctuation, grammar and
syntax.
Professional Practices:
Demonstrates high
standards for professional
writing.
Target (3)
Follows correct format. It is
at least four paragraphs,
with at least four to five
sentences per paragraph.
Is generally well-written, with Is well-written with good flow
some errors in spelling,
and is free from errors in
punctuation, grammar and spelling, punctuation,
syntax.
grammar and syntax.
(Standard 7)
(Connections to Master
Reading Teacher domains
and competencies for EDLI
classes or to course
objectives for EDCI classes)
Does not connect the artifact Minimally connects the
to a competency (EDLI
artifact to a competency
classes) or to the course
(EDLI classes) or to the
objectives (EDCI classes). course objectives (EDCI
classes).
Explicitly connects the
artifact to a competency (for
EDLI classes) or is
appropriately related to the
course objectives (EDCI
classes).
Does not provide reflection Minimally reflects on what
about what was learned in was learned in completing
completing the artifact.
the artifact with some
reference to the importance
to children’s learning.
Reflects on what was
learned in completing the
artifact and provides specific
examples of the importance
to children’s learning.
Does not reflect on how the
skills and abilities acquired
in completing the artifact will
be applied as a teacher in
an educational setting.
Provides extensive reflection
on how the skills and
abilities acquired in
completing the artifact will
be applied as a teacher in
an educational setting.
Knowledge of Content:
Makes deep and appropriate
disciplinary connections.
(Standard 3)
(Reflects on children’s learning) Knowledge of
Students: Demonstrates a
keen awareness of
children’s learning. (Standard 4)
(Reflection on applications
to teaching) Knowledge of
Instruction: Connects the
artifact to her/his own
instructional practices in
terms of planning,
implementing, and
evaluating instruction.
Minimally reflects on how
the skills and abilities
acquired in completing the
artifact will be applied as a
teacher in an educational
setting.
(Standard 2)
161
Reflection on applications to
administrative experience or
leadership: Professional
Practices: Applies the
artifact to her/his own
leadership in an educational
setting.
Does not reflect on how the
skills and abilities acquired
in completing the artifact will
be applied as a leader in an
educational setting.
Minimally reflects on how
the skills and abilities
acquired in completing the
artifact will be applied as a
leader in an educational
setting.
Provides extensive reflection
on how the skills and
abilities acquired in
completing the artifact will
be applied as a leader in an
educational setting.
(Standard 7)
7b. Data derived from the Assessment
This concentration does not currently have graduates. Defense of E-portfolios is expected Spring
2015.
Attachment # 4
Key Assessment #2 – Curriculum Project Proposal
EDCI 7334
1. Brief Description of the Assessment and Use in the Program
This assessment takes place in EDCI 7334, which is a required curriculum class for all
concentrations in the Curriculum and Instruction master level program. For this assessment,
students write a proposal for a curricular design project aimed at an identified need in a targeted
learning community. For this project you will be proposing a curricular or co-curricular product
or process designed to meet an educational need –as identified through research, and theory
relevant to curriculum development—of the particular learning upon which you choose to aim
your curricular project.
2. How the Assessment Aligns with C&I Standards
This assessment demonstrates proficiencies in the following Curriculum and Instruction
standards:
1- Knowledge of Curriculum; 3- Knowledge of Content; 4- Knowledge of Students; 5Knowledge of Research; Standard 6- Knowledge of Assessment; and 7- Professional Practices.
162
The chart below illustrates the performances that fulfill the C&I standards. This assessment is
also aligned to College of Education Conceptual Framework.
Curriculum & Instruction
COE
Standards
Conceptual Framework
Criteria
1. Contextual Factors
C&I Standards 1, 4, 6
COE – Interculturalism,
Interrelatedness, Inquiry
2. Curricular Aims
C&I Standards 1, 4, 6
COE – Interculturalism,
Interrelatedness, Inquiry
3. Goals and Objectives
C&I Standards 1, 4, 6
COE – Interculturalism,
Interrelatedness, Inquiry
4. Assessment
C&I Standards 1, 4, 6
COE – Interculturalism,
Interrelatedness, Inquiry
5. Theoretical and Practical
Rationale
C&I Standards 1, 4, 6,
COE – Interculturalism,
Interrelatedness, Inquiry
6. Mode of Inquiry/Data Source
C&I Standards 1, 4, 6
COE – Interculturalism,
Interrelatedness, Inquiry
7. Professional Significance
C&I Standards 1, 4, 6
COE – Interculturalism,
Interrelatedness, Inquiry
3. Brief Analysis of Data Findings
163
C&I Standards Achieved
Key Assessment 1
2010
2011
2012
(N = 8)
(N = 9)
(N = 26)
Percentage of candidates
Percentage of candidates
Percentage of candidates
scoring Met with Weakness & scoring Met with Weakness & scoring Met with Weakness &
Target
Target
Target
Contextual Factors
88
100
100
Curricular Aims
100
78
100
Goals and Objectives
63
89
100
Assessment
75
78
65
Theoretical and Practical
Rationale
88
78
92
Mode of Inquiry/Data Source
38
100
100
Professional Significance
88
78
100
4. Interpretation of Data Findings
The data show the criterion assessment seems to be low. This however, may be an artificially
low as the older assignment did not stress assessment, rather curriculum evaluation only.
However, based upon these findings changes have been made to begin in Fall 2012. Data also
indicate that, across semesters, students struggle most with criteria of performance associated
with assessments and goals and objectives and seemed to consistently meet standards related to
knowledge of students and knowledge of curriculum. Although theoretical and practical rationale
is guided by readings and discussions and there is an apparent trend toward improvement,
courses need to continue to stress readings that are appropriate and current to curricular practice.
Assessment #2 – Curriculum Project Proposal
5. Full Description of the Assignment
Each proposal must be double-spaced, of eight pages long, and must be submitted electronically
through Tk20 and blackboard. Each proposal must fully address the following categories,
preferably in order and clearly labeled by the subheadings provided.
1.
Project Title
164
2. Background
Identify and discuss the problem or question to which your curricular projects
responds.
Discuss how you identified this problem or question?
Discuss the specific social/historical/cultural contexts out of which this problem
or question emerged?
Identify and describe the particular learning community at which your curricular
project is aimed
3. Project Description and Aims
Briefly describe your curricular project
Discuss its overall purpose in relation to needs of the specific learning
community at which your project is aimed Detail exactly what you will deliver
in terms of the longer term goals of your curricular project.
Thinking in terms of short-term goals, detail exactly what you will turn-in to me
by the end of the semester and in what form you will deliver it.
Project Goals, Objectives and Assessment
a. Break down the overarching aims into measurable goals and objectives, describe
b. Develop a coherent assessment plan, detailing how you will assess these goals
and objectives and discuss the criteria you will use to evaluate your curricular
product or process, as a whole, in relation to your articulated aims.
7. Theoretical rational
4.
Grounded in course readings, additional literature and research argue for the
significance of this project in terms of curriculum development and educational
practice.
8. Mode of Inquiry
4) Outline the mode of curriculum inquiry and or research methods you will use to
guide the design, development and assessment of your project.
5) Argue for why this mode of inquiry and these methods are appropriate for your
particular curricular project
9. Detailed time-line
a. Outline the long-range time-line for the entirety of your curriculum project
b. Provide a specific time-line for the part of the project you will complete and turn
it by the end of the semester. This should include specific tasks related to
specific objectives and detail by when they will be complete and if you are
planning to work in a team, who will be responsible for them
c. Briefly argue for the logic of your time-line, long-term and short-term
3. Materials/Resources:
a. Identify resources that you need to complete the project and relevant estimated
costs
b. Argue for the resource prudence of your project
4. Abstract
165
Background: a simple opening sentence or two placing the work in context.
Aims or purposes: One or two sentences giving the purpose of the work.
Method(s): One or two sentences explaining how you produced your project
One or two sentences expressing the significance of the work and to whom it
might have significance
Reference list-APA style
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. Grading Rubric for Curriculum Project
Not met: 0-1
Met: 2-3
Target: 4
Score
CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
The problem or question is not
The problem or question to which the project
articulated and/or the way in which responds and the way in which it was
the problem or question was
identified are clearly articulated and there is
identified is not articulated and there some connection between the proposed
is no evidence of the relevance of project and a specific learning community
the curricular project to a specific
learning community
The problem or
question to which the
project responds and
the way in which it was
identified are clearly
articulated and
demonstrate the
relevance of the
curricular project to a
specific learning
community in a
compelling way using
theory and practice
CURRICULAR AIMS
The author’s curricular purpose and Proposal displays depth of thought, but the Proposal displays depth
aims are vague or elusive and
author’s curricular purpose or aims are vague of thought, with a clear
inappropriate for the targeted
but appropriate for the targeted learning
and creative elucidation
learning community.
community
of author’s curricular purpose and aims which
are appropriate for the
targeted learning
community
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Goals and objectives are
inappropriate for the project aims
and difficult to assess and/or
evaluate
Goals that are connected to aims and
Goals that directly
objectives related to goals are addressed but support aims and
need more development in detail and design measurable objectives
relating directly to goals
are addressed in the
appropriate form, are
relevant and compelling
ASSESSMENT
166
Assessment plan is vague and
incoherent
Mode of assessment and criteria are
appropriate and are related to aims, goals
and objectives, but further development in
detail and design is required in order to
constitute an appropriate, coherent
assessment plan.
Presents a coherent
assessment plan in which
the mode of assessment and
criteria are clearly articulated
and are compatible with aims
and explicitly linked to goals
and objectives and are
appropriate in cognitive
complexity
THEORETICAL & PRACTICAL RATIONALE
The theoretical framework is
incoherent and/or incompatible with
the problem and does not
adequately situate itself within
theories relevant to curriculum
development
The theoretical framework is coherent and
compatible with the premise but is organized
in such a way that it is ineffective in providing
support for the problem and situating itself
within theories relevant to curriculum
development
The theoretical framework
is situated within theories
relevant to curriculum
development is coherent
and compatible with the
curricular problem which
is being addressed, and
supports the premise in a
compelling and thorough
way
MODE of INQUIRY/ DATA SOURCE
Description of data source and Description of data source and process through Description of data
process through which data
which data would be analyzed utilizes data
source and process
would be analyzed is addressed sources and methods of analysis appropriate to through which data would
in inadequate detail and does not curriculum inquiry and/or program evaluation but be analyzed is detailed
utilize data sources and methods needs to be developed with further detail and
and logical and utilizes
of analysis appropriate to
design
data sources and
curriculum inquiry and/or program
methods of analysis
evaluation
appropriate to curriculum
inquiry and/or program
evaluation
PROFESSIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
The proposal does an
inadequate job of articulating
the significance of the
curricular project in terms of a
target learning community and
is unsupported by relevant
scholarly literature as well as
professional expectations
The educational significance of proposed
curricular project is connected to the targeted
learning community but is not adequately
supported by scholarly literature relevant to
curriculum design and development and
professional expectations
The educational
significance of
proposed curricular
project is highly
compatible with the
identified need of the
targeted learning
community and
supported by scholarly
literature relevant to
curriculum design and
development as well as
professional
expectations
7. Data derived from the Assessment
167
Data for 2010 (N= 8)
Criteria
Not Met
Met with Weakness
Target
Contextual Factors
1
7
0
Curricular Aims
0
8
0
Goals and Objectives
3
5
0
Assessment
2
6
0
Theoretical and Practical Rational
1
7
0
Mode of Inquiry/Data Source
5
3
0
Professional Significance
1
7
0
Not Met
Met with Weakness
Target
Contextual Factors
0
9
0
Curricular Aims
0
7
2
Goals and Objectives
1
8
0
Assessment
2
7
0
Theoretical and Practical Rational
2
7
0
Mode of Inquiry/Data Source
0
9
0
Professional Significance
1
7
2
Not Met
Met with Weakness
Target
Contextual Factors
0
20
6
Curricular Aims
0
9
17
Goals and Objectives
0
19
7
Data for 2011 (N= 9)
Criteria
Data for 2012 (N= 26)
Criteria
168
Assessment
9
17
0
Theoretical and Practical Rational
2
14
10
Mode of Inquiry/Data Source
0
16
10
Professional Significance
0
13
13
169
Attachment #5
Assessment #3 – Application of knowledge in the field - field experience
EDLI 6330 (M.Ed. C&I Reading and M.Ed. C&I Digital Literacy)
Mentoring (all other programs)
1. Brief Description of the Assessment and Use in the Program
Candidates in all programs participate in mentoring during their course work. Each program has
the option to choose when the students will complete this requirement. Assessment 3 assesses the
design of mentoring strategies based on the program of study and/or area(s) of need. In addition
the mentor is assessed on 1) the design of mentoring strategies to address pedagogical and
content knowledge; 2) the decision on what artifacts the mentee must produce to gauge the
mentee’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions;; and 3) an assessment of the mentee’s knowledge skills and dispositions.
2. How the Assessment Aligns with C&I Standards
Curriculum & Instruction
COE
Standards
Conceptual Framework
Criteria
Designing Mentoring Strategies C&I Standards 1, 2
Based on Mentoring Situation
COE knowledge in practice,
pedagogical leadership
Developing Mentoring
C&I Standards 3
Strategies with a Pedagogical
and Content Knowledge Focus
COE knowledge in practice,
pedagogical leadership
Deciding on Artifacts to Gauge C&I Standards 4
Mentee Knowledge, Skills, and
Dispositions
COE knowledge in practice,
pedagogical leadership
Developing Assessment of
C&I Standards 4
Mentee Knowledge, Skills, and
Dispositions
COE knowledge in practice,
pedagogical leadership
3. Brief Analysis of Data Findings
170
This concentration does not currently have graduates. Assignment was created too late in Fall
2012 to be administered. First administration was Spring 2012. A more detailed explanation will
be given below. Informally, candidates (N=42) were involved in mentoring activities. They
submitted PD descriptions, agendas, and sign-in sheets.
Criterion
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Fall 2013
(N = 0)
(N = 23)
(N = 0)
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
candidates scoring Met candidates scoring Met candidates scoring Met
with Weakness & Target with Weakness & Target with Weakness & Target
Design Mentoring Strategies Based on
Mentoring Situation
Developing Mentoring Strategies with a
Pedagogical and Content Knowledge Focus
Deciding on Artifacts to Gauge Mentee
Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Developing Assessment of Mentee
Knowledge, Skills, and Dispossitions
0
60
0
0
60
0
0
60
0
0
60
0
4. Interpretation of Data Findings
This concentrations in Reading and Digital Literacy do not currently have graduates. Assignment
was created too late to be administered for Fall 2012.
The administration in Spring 2013 indicates a that one third of the students in the concentrations
in Science Education and Elementary Mathematics and Science are lacking sufficient knowledge
to implement appropriate mentoring. This assessment is very revealing because for the past ten
years, these programs have been involved in mentoring activities. The faculty in these areas will
need to ratchet up support for student mentoring activities.
171
Assessment # 3 – Application of knowledge in the field - field experience
5. Full Description of the Assignment
As a candidate in a program in M.Ed. C&I you are required to complete one semester of
mentoring. You may choose who you will mentor and what your mentoring topic/design will be
however you will be required to keep a portfolio of your meetings and artifacts.
You will need to record in your portfolio the following items:
1) the design of mentoring strategies based on the program of study and/or area(s) of
need.
2) the design of mentoring strategies to address pedagogical and content knowledge;
3) the decision on what artifacts the mentee must produce to gauge the mentee’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions
an assessment of the mentee’s knowledge skills and dispositions. As a candidate you will need to demonstrate how your mentoring has impacted the learning of
your mentees. To that end, select three mentees as subjects for three “case studies”: one of a student who has strong knowledge of content, one who has average understanding and one who
is struggling with content knowledge and skills. Each case study should include the following
elements, as well as a piece of work from the beginning and end of the semester which
demonstrates the student’s knowledge. As you work with your mentees, keep notes on what was involved in the activities you created
for your learners, the student’s interaction with the material, and your interaction with the student. You will also need to collect data such as running records of work samples and
activities that your students have produced. Please include the data at the end of the paper. Your
final project should include the activities and artifacts created by you for your subject as well as
the outcome results of your mentees.
Your final paper should include your 3 mentee profiles, explanations of why you created the
particular artifacts for each mentee and how these activities were appropriate for your cases,
assessment results, data interpretation and analysis, references, and artifacts. Please see the
rubric for specific details. The final paper should be completed in the current APA format.
Submit your completed assignment to the instructor and upload your document to TK20.
172
6a. Grading Rubric for Case Study for M.Ed. C&I concentration in Reading and Digital
Literacy
Assessment 3 - Rubric for Case Study: “Assessing Graduate Student Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions”
Criterion
Comment/Grade
Description of the Three Students and Context:
·
·
·
·
Include school and classroom demographic data (city, student population, TEA data
about school, grade level, subject area focus for this project, etc.)
Pseudonym and matching student number (1-low, 2-av., or 3-high), and demographic
info. for each student
Each student’s history (learning/personal/hobbies and interests)
Why did you select each student?
What are your goals for each student?
173
Pedagogical Strategies:
What pedagogical strategies have you tried with these three students before this
project? Why didn’t the strategies work for each child you selected? What specific content did you teach?
· What new or alternative pedagogical strategies did you use? (Name and describe the
strategies; this is a good section to include references.)
· Why did you select these pedagogical strategies with these three students? You can
add references here to justify your use of these strategies.
· What was the student asked to do in each assignment? (Explain and attach the written
assignment you distributed.)
· How did you assess each assignment?
· How did the population you selected do with these strategies? (Explain whether the
strategies were successful and why/why not.)
Analysis and Interpretation:
What does each student’s work from the beginning, during, and end products reveal about their learning?
What does each student’s work reveal about the pedagogical strategies you used?
Discuss the before and after work in terms of improvement for each of the three
children. What evidence do you have that they improved?
What are your “next steps” with these three students you selected?
What are your recommendations for stakeholders (staff at your school and parents)?
What have you learned about curriculum (your content area) and pedagogy (teaching
methods and relationships with students) from this assignment? You can add
references here.
Connect what you learned from the strategy implementation for all three students vis-àvis course content. Explicitly mention authors and specific course concepts and use
references.
Reference list:
The reference list must match the citations in the text, is complete, correct, and follows the most
recent APA style. References are no older than seven years old. At least five references are
provided and at least two references focus on strategies to help children’s knowledge or skills.
Appendix - Attach Each Student’s Work (Before, During, and After):
Clearly label each sample with the student pseudonym and number (1-low, 2-av., or 3high), name of the work, description of the work, and date the student did the work.
The before, during, and after work should be done in chronological order for each
student
174
Suggested Format for Appendix
Please use this table or organized, labeled files to demonstrate before, during, and after work for
the three students you chose:
Student work samples to
demonstrate content area
knowledge and skills
Student 3 (high)
Student 2 (average)
Student 1 (low)
Student work
Student work
Student work
Name and description of
student work
Name and description of
student work
Name and description of
student work
Student work
Student work
Student work
Name and description of
student work
Name and description of
student work
Name and description of
student work
During (student writing, art, Student work
labs, etc., to demonstrate
Name and description of
the strategies you
student work
implemented)
Student work
Student work
Name and description of
student work
Name and description of
student work
After
Student work
Student work
Student work
Name and description of
student work
Name and description of
student work
Name and description of
student work
Before
Rubric for Impact on Student Learning (C&I M.Ed. concentration in Reading and Digital
Literacy, Assessment 3)
175
Target – 3
Description Includes appropriate, detailed
of the Three classroom/school demographic data
Mentees and
Context
Met with Weakness – 2
Not Acceptable - 1
Content is mostly accurate
and includes some related
background or contextual
information.
Content is not accurate and
does not include related
background or contextual
information.
Especially rich and detailed description of
each selected mentee.
Good representation of the
content, demonstrating
familiarity with the subject
Content is accurate, and includes relevant
and distinctive background or contextual
information, which exhibits candidate’s
strong mastery of the theme
(Must do all adequately)
Acceptable description of
Pedagogical Excellent description of prior strategies
Strategies used and analysis of problems with these prior strategies used and
analysis of problems with
attempts
these attempts
Clearly identifies and describes in detail
appropriate strategies that match the
student and context.
Inappropriate or inadequate
description of prior
strategies used and analysis
of problems
Identifies and describes
appropriate strategies that
match the student and
context.
Does not identify or
describe appropriate
strategies that match the
student and context.
Superficial justification of
Describes appropriately and in detail how strategies to match the
the strategies were assessed and how the content area
student did
(Must do all adequately)
Little/no justification for
strategies to match the
content area
Excellent justification of strategies to
match the content area
176
Analysis and Exceptional insight into student learning
Interpretation
Some insight into student
learning
No insight into student
learning
Rich and analytic discussion of effects of
Little discussion of effects
strategies on student learning and analysis Superficial/incomplete
discussion of effects of
of strategies on student
strategies on student learning learning
Appropriate and detailed demonstration
regarding impact on student learning and
also the candidate’s learning, next steps, Appropriate demonstration
regarding impact on student
and recommendations to stakeholders
learning and also the
candidate’s learning, next steps, and recommendations
Connects appropriately, explicitly, to stakeholders
and in detail what the candidate
learned with the strategy
implementation for all three
students vis-à-vis course content.
Inappropriate or incomplete
demonstration of impact
on student learning,
candidate’s learning, next steps, and
recommendations to
stakeholders
Appropriately connects
Inappropriately or
what the candidate
learned vis-à-vis course incompletely connects
what the candidate
content.
learned to course
(Must do all adequately) content.
References
Reference list matches the citations in the
text, is complete, correct, and follows the
most recent APA style. References are no
older than seven years old. At least five
references are provided and at least two
references focus on strategies to help
children’s knowledge or skills.
Appropriate and complete
Inappropriate and
reference list. At least one
incomplete reference list.
reference focuses on
strategies to help children’s No reference focuses on
knowledge or skills. (Must do strategies to help children’s knowledge or skills.
all adequately)
Appendix:
Student
Work
Attached
Appropriate, organized before, during
(strategies), and after work done by each
of the children attached and clearly
labeled at the end of the paper
Appropriate before, during
(strategies), and after work
done by each of the three
children attached
Inappropriate or incomplete
before, during, and after
work done by each of the
three children
177
7a. Data derived from the Assessment for All Concentrations (except concentration in
Reading and Digital Literacy)
Criteria
Target
Met with Weakness
Not Met
Designing Mentoring Strategies
Based on Mentoring Situation
8
6
9
Developing Mentoring Strategies with
a Pedagogical and Content
Knowledge Focus
8
6
9
Deciding on Artifacts to Gauge
Mentee Knowledge, Skills, and
Dispositions
7
7
9
Developing Assessment of Mentee
Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
8
6
9
Data for Spring 2013 (N= 23) Total for all programs.
Target (12-11) Met with Conditions (10-7) Not Met (6-0)
178
Candidate
Score
1
5
2
12
3
11
4
11
5
5
6
11
7
10
8
11
9
7
10
12
11
12
12
9
13
10
14
5
15
5
16
5
17
7
18
10
19
9
20
5
21
9
22
12
23
6
179
Descriptive Narrative for Mentoring Activities
As noted above candidates in Curriculum and Instruction were not assigned a case study to
complete and be assessed for two cycles; however, they were involved in mentoring activities for
two semesters. The data submitted in this report is for twenty-three candidates who took EDCI
6344 during the Spring 2012 semester. Forty-two students enrolled in EDCI 6342 - Models and
Methods in Science Education, EDCI 6344 - Current Issues and Research in Science Education
and EDCI 6343 - Teaching Geometric Concepts were assigned mentoring activities. Each
candidate was assigned to mentor a mentee on their campus or nearby campus on science and/or
mathematics disciplinary or pedagogical content knowledge. They were to provide up to twelve
(12) hours of professional development and assistance to at least three mentees.
The student candidate or mentor was to develop a mentoring schedule and work with mentees on
topics which were relevant to their grade level and need. The the mentors were given a minimum
of 100 hours of professional development over the summer, fall, and spring semesters. The
summer program (Professional Development Institute) provided the bulk of the content that
could be used to deliver the training and mentoring. The summer program provided anywhere
between 40 - 50 hours of professional development. They received an additional twenty-five
hours per semester. By the spring semester, when the mentoring activities were nearing
completion the mentee had received up to 75 hours of training.
The mentors kept logs and agendas of their training sessions and submitted their sign-in sheets
and other documentation for archival purposes. The files were submitted prior to April 2012.
The instructors provide the following reflections as a result of their involvement in mentoring
activities: Few mentors have a clear grasp of the human development, time management and
planning skills required to provide professional development and mentoring. Those mentors
encountering resistance to mentoring activities by some mentees learned to acquire and/or
activate methods for approaching reluctant mentees. No student encountered issues so dire that
they could not complete their mentoring assignment. The instructors noted that some individuals
were primarily givers of information and did not seem to understand the limitations or how far
they could take their training to effect student achievement. The agendas were primarily lists of
topics and did not give a true account of the type of mentoring activities that they undertook. It
was fulfilling to see that sometimes mentors created scenarios and resources that were beyond
the instruction provided at their professional development.
The mentoring process has been implemented for over ten years and has served the purpose of
recruiting new graduate students in to the program. There has been an obvious connection
180
between mentors and future graduate candidates who seek to enter the program and receive
training first hand.
Although the mentoring activity was not implemented for two full cycles, it seems that once it is
included it will reveal a deeper and provide data which should be useful for program
development and recruitment. Obviously, the mentors themselves will benefit from a deeper
scrutiny of their mentoring activities. Students currently enrolled in EDCI 6342 will be
submitting reports for Fall 2013.
6b. Grading Rubric for Case Study for M.Ed. C&I concentration in all other
concentrations (M.Ed. C&I concentrations in Elementary Math and Science; Mathematics
Education, and Science Education; M.Ed. C&I concentrations in Art and Health and
Human Performance)
Assessment 3 - Rubric for Case Study: “Assessing Graduate Student Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions”
Target – 3
Designing
Mentoring
Strategies
Based on
Mentoring
Situation
The graduate student
documents and reflects on
the mentoring situation by
providing well-documented
and detailed descriptions to
design mentoring
strategies.
The graduate student
provides a well-articulated
rationale through a
thorough reflection of the
mentees’ disposition to receive mentoring
interventions.
The mentor has clearly
articulated their
assessment of their
personal level of
knowledge and skills prior
to designing the mentoring
strategies.
Met with Weakness - 2
The graduate student provides
some detail and documentation
of the mentoring situation to
design mentoring strategies.
The graduate student has a
sketchy understanding of their
mentees’ disposition to receive mentoring interventions.
The graduate student has not
reflected with enough depth their
limitations in knowledge and
skills prior to designing the
mentoring strategies.
Not Acceptable - 1 Points
The graduate
student has little
data about the
mentoring
situation to
determine the
design of
mentoring
strategies.
Little or no
thought is given
toward their
knowledge and
skills prior to
designing the
mentoring
strategies.
181
Developing
Mentoring
Strategies with
a Pedagogical
and Content
Knowledge
Focus
Deciding on
Artifacts to
Gauge Mentee
Knowledge,
Skills, and
Dispositions
·
·
·
·
The graduate student has ·
identified and uses the
relevant and distinctive
background, rigor, and
contextual factors that are
to be incorporated in the
design and development of
the mentoring strategies to ·
ensure mastery of the
pedagogical or content
topic or theme.
The graduate student takes
·
into account
misconceptions in
pedagogical and
disciplinary knowledge that
must be overcome through
the mentoring activities.
The graduate student has
taken into account
implementation problems
that may arise by detailing
alternatives.
The graduate student has
identified some of the relevant
and distinctive background,
rigor, or contextual factors that
are to be incorporated in the
design and development of the
mentoring.
The graduate student has a
vague knowledge of
misconceptions in pedagogical
and disciplinary knowledge.
The graduate student has given
cursory thought to account for
implementation problems that
may arise.
·
·
The graduate student has given
superficial or cursory thought
and research prior to making
decisions about the artifacts or
tools needed.
The graduate student has given
some thought about the display
of changes in mentee
knowledge, skills, and
dispositions.
There is some evidence that the
graduate student attempted to
organize the analysis using
some organizational method.
Some evidence exists that the
graduate student is assessing
mentee behaviors to implement
knowledge and skills.
·
The graduate student has
given considerable thought
and has researched the
literature to make decisions
about artifacts or tools
needed to gauge mentee
knowledge, skills, and
dispositions.
The graduate student has
given considerable thought
about how to organize,
describe and display
changes in mentee
knowledge, skills and
dispositions.
The graduate student
should decide on methods
to organize the analysis
using chronological
sequence, thematic
organization, or other
organization methods.
The graduate student
should develop methods
and/or instruments to
assess the mentees
behaviors to implement
knowledge and skills.
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
The graduate
student has not
given much or
any thought
about relevant
and distinctive
background,
rigor, or
contextual
factors in the
design of
mentoring.
The graduate
student has no
knowledge of
misconceptions
or
implementation
programs that
may arise.
Little or no
evidence that
artifacts were
considered to
gauge mentee
knowledge,
skills, and
dispositions..
Little or no
displays are
used to gauge
knowledge,
skills, or
dispositions.
Methodology for
organization or
collection is not
coherent or
absent.
Little or no
evidence that
the mentees
behaviors were
assessed.
182
Developing
·
Assessment of
Mentee
Knowledge,
Skills, and
Dispositions
·
The graduate student
designed a strong plan and
analysis to assess changes
in mentee knowledge,
skills, and dispositions.
The graduate student
designs a metacognitive
strategy to assess mentee
knowledge, skills, and
dispositions.
·
·
The graduate student plans to
provide some insight into how
mentoring will help mentees to
learn and grow.
The graduate student plans
provided superficial/incomplete
discussion (metacognition) to
assess changes in mentoring
strategies.
·
·
Little or no
discussion given
about how the
mentoring
activities
impacted
mentee’s growth.
Reflection
(metacognition)
on mentoring
strategies is not
provided.
Sum of Total
Points
183
Attachment #6
Key Assessment #4 – Research Project
EDCI 6348 (M.Ed. C&I concentrations in Elementary Math and Science; Mathematics
Education, and Science Education)
EDCI 6302 (M.Ed. C&I concentrations in Art and Health and Human Performance)
EDLI 6330 (M.Ed. C&I concentrations in Digital Literacy and Reading)
1. Brief Description of the Assessment and Its Use in the Program
The focus of this assessment is a final draft of a research paper and sharing of the results, which
are required components of every Curriculum and Instruction M.Ed. program toward the end of
their coursework.
The assessment is completed during a required course in the candidate’s specialization;; the assessment is also given a grade upon completion. The course is taken toward the end of their
program.
The assessment is completed in EDCI 6348 - Math and Science Education Project for candidates
enrolled in the M.Ed. C&I Elementary Math and Science, M. Ed. C&I Secondary Math, and
M.Ed. C&I Secondary Science programs. Candidates in M.Ed. C&I concentrations in Art and
Health and Human Performance complete EDCI 6302 - Practitioner Research. Candidates in
M.Ed. C&I concentrations in Digital Literacy and Reading take EDLI 6330.
2. How this Assessment Aligns with NCATE Standards
Assessment 4 demonstrates proficiencies in the four following Curriculum and Instruction
standards: 3- Knowledge of Content; 5- Knowledge of Research; 7- Professional Practices, and 8
– Technology Integration.
The chart below illustrates the performances that fulfill the C&I standards. This assessment is
also aligned to four core concepts in the College of Education Conceptual Framework:
Knowledge of Practice, Inquiry, Professionalism, and Pedagogical Leadership.
184
Criteria
Curriculum & Instruction
COE
Standards
Conceptual Framework
Demonstrates clarity in
C&I Standards 3
synthesizing the candidate’s research study in the
discipline
Knowledge of Content:
C&I Standards 7
Demonstrate knowledge
and skills in pedagogy and
the discipline.
COE knowledge in practice,
pedagogical leadership, inquiry
Knowledge of Research:
C&I Standards 5
Demonstrates knowledge of
research to promote student
learning and to contribute to
the teaching profession.
COE knowledge in practice,
pedagogical leadership, inquiry
Professional Practices:
C&I Standards 7
Demonstrates high
standards from
professional writing.
Integration: Integrates digital C&I Standards 8
technology to share findings
with others
COE knowledge in practice,
pedagogical leadership,
professionalism
Research: Contributes to the C&I Standards 5
teaching profession by
effectively sharing the
research results with others.
COE Knowledge in practice,
pedagogical leadership, inquiry,
professionalism
COE knowledge in practice,
pedagogical leadership
COE knowledge in practice,
pedagogical leadership, inquiry,
professionalism
3. Brief Analysis of Data Findings.
Criterion
2012
2013
2014
(N = 8)
(N = 4)
(N = 0)
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
candidates scoring Met candidates scoring Met candidates scoring Met
with Weakness & Target with Weakness & Target with Weakness & Target
185
Professional Practices: Demonstrates clarity in
synthesizing the candidate’s research study in the discipline
Knowledge of Content: Demonstrate
knowledge and skills in pedagogy and the
discipline.
Knowledge of Research: Demonstrates
knowledge of research to promote student
learning and to contribute to the teaching
profession.
Professional Practices: Demonstrates high
standards for professional writing.
Technology Integration: Integrates digital
technology to share findings with others
Knowledge of Research: Contributes to the
teaching profession by effectively sharing the
research results with others.
100
100
0
100
100
0
100
100
0
100
100
0
100
100
0
100
100
0
4. Interpretation of Data Findings
Toward the end of the program EDCI 6348 - Science and Mathematics Education Project is
capped at seven students per section. This capstone course arrangement allows faculty to closely
monitored and attend to student inquiries. It is very likely that few students may encounter a
situation where they would produce a below target research product. It is obvious that if left
unattended students would score at or below target. The students also are aware that they will
need to produce a product and presentation where other faculty and peers will be invited to
attend. Of course, the faculty will review the process and expectations and set higher standards if
deemed necessary.
186
5a. Description of the Research Project Assessment Tool (EDCI 6302/EDCI 6348)
Overview
The research project is to engage you in writing a research paper and sharing the results with
professionals in your field. This must be based on an education-related research project you have
conducted or that you have almost completed. It could be a project in a school, an action research
project you actually implemented; historical and/or archival research of primary sources;
ethnographies (including auto-ethnographies); systematic program, performance, or exhibit
evaluations, or whatever is appropriate for curriculum and instruction and your program of study,
and that also encompasses the intent of this assessment. A literature review by itself will not be
acceptable because it cannot demonstrate your knowledge and skills in conducting and
interpreting research. You will be required to identify a research question(s), review literature,
develop a methodology, develop results and conclusions, and share the findings with other
professionals in the discipline. This project is an opportunity to apply knowledge gained in
education courses; it should be designed in a way that can be usable by other professionals in
your discipline. This report should be typed using the most appropriate style in your discipline
(e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.).The research paper should be at least 7 pages, double-spaced.
Directions
The project is to consist of the following components:
1. One-page abstract of the project (Abstract usually written at conclusion of project.)
• Should be no more than 250 words describing your project
2. Introduction – including:
• Research topic
• Research question(s) – what question or questions did you investigate?
• Rationale – The rationale should explain the problem and why it is significant
3. Literature Review
• Theoretical framework used for your methodology
• Original research from others that relate to your research
4. Methodology for Project
• Procedures for designing and implementing the project
• Participants, locations, grade-levels, etc.
• Materials required
• Data gathering tools (surveys, assessments, participant observations, etc.)
• Data gathering methods (duration of project, time factors, etc.)
• Data analysis (how you analyzed the data)
5. Results and Interpretation
• Descriptive information of results
• Analysis of results
187
• Interpretation of results
6. Conclusions
• Conclusion
• Implications
• Recommendations
• Future project(s) recommended
7. Bibliography
Submit your completed assignment to the instructor and upload your document to TK20.
5b. Description of the Research Project Assessment Tool (EDLI 6330)
Action Research Impact
The purpose of the action research project is to impact parents, children, and/or staff in a
field setting. Your action research topic should focus on problems regarding developmentally
appropriate instruction and that relates to course content. Select a topic that concerns you and
that you can improve in terms of your students, parents, and/or staff. This part constitutes the
formative or process aspect of your project; the final draft will be the summative or product
element of your work.
Instructions for students
Your action research impact must have these components:
Action Plan.
1) Problem: Explain the SPECIFIC problem, concern, or challenge related to the UTB course
and your classroom or school.
2) Impact: Describe why it matters in your classroom or at your school.
3) Solution: Describe your strategy or treatment to change the condition.
Pre-assessment. Administer the pre-assessment to your participants (students, teachers, and/or
staff). Post actual completed data from high, average, and struggling students or from novice and
veteran teachers. Delete any names of people in any file you upload or turn in. Discuss the
results of this pre-assessment. (How did participants do? What are their current knowledge and
skills? What did you notice? Was this what you expected? Do you need to change the
treatment/intervention to help them more?)
Post-Assessment. Post your answers (not the instrument) to this. Administer the same preassessment to the same participants. Synthesize the results. (How did participants do? What did
you notice? Was this what you expected? Do you see improvement in skills, knowledge, and/or
attitudes? If so, explain in detail. How did your treatment help them? Why?)
188
Submit your completed assignment to the instructor and upload your document to TK20.
6a. Scoring Rubric for the Research Project - EDCI 6348/EDCI 6302
Research Criteria
1.
(Abstract)
Professional Practices:
Demonstrates clarity in
synthesizing the
candidate’s research study in the discipline
Not Met(1)
The abstract does not
convey the topic or problem
within a 250 word maximum
limit.
(Standard 7)
2.
The introduction and
literature review are
inappropriate; they are not
supported theoretically and
Knowledge of Content:
empirically in terms of
Demonstrate knowledge pedagogy and the academic
and skills in pedagogy
discipline.
and the discipline.
(Introduction and
literature review)
Met with Weakness (2)
Met (3)
The abstract provides an
appropriate description of
the research topic,
research questions,
participants, methods
(data gathering and
analysis), findings, and
implications for
professional practice
within a 250 word
maximum limit.
The abstract provides a
clear, concise, correct, and
appropriate description of
the research topic,
research questions,
participants, methods (data
gathering and analysis),
findings, and implications
for professional practice
within a 250 word maximum
limit.
The introduction and
literature review are
appropriate; they are
somewhat supported
theoretically and
empirically in terms of
pedagogy and the
academic discipline.
The introduction and
literature review are clearly
stated and appropriate; they
are supported well
theoretically and empirically
in terms of pedagogy and
the academic discipline.
The implications relate to
the research findings,
contribute to the teaching
profession, and
appropriately discuss
ways to improve student
learning in the discipline.
The implications clearly
relate to the research
findings, contribute
significantly to the teaching
profession, and effectively
and appropriately discuss
many ways to improve
student learning in the
discipline.
(Standard 3)
3.
The implications do not
relate to the research
Knowledge of Research: findings, do not contribute to
the teaching profession, and
Demonstrates knowledge
do not appropriately discuss
of research to promote ways to improve student
student learning and to learning in the discipline.
contribute to the teaching
profession.
(Implications)
(Standard 5)
189
4.
(Professional writing)
Professional Practices:
Demonstrates high
standards from
professional writing.
(Standard 7)
5.
(Technology) Technology
Integration: Integrates
digital technology to share
findings with others.
The bibliography contains
Bibliography contains at Bibliography contains at
fewer than 4 appropriate
least 4 appropriate
least 5 appropriate
references, is incomplete
references, is mostly
references, is complete and
and incorrect, and is not in complete and correct,
correct, and is in the correct
the correct format for the
and is mostly in the
format for the discipline. All
discipline. Most research
correct format for the
research references (not
references (not theoretical discipline. Most research theoretical references)
references) did not come
references (not
came from sources within
from sources within the past theoretical references)
the past 6 years. The
10 years. The document
came from sources within document contains less
contains more than 10 errors the past 10 years. The
than 5 errors in written
in written conventions.
document contains
conventions.
between 6-9 errors in
written conventions.
Does not use digital
technology to share findings
with other professionals in
the discipline.
(Standard 8)
6.
(Feedback) Knowledge of
Research: Contributes to
the teaching profession by
effectively sharing the
research results with
others.
Uses digital technology to Uses digital technology
share findings with other effectively and appropriately
professionals in the
to share findings with other
discipline. At least two
professionals in the
appropriate audience
discipline. At least three
members, attendees, or appropriate audience
web users provided
members, attendees, or
comments about the
web users provided
candidate’s sharing of the comments about the
results.
candidate’s sharing of the results.
No appropriate audience
At least two appropriate
members, attendees, or web audience members write
users provided feedback
that they can use the
related to their teaching.
ideas from the research
in their teaching.
At least three appropriate
audience members write
that they can use the ideas
from the research in their
teaching.
(Standard 5)
6b. Scoring Rubric for the Research Project - EDLI 6330
Research
Criteria
Action Plan
Developing –
Acceptable -
Target –
1 point
2 points
3 points
The action plan does not The action plan has an
have an appropriate
appropriate problem,
problem, solution, and
solution, and treatment.
treatment.
Score
The action plan does not have a
detailed and appropriate problem,
solution, and treatment.
190
Pre-assessment The pre-assessment has
inappropriate or
incomplete data from
participants and it does
not contain an
appropriate analysis of
the participants’ knowledge and skills.
The pre-assessment has
completed appropriate data
from participants at various
experiential levels, and it
contains an adequate
analysis of the participants’ knowledge and skills.
The pre-assessment has
completed appropriate and detailed
data from participants at various
experiential levels, and it contains
a detailed, appropriate analysis of
the participants’ knowledge and skills.
Post-assessment The post-assessment
has inappropriate or
incomplete data from
participants and it does
not contain an
appropriate analysis of
the participants’ knowledge and skills or
how the candidate
helped participants..
The post-assessment has
completed appropriate data
from participants at various
experiential levels, and it
contains an adequate
analysis of the participants’ knowledge and skills and
how the candidate helped
participants.
The post-assessment has
completed appropriate and detailed
data from participants at various
experiential levels, and it contains
a detailed, appropriate analysis of
the participants’ knowledge and skills and how the candidate
helped participants.
7. Data derived from the Assessment
Data for Fall 2012 (N=8)
Criterion
Professional Practices: Demonstrates clarity in
synthesizing the candidate’s research study in the discipline
Knowledge of Content: Demonstrate
knowledge and skills in pedagogy and the
discipline.
Knowledge of Research: Demonstrates
knowledge of research to promote student
learning and to contribute to the teaching
profession.
Professional Practices: Demonstrates high
standards for professional writing.
Technology Integration: Integrates digital
technology to share findings with others
Knowledge of Research: Contributes to the
teaching profession by effectively sharing the
research results with others.
Unacceptable (1)
Acceptable (2)
Target (3)
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
191
Raw Student Data
Fall 2012
Student
Not Met
Met with
Weakness
Target
Total
1
0
2
0
2
2
0
2
0
2
3
0
2
0
2
4
0
2
0
2
5
0
2
0
2
6
0
2
0
2
7
0
2
0
2
8
0
2
0
2
Data for Spring 2013 (N= 4)
Criterion
Professional Practices: Demonstrates clarity in
synthesizing the candidate’s research study in the discipline
Knowledge of Content: Demonstrate
knowledge and skills in pedagogy and the
discipline.
Knowledge of Research: Demonstrates
knowledge of research to promote student
learning and to contribute to the teaching
profession.
Professional Practices: Demonstrates high
standards for professional writing.
Technology Integration: Integrates digital
technology to share findings with others
Knowledge of Research: Contributes to the
teaching profession by effectively sharing the
research results with others.
Not Met (1)
Met with Weakness (2)
Target (3)
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
4
192
Raw Student Data
Spring 2013 (N = 4)
Student
Not Met
Met with
Weakness
Target
Total
1
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
M. Ed. Reading
Summary Analysis Table (n= 0 ) Spring 2013
Criteria
Not Met
Met with Weakness
Target
Professional Practices: Demonstrates clarity in
synthesizing the candidate’s research study in the discipline
Knowledge of Content: Demonstrate knowledge
and skills in pedagogy and the discipline.
Knowledge of Research: Demonstrates knowledge
of research to promote student learning and to
contribute to the teaching profession.
Professional Practices: Demonstrates high
standards for professional writing.
Technology Integration: Integrates digital
technology to share findings with others
Knowledge of Research: Contributes to the
teaching profession by effectively sharing the
research results with others.
193
Raw Data Table
Fall 2012: No students have taken course.
Professional
Practices:
Demonstrates
clarity in
synthesizing the
Candidate
candidate’s research study in
the discipline
Knowledge of
Knowledge of
Knowledge of
Content:
Research:
Research:
Technology
Demonstrate
Demonstrates
Professional
Contributes to
Integration:
knowledge and knowledge of
Practices:
the teaching
Integrates
skills in
research to
Demonstrates
profession by
digital
pedagogy and promote student high standards
effectively
technology to
the discipline. learning and to for professional
sharing the
share findings
contribute to the
writing.
research
with others
teaching
results with
profession.
others.
1
2
M. Ed. Digital Literacy
Summary Analysis Table (n= 0 ) Spring 2013
Criteria
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Target
Professional Practices: Demonstrates clarity in
synthesizing the candidate’s research study in the discipline
Knowledge of Content: Demonstrate knowledge
and skills in pedagogy and the discipline.
Knowledge of Research: Demonstrates knowledge
of research to promote student learning and to
contribute to the teaching profession.
Professional Practices: Demonstrates high
standards for professional writing.
Technology Integration: Integrates digital
technology to share findings with others
Knowledge of Research: Contributes to the
teaching profession by effectively sharing the
research results with others.
194
Raw Data Table
Fall 2012: No students have taken course.
Professional
Practices:
Demonstrates
clarity in
synthesizing the
Candidate
candidate’s research study in
the discipline
Knowledge of
Knowledge of
Knowledge of
Content:
Research:
Research:
Technology
Demonstrate
Demonstrates
Professional
Contributes to
Integration:
knowledge and knowledge of
Practices:
the teaching
Integrates
skills in
research to
Demonstrates
profession by
digital
pedagogy and promote student high standards
effectively
technology to
the discipline. learning and to for professional
sharing the
share findings
contribute to the
writing.
research
with others
teaching
results with
profession.
others.
1
2
195
Attachment #7
Key Assessment #5 – Measuring the impact of application of knowledge in the field
EDLI 6330 (M.Ed. C&I concentrations in Reading and concentration Digital Literacy)
Mentoring Case Study (completed by all other programs)
1. Brief Description of the Assessment and Use in the Program
Each student completing their programs mentoring requirements will be assessed on their ability
to mentor. The focus of Assessment 5 is to assess the graduate student’s ability to mentor others by assessing the mentoring situation in each of the case study subjects. The assessments of the
pedagogical strategies that lead toward changes in disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge,
skills, and dispositions; assessing the data (artifacts) collected over time; and assessing whether
the mentor (graduate student) reflected deeply in a metacognitive nature.
2. How the Assessment Aligns with C&I Standards
Curriculum & Instruction
COE
Standards
Conceptual Framework
Criteria
Assessing the Mentoring Situation C&I Standards 2
COE knowledge in practice,
pedagogical leadership
Assessing Pedagogical Strategies
Leading to Disciplinary and
C&I Standards 6
Pedagogical Knowledge, Skills,
and Dispositions
COE knowledge in practice,
pedagogical leadership
Assessing Mentoring Artifacts
Over Time
C&I Standards 1
COE knowledge in practice,
pedagogical leadership
Assessing Mentor’s Reflective Practice
C&I Standards 1
COE knowledge in practice,
pedagogical leadership
196
3. Brief Analysis of Data Findings
Criterion
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Fall 2013
(N = 0)
(N = 23)
(N = 0)
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
candidates scoring Met candidates scoring Met candidates scoring Met
with Weakness & Target with Weakness & Target with Weakness & Target
Assessing the Mentoring Situation
0
60
0
Assessing Pedagogical Strategies Leading to
Disciplinary and Pedagogical Knowledge,
Skills, and Dispositions
Assessing mentoring Artifacts over Time
0
60
0
0
60
0
Assessing Mentor’s Reflective Practice
0
60
0
The concentration of Reading and Digital Literacy does not currently have graduates.
Report of other concentrations follows: As in the administration of the Knowledge Assessment
#3, the Spring 2013 data indicates a that one third of the students in the concentrations in Science
Education and Elementary Mathematics and Science are lacking sufficient knowledge to assess
mentoring activities. This assessment is very revealing because for the past ten years, these
programs have been involved in mentoring activities. The faculty in these areas will need to
ratchet up support for student mentoring activities.
4. Interpretation of Data Findings
Due to the lack of comparative data between different terms, it would be difficult to make an
accurate interpretation of data findings; however, as a one time administration, we can assume
that if 60% of the students do not meet expectations, there is a considerable amount of work to
do.
This process is similar to any first administration. The faculty will begin to make adjustments to
improve the scores on the next administration. More care is being taken at the moment to explain
the assignment to students who are working currently on this assessment.
197
198
Assessment # 5 – Measuring the impact of application of knowledge in the field
5. Full Description of the Assignment
Candidates in the concentrations of Elementary Mathematics and Science Education, Science
Education, and Mathematics Education take EDCI 6342 - Models and Methods in Science
Education and EDCI 6344 - Current Issues and Research in Science Education, EDCI 6341 Teaching Algebraic Concepts, or EDCI 6343 - Teaching Geometric Concepts. Candidates in
Art, Health and Human Performance, Reading, and Digital Literacy take an action research
course, EDCI 6302 - Practitioner Research (concentration in Art and Health and concentration in
Human Performance) or EDLI 6330 (concentration in Reading and concentration in Digital
Literacy).
These courses provide an opportunity to apply the knowledge gained from theory and
discussions in a field setting through a mentoring assignment. The courses and the products
described below is completed toward the end of a candidates program of study.
Description of assignment for candidates in concentrations of Elementary Mathematics and
Science Education, Science Education, and Mathematics Education.
Prescribed courses in the concentrations of Elementary Mathematics and Science Education,
Science Education, and Mathematics Education require the completion of a mentoring
assignment.
Candidates in these concentrations are provided with opportunities to develop mentoring skills.
Although mentoring is designed primarily for the benefit of mentees, practicing mentoring skills
provide a wealth of personal and interpersonal skills that will be invaluable as a practitioner. As
mentors candidates will be encouraged to begin the relationship with specific goals and
expectations-which are typically met by a well designed program.
The mentor is required to complete a mentoring requirement to assessed their mentoring abilities.
The candidates are asked to keep in a portfolio documentation the following items:
1) assessment of the mentoring situation in each of the case study subjects (the usual
number is three, but situations may require a one-to-one arrangement);
2) the pedagogical strategies that lead toward changes in disciplinary and pedagogical
knowledge, skills, and dispositions;
199
3) the data (artifacts) collected over time; and
4) personal reflections of the mentoring which are completed in a deep and metacognitive
nature.
6. Grading Rubric
Assessment 5 - Rubric for Case Study: “Assessing Graduate Student’s Mentoring Capacity”
Target – 3
Assessing the · The mentoring situation is
Mentoring
well documented and
Situation
detailed. Includes thorough
description of mentees’ demographic data.
· Well-documented data about
the mentees’ disposition for professional development in
the discipline is included.
Met with Weakness - 2
·
·
Some detail and documentation ·
of mentoring situation. Some
description of the mentees’ demographic data is included.
Vague or incomplete
·
description of mentees’ disposition for professional
development in the discipline is
included.
Not Acceptable - 1
Points
Few or no details
are provided about
the mentoring
situation.
Little or no
documentation of
mentees’ disposition for professional
development in the
discipline is
included.
200
Assessing
Pedagogical
Strategies
Leading to
Disciplinary
and
Pedagogical
Knowledge,
Skills, and
Dispositions
·
·
·
·
Assessing
Mentoring
Artifacts Over
Time
·
·
·
Assessing
Mentor’s Reflective
Practice
·
·
Pedagogical strategies are
identified accurately and
described in detail and
includes relevant and
distinctive background or
contextual information that
exhibits mentor’s strong mastery of the topic or theme
to implement effective
mentoring.
Descriptions and justifications
for the use of mentoring
strategies by the mentor that
promote the implementation
of disciplinary and
pedagogical content
knowledge by the mentees
are clearly detailed.
Descriptions of prior
strategies used by the mentor
to promote the
implementation of
pedagogical and disciplinary
content knowledge and the
analysis of problems
encountered are clearly
articulated.
Methods and/or instruments
to assess the mentees
behaviors to implement
knowledge and skills are well
constructed and appropriate.
·
Mentoring artifacts are
presented in an organized
and clearly labeled in a
coherent manner.
A table of contents clearly
organizes the mentoring
artifacts and their location for
the reviewer.
Mentoring artifacts are
organized using a variety of
methods as determined by
the subject or program that
may include chronological
sequence, thematic
organization, or other
methods.
·
Exceptional insight about
what mentees learned as part
of mentoring activities.
Rich and analytic discussion
or reflection (metacognition)
of effects of mentoring
strategies on mentee learning
and application is provided.
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Pedagogical strategies are
·
mostly accurate and some
related background or
contextual information is
included that describes the
mentor’s mastery of the topic or theme.
Descriptions and justifications
for the use of mentoring
·
strategies by the mentor that
promote the implementation of
disciplinary and pedagogical
content knowledge by the
mentees are unclear.
Superficial or incomplete
·
description of prior strategies
used by the mentor and the
analysis of problems are
missing detail.
Methods and/or instruments to
·
assess behaviors leading to
knowledge and skills are
present with moderate
construction and
appropriateness.
Pedagogical
strategy descriptions
are not accurate and
do not include
related background
or contextual
information about
the topic or theme.
Poor description and
justifications of the
strategy or
strategies used by
the mentor are
missing.
Little or no
description of prior
strategies used by
the mentor and
analysis of problems
are missing.
Methods and/or
instruments to
assess mentee
behaviors are not
appropriate or
absent.
Some of the artifacts are not
·
clearly organized or labeled in a
coherent manner.
A table of contents is somewhat
·
organized, but has gaps in
organization.
There is a lack of a systematic
organization to determine the ·
method of organization or time
when the artifacts were
collected.
The artifacts, if
provided, are not
organized or
labeled.
A table of contents is
poorly constructed
or missing.
Methodology for
organization or
collection is not
coherent or absent.
·
Little or no
discussion given
about how the
mentoring activities
impacted mentee’s growth.
Reflection
(metacognition) on
mentoring strategies
is provided.
Some insight into how
mentoring helped mentees to
learn and grow is provided.
Superficial/incomplete
discussion (metacognition) of
effects of mentoring strategies.
·
201
Sum of Total
Points
7. Data derived from the Assessment
Summary Analysis Table
Criteria
Target
Met with Weakness
Not Met
Designing Mentoring Strategies
Based on Mentoring Situation
6
8
9
Developing Mentoring Strategies with
a Pedagogical and Content
Knowledge Focus
6
8
9
Deciding on Artifacts to Gauge
Mentee Knowledge, Skills, and
Dispositions
6
8
9
Developing Assessment of Mentee
Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
7
7
9
The concentration of Reading and Digital Literacy does not currently have graduates.
Although, candidates in concentrations of elementary mathematics and science education,
science education, and mathematics education were involved in mentoring activities, data was
not collected for two cycles since the assignment was not created during the Fall 2013 semester
during the Fall 2012 semester. This assignment is currently being administered to students
enrolled in these concentrations during the Fall 2013 semester to obtain two cycles of data.
Raw Data Table
202
Data for Spring 2013 (N= 23) Total for all programs.
Target (12-11) Met with Conditions (10-7) Not Met (6-0)
Candidate
Score
1
6
2
11
3
10
4
10
5
5
6
11
7
10
8
11
9
7
10
12
11
11
12
9
13
10
14
5
15
5
16
5
17
6
18
10
19
9
20
5
21
6
22
12
23
6
203
The concentration of Reading and Digital Literacy does not currently have graduates.
204
Attachment #8
Key Assessment #6 – Final Exam
EDFR 6300
1. Brief Description of the Assessment and Use in the Program
EDCI 6300, Foundation of Research Methods in Education, is one of fundamental and core course series in the
masters’ degree programs and curriculum across the program Education in Curriculum and Instruction, in
Bilingual Education, in Counselling and Guidance, in Educational Technology and in Spedical Education, and the
program of Early Child Education in the College of Education at The University of Texax at Brownsivlle. The
course is an introduction to research methods and focuses on the relationship between research problems,
questions, designs, and data analysis. It provides masters’ students with research study knowledge and problem solving techniques and skills for collecting and analyzing data.
Other than homework, assignments, and literature review, two examinations will be conducted both midterm and
at the end of the semester. The purposes of two tests are to measure student’s mastery of basic concepts, theories, design and basic data analysis and application of these knowledge. The tests are considered based on criteria of
content sampling, difficulty and curriculum. In other words, the text items are the best samples of this conceptual
knowledge, the difficulty level are appropriate, and these items should attain to the curriculum and instruction
standards.
The Foundation of Research Methods is comprehensive course that integrate research study knowledge, skills,
expertise and problem solving strategies. From content aspect we will cover seven modules of content knowledge;
from curriculum and instruction standard the assessment should be satisfied with relevant standards; and from
learning science perspective, the assessment should follow a meaningful cognitive framework. Although there are
several assessment tasks such as developing research problem, article analysis, literature review and learning
presentation, a comprehensive assessment tools should be used to measure students’ performance and progress objectively. Stated differently there should be objective measures of students’ progresses in research method learning because this course are across all of the master’s education program in The College of Education. Thus, objective assessment tasks such as multiple choice questions as major assessment tools are used to measure
students’ progress.
One West University Boulevard • Brownsville, Texas 78520 • utb.edu
2. How the Assessment Aligns with C&I Standards
General Criterion
Final Exam
Curriculum and Instruction
Standards
Curriculum and Instruction 3, 5, 7, 8
COE Conceptual Framework
Inquiry, Knowledge in Practice,
Pedagogical Leadership,
Interrelatedness
Curriculum & Instruction
COE
Standards
Conceptual Framework
Criterion
Professional Practices:
Demonstrates clarity in
synthesizing the candidate’s research study in the discipline
C&I Standard 7
COE Inquiry
Knowledge of Content:
C&I Standard 3
Demonstrate knowledge and skills
in pedagogy and the discipline.
COE Inquiry
Knowledge of Research:
Demonstrates knowledge of
research to promote student
learning and to contribute to the
teaching profession.
Professional Practices:
Demonstrates high standards for
professional writing.
Technology Integration: Integrates
digital technology to share findings
with others
Knowledge of Research:
Contributes to the teaching
profession by effectively sharing
the research results with others.
C&I Standard 5
COE Inquiry, Pedagogical
Leadership
C&I Standard 7
COE Inquiry
C&I Standard 8
COE Inquiry, Pedagogical
Leadership, Interrelatedness
C&I Standard 5
COE Inquiry, Pedagogical
Leadership
3. Brief Analysis of Data Findings
206
Interpretation of Data FindingsData collected indicates that the percentage of candidates scoring Met with
Weakness & Target increased from 67 to 97 percent. Increases in scores may be attributed to an increased
understanding of content knowledge associated with the introductory research course.
Assessment # 6 – Final Exam
5. Full Description of the Assignment
The Foundation of Research Methods is comprehensive course that integrate research study knowledge, skills,
expertise and problem solving strategies. From content aspect we will cover seven modules of content knowledge;
from curriculum and instruction standard the assessment should be satisfied with relevant standards; and from
learning science perspective, the assessment should follow a meaningful cognitive framework. Although there are
several assessment tasks such as developing research problem, article analysis, literature review and learning
presentation, a comprehensive assessment tools should be used to measure students’ performance and progress objectively. Stated differently there should be objective measures of students’ progresses in research method learning because this course are across all of the master’s education program in The College of Education. Thus, objective assessment tasks such as multiple choice questions as major assessment tools are used to measure
students’ progress.
In order to represent the test validities we list several relationships in tables. We can examine the content
C&I Standards Achieved
by Assessment 5
Final Exam
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Summer 2013
(N = 33)
(N = 37)
(N = )
Percentage of candidates
Percentage of candidates
Percentage of candidates
scoring Met with Weakness & scoring Met with Weakness &
scoring Met with
Target
Target
Weakness & Target
67
97
?
knowledge, cognitive dimensions and Curriculum and Instruction Standards. There are two texts: mid-term exam
and final exam. Two examination tests cover entire content knowledge.
6. Grading Rubric
The final exam will be given at the end of the semester. This exam will be graded on a scale of 0 to 100 percent.
There are 50 multiple choice questions and they are each worth 2 points. Candidates taking the final exam will no
meet this assessment with a percentage score of 69.9% or less. Candidates that score between 70.0% and 89.9%
207
will meet this assessment with weakness. Those candidates that core a 90.0% to 100.0% will be on target to meet
this assessment.
7. Data derived from the Assessment
Data for Fall 2012 (N=33)
Summary Analysis Table
Scores
Not Met – 69.9% and Meth with Weakness
Target 90% - 100%
below
70% - 89.9%
Final Exam
10
22
1
Data for Spring 2013 (N=37)
Summary Analysis Table
Scores
Not Met – 69.9% and Met with Weakness
below
70% - 89.9%
Final Exam
1
8
Target 90% - 100%
28
Raw Data Table
Fall 2012
Candidate
Score %
1
96
2
76
3
78
208
4
88
5
84
6
80
7
84
8
84
9
80
10
66
11
66
12
58
13
76
14
74
15
76
16
84
17
64
18
70
19
50
20
66
21
80
22
66
23
82
24
64
25
74
26
72
27
80
28
60
29
80
30
60
31
80
32
84
33
70
209
Raw Data Table
Spring 2013
Candidate
Score %
1
100
2
100
3
98
4
86
5
100
6
98
7
92
8
86
9
98
10
96
11
94
12
100
13
100
14
100
15
90
16
88
17
100
18
92
19
98
20
98
21
90
22
94
23
100
24
94
25
96
26
70
27
98
28
100
29
96
210
30
96
31
80
32
88
33
94
34
82
35
82
36
90
37
60
211
NCATE Program Review (Form B)
Master’s in Bilingual Education
Cover Sheet
1. Institution Name
a. University of Texas at Brownsville
2. State
a. Texas
3. Date Submitted
a. 1/16/2013
4. Report Preparer’s Information
a. Alma D. Rodríguez
965-882-7657 [email protected]
5. NCATE Coordinator’s Information
a. Olivia Rivas
[email protected]
6. Name of Institution’s program
a. Master’s in Bilingual Education
7. NCATE Category
a.
8. Grade levels for which candidates are being prepared
a. K-12
9. Program Type
a. Advanced Teaching
10. Degree or award level
a. Master’s Degree
11. Is this program offered at more than one site?
a. Yes, through videoconference
12. If yes, list the sites
a. Donna, Texas
b. Spring Branch, Texas
c. New Caney, Texas
d. Alvin, Texas
13. Title of the state license
a. n.a.
14. Program report status
a. Initial Review
15. Is your unit seeking
a. NCATE accreditation for the first time (initial accreditation)
16. State Licensure requirement for national recognition:
a. None
SECTION I – CONTEXT
1. Description of any state or institutional policies that may influence the application of program standards
212
The M.Ed. in Bilingual Education program prepares educators to be scholars in the field of bilingual education in the
areas of second language acquisition, linguistics, current issues in bilingual / ESL education, literacy and biliteracy,
models of effective practice, professionalism, advocacy, research, and assessment. Graduates of the program should
be able to advise administrators and provide professional development in school districts. Candidates will become
agents of change by advocating for emergent bilingual students, successful programs for them, and appropriate
implementation of education policy.
Latinos are the largest and most rapidly growing ethnic minority in the country, but academically, they are
lagging dangerously behind. Many Latino students who come to school speaking only Spanish do not
succeed academically in school. Nationwide, Hispanic students have the highest dropout rate of any other
ethnic or linguistic group (Gándara, 2009).
The University of Texas at Brownsville has a unique potential for leading the country in developing
productive bilingual citizens who can compete in our 21st century global society. As García (2009) tells us
“bilingual education in the twenty-first century must be reimagined and expanded, as it takes its rightful
place as a meaningful way to educate all children and language learners in the world today” (p.9). The Rio Grande Valley is a bilingual area where Spanish and English are used in homes, businesses, and sometimes
in schools. However, too many children enter school as monolingual Spanish speakers but leave speakers
of English. Our communities lose a valuable resource through schooling mainly in English.
The M.Ed. degree in Bilingual Education with an Emphasis in Dual Language or ESL is designed to prepare
educators with the instructional and leadership skills they need to teach and help others teach the large population of
English language learners in local public schools and beyond. This bilingual M.Ed. program has existed since the
UTB/TSC partnership began in 1992. During the last 20 years, the program has gone through several revisions to
specifically address the needs of dual language bilingual educators for dual language schools in the area. Because of
low enrollment and changes in the field, a new program was revised and approved in May of 2010.
During 2009-2010 the program underwent a major rewriting for two major reasons:
(1) In the fall of 2009, the M. Ed in ESL program was eliminated because of low enrollment. The bilingual
and ESL faculty believed the ESL coursework should be still available to teachers in the area because of
the needs of schools. Because of this, the bilingual and ESL faculty decided to join together to allow those
interested in ESL to work on the bilingual M. Ed, degree and add an ESL emphasis. Student Learning
Outcomes (SLOs) were written considering upcoming NCATE accreditation and align in part with the
TESOL standards. Bilingual coursework added components to courses that ESL emphasis candidates
would take to make the coursework more relevant for them.
(2) The bilingual faculty determined that the coursework in the bilingual M.Ed. program needed to include
more emphasis on the development of academic Spanish. Therefore, in the spring of 2009, they added the
course, “Academic Spanish Across the Content Areas.” The faculty also changed several course
descriptions and course titles to update coursework with current trends in bilingual education.
The M.Ed. in Bilingual Education with emphases on bilingual education and ESL focuses on preparing
candidates in second language acquisition, current issues in bilingual / ESL education, literacy and
biliteracy, models of effective practice, professionalism, linguistics, advocacy, research, and assessment.
Candidates in the dual language emphasis take the dual language strand option courses all in Spanish.
Candidates in the ESL emphasis take courses that will enhance their professionalism as they work with
English language learners in English.
The bilingual M.Ed. emphasizes the application of knowledge and skills for bilingual teachers to meet the
needs of their bilingual students. All the courses deal with our Latino population in this valley and directly
work to meet the educational needs of the students in the area. The mission of the department is clearly
connected to the mission of the College of Education and the mission of the University, especially in
213
regards to improving student writing skills and reading comprehension. Graduates from the program have
developed the needed competence to serve as bilingual lead teachers and bilingual supervisors. We believe
that the new bilingual M.Ed. program is a cutting edge program geared to meet the needs of schools with
bilingual students locally and beyond.
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 (limit: 8000
characters).
The M.Ed. in Bilingual Education does not offer a credential or certificate. Yet, it prepares teachers to better meet the
needs of emergent bilingual students. Candidates in the M. Ed. in Bilingual Education have multiple opportunities to
conduct field experiences throughout the program by working with ELLs in bilingual and ESL classrooms:
(1) In BILC/EDSL 6324: Language Acquisition and Implications for Teaching, candidates work with one student and
his/her family developing a case study to help them better understand the factors that influence second language
acquisition and school success and suggest best practices for that student based on their understanding of theory and
research.
(2) In EDSL 6327: ESL Techniques in the Content Areas, M. Ed. Candidates work with small groups of ELLs
applying strategies learned in the class. They evaluate the effectiveness of the research based strategies by collecting
artifacts form the student. They then analyze the effect of the strategies on student learning. This is compiled and
reported in a portfolio.
(3) In BILC 6362: Principles of Curriculum Development in Dual Language and ESL programs, candidates interview
experts (administrators and teachers) who are directly involved in programs for ELLs. The interviews provide insight
to candidates on the organization, planning, and delivery of instruction for ELLs.
(4) In BILC 6364: Principles and Practices of Biliteracy Development, and in EDSL 6323: Approaches and Current
Practices in Second Language Instruction, candidates work directly with emergent bilinguals conducting a series of
tasks to assess and understand literacy and biliteracy development of young ELLs. These tasks include assessment of
environmental print and functions of print concepts. Candidates also conduct interviews with proficient and
struggling readers and writers to compare and contrast the perceptions about reading held by readers and the types of
strategies used by emergent bilinguals who are at different levels of proficiency in literacy. They prepare a lesson
demonstration based on standards that is appropriate for their students and based on research. This is done in Spanish
for bilingual candidates.
(5) In BILC 6363: Literatura Infantil (Children’s Literature), candidates select high quality children’s literature in Spanish and conduct a series of activities to implement effective practices that promote engagement of emergent
bilinguals with literature as well as to assess how students respond to quality literature. The activities, which promote
language development as well as critical thinking, include the development of exploratory talk, reading images, and
engagement in critical literacy.
(6) In BILC 6365: Action Research in Dual Language Education, candidates identify an action based research
question related to teaching emergent bilinguals and carry out this research in their classrooms.
(7) In BILC 6366: Academic Spanish Across the Content Areas, candidates work with emergent bilinguals as they
conduct a discourse analysis exercise that helps them develop a better understanding of sociolinguistic issues that
impact second language acquisition and academic proficiency.
(8) In BILC/EDSL 6367: Assessing English Language Learners, candidates read about ways to scaffold instruction
and then write about ways they have used these techniques with their students.
(9) In EDLI 6352: Linguistics for ESL and Reading, candidates implement Marzano’s 6 step approach to teaching vocabulary. They explain in a written reflection how this approach worked with their students and any modifications
they needed to make to accommodate the needs of ELLs.
As explained above, the M. Ed. in Bilingual Education engages candidates in field experiences throughout the
duration of the program. Candidates have a wide variety of opportunities to work with ELLs and their teachers
214
focusing on different aspects of curriculum, instruction, and contextual factors that impact the schooling and personal
experiences of emergent bilinguals in US schools. These field experiences provide candidates with opportunities to
apply the knowledge and skills acquired in their coursework as well as to assess their effect on student learning.
A more formal clinical experience will be incorporated into BILC 6365: Action Research in Dual Language
Education embedding self- peer- and professor-evaluation of instruction and requiring specific number of field
experience hours during the course.
3. Please attach files to describe a program of study
See attachment POS MEd Bilingual ESL
4. Attached files
See attachments for Section IV, Assessments 1-7, and Section V
5. Candidate Information (3 years of data on candidates enrolled and completing the program)
Total Number of Candidates and Completers
Academic Year
# of Candidates Enrolled in the
Program
# of Program Completers
Fall/Spring
2005-2006
13/12
1*
2006-2007
10/12
5*
2007-2008
11/9
5*
2008-2009
8/15
0
2009-2010
20/24
1*
2010-2011
52/48
0
2011-2012
52/40
1*/7*
2012-2013
53/54
5 **/ 16 ***
*All Completers have been from Brownsville
** Four completers from Brownsville and 1 from Spring Branch
***Program Completers: 2 Brownsville, 10 Spring Branch, 4 Donna
Number of Candidates Enrolled in the Program by Cohorts Fall/Spring 2011-2012
Brownsville
Donna
Spring Branch
New Caney
215
Fall/Spring
Fall/Spring
Fall/Spring
Fall/Spring
18/11
8/8
13/13
13/8
Number of Candidates Enrolled in the Program by Cohorts Fall/Spring 2012-2013
Brownsville
Donna
Spring Branch
New Caney
Alvin
Fall/Spring
Fall/Spring
Fall/Spring
Fall/Spring
Fall/Spring
22/23
7/ 7
15/15
6/ 6
3/ 3
6. Faculty Information
Faculty Member Name
Sandra Mercuri
Highest Degree, Field,
and University
PhD in Education with emphasis in Language, Literacy and Culture
– UCDavis
Assignment:
LLIS Department Chair
Program coordinator and provide leadership in program
development. Advises all cohort students who are not local
EDSL 6327 ESL in Content Area
BILC 7362 Bilingual and ESL Curriculum
BILC 6364 Principles and Practices of Biliteracy Development
BILC 6366 Academic Spanish of the content Areas
BILC 6361 Issues in Bilingual and ESL Education
EDSL 6325 ESL for Bilingual and Multicultural Settings
Faculty Rank
Associate Professor
Tenure Track
Tenure track
Scholarship, Leadership
in Professional
Associations, and
Service:
Articles
1. Mercuri, Sandra. (2012). The Re-Definition of the Cultural Self of
a Latina Educator:
Understanding the Interconnectedness
between Language, Culture and Identity Development. Education
and Learning Research Journal No. 6, Noviembre 2012
216
pp.12-42.
2. Mercuri, S. (2011). Ongoing professional development for English
language
teachers: A Six-step framework. TESOL Connections Vol(2) Fall.
3. Mercuri, S., & Ebe, A. (2011). Developing Academic Language
and Content for Emergent Bilinguals Through a Science Inquiry
Unit. Journal of Multilingual
Education Research Vol (2)
Spring (pp. 81-102).
4. Ebe, A., & Mercuri, S. (2011). Developing Science Content
within a Balanced
Literacy Framework: A Spiral Dynamic
Process for English Learners. The
Journal of Balanced
Reading Instruction, Vol (18), Spring. Pp. 12-20.
Chapters for books
1. Mercuri, Sandra, & Rodríguez Alma. (In press). Teaching Academic
Language Through an
Ecosystem Unit. Margo Gottlieb and Gisela Ernst-Slavit (Eds.)
Academic Language Demands for Language Learners: From
Text to
Context. Corwin Press
Member of NCTE, TESOL, AERA, NABE, TABE
Presented yearly at TESOL, IRA, ASCD, NABE & TABE as well as
International conferences such as The international Symposium on
Bilingualism and the World Congress on Reading:
International Symposium on Bilingualism –. Amsterdam,
Netherlands. July 2009.
University of Hong Kong-Invited scholar
Service:
Chair: College of Education Distinguished Lecture Program 2011
Graduate Program Committee member
Bilingual Position Search Committee
4th – 6th grade Newcomer’s teacher
Teaching or Other
Professional Experience
in P-12 Schools
Professional development in various school districts
Faculty Member Name
Alma D. Rodríguez
217
Highest Degree, Field,
and University
Ed. D. – Curriculum and Instruction
Assignment:
Teach in the program and develop new courses
University of Houston
EDSL 6323 – Approaches and Current Practices in Second Language Instruction
BILC/EDSL 6324 - Second Language Acquisition and Implications for Teaching
EDSL 6327 - ESL Techniques in the Content Areas
EDSL 6329 - Foundations of ESL and Professionalism
BILC 6362 – Principles of Curriculum Development in Dual Language and ESL
Programs
BILC 6363 – Literatura Infantil
BILC 6366 – Academic Spanish Across the Content Areas
Faculty Rank
Associate Professor
Tenure Track
Tenured
Scholarship,
Leadership in
Professional
Associations, and
Service: List 3 major
contributions in past 3
years.
Scholarship
Rodríguez, A. D. (in press). Bilingual and ESL preservice teachers learn about
effective instruction for ELLs through meaningful collaboration. GiST Journal.
Mercuri, S., & Rodríguez, A. D. (in press). Tentative Title: Grade 2: Developing
academic language through an ecosystems unit. In M. Gotlieb & G. ErnstSlavit. Academic Language in Diverse Classrooms – English Language Arts,
Gr. K-2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Abrego, M., Rodríguez, A. D., & Rubin, R. (2012). Literacy coaches: A support
system for new teachers. What’s Hot in Literacy for 2012. Available at:
http://www.texasreaders.org/uploads/8/6/6/5/8665759/whats_hot_in_literacy2012_yearbook.pdf
Professional Associations
President of the Texas Association of Teacher Educators (TxATE) June 2013-May
2014
Board Member, Consortium of State Organizations for Texas Teacher Education
(CSOTTE) June 2012-May 2014
Service
Co-chair, University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 2012-2013
Teaching or Other
Professional
Experience in P-12
Professional development for teachers of English language learners
Assistant Principal / Dean of Instruction – Middle School
Bilingual / ESL Teacher – Elementary School
218
Schools
Faculty Member Name
Sandra Musanti
Highest Degree, Field,
and University
•Ph.D. in Educational Thought and Sociocultural Studies at
the University of New Mexico
• Postdoctoral Fellowship with the Center for the Mathematics Education of Latino/as Students (CEMELA) UNM
Assignment:
EDCI 6388 - Socio-Cultural Foundations of Education
BILS 6366 – Academic Spanish Across Content Areas
BILC/EDSL 6324 Language Acquisition and Implications for
Teaching
BILC 6364 Principles and Practices of Biliteracy Development
Faculty Rank
Assistant Professor
Tenure Track
Tenure Track
Scholarship,
Leadership in
Professional
Associations, and
Service: List 3 major
contributions in past 3
years.
Scholarship:
Musanti, S. I., & Celedón-Pattichis, S. (2012) “They need to know they can do math” Reaching for equity through the native language in
mathematics instruction with Spanish speaking students. Journal of
Bilingual Education Research & Instruction 14(1), 80-94.
Celedón-Pattichis, S. & Musanti, S. I. (2013). Grade 1: “Let’s suppose that…”: Developing base-ten thinking with Latina/o
emergent bilingual learners. Margo Gottlieb and Gisela Ernst-Slavit
(Eds.) Academic language in diverse classrooms: Promoting content
and language learning. Grades K-2, Mathematics. Corwin Press.
Musanti, S. I., Marshall, M., Ceballos, K., & Celedón-Pattichis, S.
(2011). Situating mathematics professional development: A bilingual
teacher and researchers’ collaboration. In Téllez, K., Moschkovich, J. N., & Civil, M (Eds.), Latinos and mathematics: Research on
learning and teaching in classrooms and communities. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing. (pp. 215-232).
Member of AERA, TESOL, NABE, Dual Language of NM
Presented at AERA, NABE, AMTE, TESOL, TABE, La Cosecha,
AATC, ATE, SACNAS, CSOTTE
219
Invited to present for the courses Second Language Acquisition and
ESL Methods.ESL/Bilingual Summer Institute, 2011. University of
New Mexico
Service
Member of Academic Board. Center of Interdisciplinary Studies in
Education, Culture and Society (CEIECS) Universidad Nacional de
San Martin. Argentina
Journal Reviewer:
Journal of Bilingual Education, Research, and Instruction (JBERI).
A refereed journal of TABE. (2012)
Teaching for Excellence and Equity in Mathematics
(TEEMS). A refereed journal of TODOS Mathematics for All
(2012)
Teaching or Other
Professional
Experience in P-12
Schools
Faculty Member Name
Highest Degree, Field, and
University
Assignment:
Middle and High School Teacher in Argentina.
Pedagogical advisor for Kindergarten and Elementary School
level. Argentina
Professional Development for K-6 Teachers in the United
States and Argentina
Kip Austin Hinton
Ph.D. in Cultural Studies in Education
University of California Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies
Teach in the program and develop new courses
BILC/EDSL 6367 Assessment for English Language Learners
Faculty Rank
Assistant Professor
Tenure Track
Tenure Track
Scholarship, Leadership in
Professional Associations,
and Service: List 3 major
contributions in past 3
years.
• UCLA Dissertation Year Fellowship (2010-2011)
“Thriving in The Contaminated Valley: Media Education for Chicana/o Farmworker Students.” Paper presentation at American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans. April 12, 2011.
Teaching or Other
Professional Experience in
“Undocumented Paradox: Activist Immigrants and the California Dream Act.” Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, Denver. April 30, 2010. • Idiomas Lincoln School, Querétaro, México –
English Teacher
220
P-12 Schools
• El Puente de Esperanza I.A.P., Querétaro, México – Pre-K and high school Faculty Member Name
Brendan O’Connor
Highest Degree, Field, and
University
PhD
Language, Reading & Culture
University of Arizona
Assignment:
Language, Literacy & Intercultural Studies
Faculty Rank
Assistant Professor
Tenure Track
Tenure Track
Scholarship, Leadership in
Professional Associations,
and Service: List 3 major
contributions in past 3
years.
(1) Dissertation (2012) was runner-up for outstanding dissertation award from
Council on Anthropology and Education of the American Anthropological
Association
(2) First author on two articles published this year (2013) in edited volumes from a
leading academic press (Routledge)
(3) Member of UTB College of Education (COE) Research Council, taking a
leading role in building a stronger culture of research at UTB COE through
presentation of Saturday Research Academy workshops
Teaching or Other
Professional Experience in
P-12 Schools
3rd grade classroom teacher, Roma (TX) Independent School District, 2002-2004
Family literacy educator, Oneida (NY) Board of Cooperative Educational Services (special ed. school district), Oneida ARTS Even Start program, 2005-2006
SECTION II – LIST OF ASSESSMENTS
1. Assessment Information (limit: 250 characters in each field)
Type and Number of
Assessment
Name of Assessment
Type or Form of
Assessment
When the Assessment is
Administered
Assessment #1:
Licensure or other
content-based
assessment
(required)
Comprehensive Exam
Essay Exam
Students take the
comprehensive exam during
their last semester in the
program
Assessment #2:
Assessment of
student learning
(required)
Strategies Portfolio
Portfolio
EDSL 6327
221
Assessment #3:
Case Study
Case Study
BILC/EDSL 6324
Paper on the systematic nature
of language
Formal Academic Paper
EDLI 6351
Key Paper on Assessment
Formal Academic Paper
BILC/EDSL 6367
Lesson Demonstration
Presentation
BILC 6364
Assessment of
content knowledge
in Bilingual
Education and
English as a second
language
Assessment #4:
Assessment of
content knowledge
in Bilingual
Education and
English as a second
language
Assessment #5:
Assessment of
content knowledge in
Bilingual Education
and English as a
second language
Assessment #6:
Assessment of
candidate ability to
plan instruction
Assessment #7:
EDSL 6323
Philosophy and Advocacy
Reflection Paper
Reflection Paper
BILC 6361
Assessment that
demonstrates
candidates have a
philosophy of
teaching that
reflects candidates’
understanding of
and commitment to
the critical issues
related to culturally
and linguistically
diverse students.
222
SECTION III – RELATIONSHIP OF ASSESSMENT TO STANDARDS
Note: We have included here the standards developed by the program faculty using TESOL standards as our
guideline.
Assessments
Program Standards
#1
Standard 1.a. Describing language. Candidates demonstrate
understanding of language as a system and demonstrate a high
level of competence in helping bilingual students acquire and use
English and Spanish in listening, speaking, reading, and writing
for social and academic purposes.
#2
#3
X
#4
#5
X
#6
#7
X
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and development.
Candidates understand and apply concepts, theories, research,
and practice to facilitate the acquisition of the primary language
(Spanish) and a new language in and out of classroom settings.
They view different approaches to teaching reading and writing
in the bilingual classroom. They carry out literacy projects to
understand how children develop literacy.
X
X
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture. Candidates know,
understand, and use the major concepts, principles, theories, and
research related to the nature and role of culture in language
development and academic achievement that support individual
students’ learning. In particular, they look at Latino culture and the culture of the borderland area.
X
X
X
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and Identity. Candidates
know, understand, and use knowledge of how cultural groups
and students’ cultural identities affect language learning and school achievement.
X
X
X
Standard 3.a. Planning for Standards-Based Bilingual, ESL,
and Content Instruction. Candidates know, understand, and
apply concepts, research, and best practices to plan classroom
instruction in a supportive learning environment for bilingual
students.
X
Standard 3.b. Managing and Implementing Standards-based
Bilingual, ESL, and Content Instruction. Candidates know,
manage, and implement a variety of standards-based teaching
strategies and techniques for developing and integrating English
and Spanish listening, speaking, reading, and writing, and for
accessing the core curriculum. Candidates support bilingual
students in accessing the core curriculum as they learn language
and academic content together.
Standard 3.c. Using Resources Effectively in ESL, Bilingual,
and Content Instruction. Candidates are familiar with a wide
range of standards-based materials, resources, and technologies,
and choose, adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and
content teaching.
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for Bilingual Classrooms.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
223
Candidates understand various issues of assessment (e.g. cultural
and linguistic bias, issues of translation, political, social, and
psychological factors) in assessment, IQ, and special education
testing (including gifted and talented); the importance of
standards; and the difference between language proficiency and
other types of assessment (e.g. standardized achievement tests of
overall mastery), as they affect bilingual student learning.
Standard 4.b. Language Proficiency Assessment. Candidates
know and use a variety of standards-based bilingual and ESL
language proficiency instruments to inform their instruction and
understand their uses for identification, placement, and
demonstration of language growth of bilingual students in
Spanish and English.
Standard 4.c. Classroom-based Assessment for bilingual
students. Candidates know and use a variety of performancebased assessment tools and techniques to inform instruction.
Standard 5.a. Bilingual Education Research and History.
Candidates demonstrate knowledge of history, research, and
current practice in the field of bilingual education and apply that
knowledge to improve the teaching and learning of their
bilingual students. Candidates become familiar with different
models of bilingual education and the effectiveness of different
models.
X
X
X
X
X
Standard 5.b. Partnerships and Advocacy. The knowledge
candidates gain of the history of and research on bilingual
education helps them take advocacy positions at their schools in
their districts. Candidates serve as professional resources and
build partnerships with students’ families.
Standard 5.c. Professional Development and Collaboration.
Candidates collaborate with and are prepared to serve as a
resource to all staff, including paraprofessionals, to improve
learning for all bilingual students.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X=Summer 2013 for ESL and double emphasis candidates only
SECTION IV - EVIDENCE FOR MEETING STANDARDS
DIRECTIONS: The key assessments listed in Section II must be documented and discussed in Section IV. Taken as a whole, the
assessments must demonstrate candidate mastery of the SPA standards. The key assessments must be required of all candidates.
Assessments and scoring guides and data charts 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. Data tables should also be aligned with the SPA standards. The data should be presented, in general, at the same level it is
collected. For example, if a rubric collects data on 10 elements [each relating to specific SPA standard(s)], then the data chart should
report the data on each of the elements rather that reporting a cumulative score.
A program is free to select the types of assessments within the following constraints:
• A program cannot use more than 8 key assessments. There is no minimum requirement.
• Assessments should be required of all candidates.
• The program must include the state licensure test in the program area for assessment #1. This requirement is waived if there is no state
licensure test in the program area.
• One assessment must demonstrate candidate effects on student learning.
• In their entirety, the assessments and data should demonstrate that candidates have mastered the SPA standards.
Program must submit the following documentation:
224
(1) A rationale making the case that the key assessments, taken as a whole, demonstrate candidate mastery of the SPA/NCATE standards.
and
(2) Assessment Documentation
For each assessment attach one document that includes the following 3 items:
a. The assessment tool itself or a rich description of the assessment (often the directions given to candidates);
b. The scoring guide for the assessment; and
c. Charts that provide candidate data derived from the assessment.
The responses for a, b, and c (above) should be limited to the equivalent of five text pages each , however in some cases assessment
instruments or scoring guides may go beyond five pages.
Note: As much as possible, combine all of the files for one assessment (a, b, and c above) into a single file. That is, create one file for
Assessment #4 that includes the assessment itself (item a above), the scoring guide (item b above), and the data chart (item c above). Each
attachment should be no larger than 2 mb. Do not include candidate work or syllabi. There is a limit of 20 attachments for the entire report
so it is crucial that you combine files as much as possible.
1. Rationale: Attach a narrative outlining your case that the assessments, taken as a whole, demonstrate candidate mastery of the
SPA standards. (Character limit 40,000 characters)
Bilingual education faculty revised the master’s in Bilingual Education that existed in 2009 in preparation for NCATE accreditation. Because there is no SPA for bilingual education, the faculty examined TESOL standards
and used them as a guideline to develop standards for the Master’s in Bilingual Education program. The TESOL standards were edited to include both the fields of bilingual education and ESL. The faculty also kept the Latino
population that the University of Texas at Brownsville serves in mind as they worked on the standards. Based on
those revised standards, the program of study was also revised. Two specialization strands were developed, courses
were revised, and new courses were created to make sure all standards were covered in the program. The new M.
Ed. in Bilingual Education was approved in May 2010. The new program admitted the first cohorts of students and
began implementation in the Fall 2010 semester. Candidates in the master’s in bilingual education program receive quality education, and performance is assessed.
Key assessments were developed to match each of the standards. Assessments address content knowledge,
professional and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions as well as student learning. Rubrics were also
developed to evaluate candidate performance in each of the assessments. By following a systematic process, clear
alignment between assessments and standards was ensured. The table in Section III presents a clear distribution of
standards across assessments. Subsequent points in this report provide detailed information on each of the
assessments. The scoring rubrics for each assessment show how each assessment is aligned with the standards. In
addition data tables for each assessment show that candidates are demonstrating mastery of all standards.
Following is a summary that explains how candidates perform in each of the program standards.
Standard 1a Describing language is addressed by assessments 1, 4, and 6. Candidates have consistently been
successful in meeting the standard. In Key Assessment #1 (Comprehensive Exam), 100% of the candidates who
took the exam in the summer 2013 met the standard while 88% of candidates who took the exam in the spring
2013 met the standard or met the standard with weakness. In Key Assessment #4 (Paper on the Systematic Nature
of Language), 100% of the candidates met the standard in the spring 2013 semester, and 81% of the candidates met
the standard or met it with weakness in the spring 2012 semester. In Key Assessment #6 (Lesson Demonstration),
100 % of the candidates met the standard in the spring 2013 semester, while100% of the candidates met the
standard or met it with weakness in the spring 2012 semester. The data shows that candidates understand language
as a system, and know how to support students in their acquisition and use of English and Spanish in listening,
speaking, reading, and writing for social and academic purposes.
Standard 1b Language acquisition and development is addressed by assessments 1, 3, and 6. In Key Assessment
#1 (Comprehensive Exam), 80% of the candidates met the standard or met it with weakness in the Summer 2013,
while 94% of candidates met the standard or met it with weakness in the Spring 2013. In the Fall 2012, 100% of
the candidates met the standard or met it with weakness. In Key Assessment #3 (Case Study), 100% of the
candidates met the standard or met it with weakness in the most recent administration of the assessment (Fall
2012). In Key Assessment #6 (Lesson Demonstration), 100% of the candidates met the standard or met the
standard with weakness in the Spring 2013 semester as well as in the Spring 2012 semester. The data demonstrate
225
that candidates understand and apply concepts, theories, research, and practice to facilitate the acquisition of the
primary language (Spanish) and a new language.
Standard 2a Nature and Role of Culture is addressed by assessments 1, 3 and 7. In Key Assessment #1
(Comprehensive Exam), 100 % of candidates met the standard or met it with weakness in the Summer 2013, while
94% of candidates met the standard or met it with weakness in the Spring 2012 and 86% of candidates met the
standard or met it with weakness in the Fall 2012. This shows steady improvement in the percent of candidates
who meet this standard. In Key Assessment #3 (Case Study), 100% of candidates met the standard or met it with
weakness in the Fall 2012 semester, which is the most recent administration of this assessment. In Key Assessment
#7 (Philosophy and Advocacy Paper), 100% of candidates met the standard or met it with weakness in the most
recent administration of the assessment (Fall 2012). The data shows that candidates know, understand, and use the
major concepts, theories, and research related to the nature and role of culture in language development and
academic achievement that support individual students’ learning. Standard 2b Cultural Groups and Identity is addressed by assessments 1, 3, and 7. In Key Assessment #1
(Comprehensive Exam), 80% of the candidates met the standard or met it with weakness in the Summer 2013. In
the Spring 2013, 94% of candidates met the standard or met it with weakness, while 86% of the candidates met the
standard or met it with weakness in the Fall 2012. In Key Assessment #3 (Case Study), 100% of the candidates
met the standard or met it with weakness in the Fall 2012, which is the most recent administration of the
assessment. In Key Assessment #7 (Philosophy and Advocacy Paper), 100% of the candidates met or met the
standard with weakness in the Fall 2012. The data indicates that candidates know, understand, and use knowledge
of how cultural groups and students’ cultural identities affect language learning and school achievement.
Standard 3a Planning for standards-based bilingual, ESL, and content instruction is addressed by assessments 1,
2, 3, and 6. In Key Assessment #1 (Comprehensive Exam), 80% of the candidates met the standard or met it with
weakness in the Summer 2013, while 94% of candidates met the standard in the Spring 2013, and 86% of
candidates met the standard in the Fall 2012. In Key Assessment #2 (Strategies Portfolio), 90% of candidates met
the standard or met it with weakness in the Spring 2013 semester, while 100% of the candidates met the standard
or met it with weakness in the Spring 2012 semester. In Key Assessment #3 (Case Study), 100% met the standard
at the highest level, and in Key Assessment #6 (Lesson Demonstration), 100% of the candidates met the standard
or met it with weakness in the Spring 2013, and 100% of the candidates met or met the standard with weakness in
the Spring 2012. Data shows that candidates know, understand, and apply concepts, research, and best practices to
plan classroom instruction in a supportive learning environment for bilingual students.
Standard 3b Managing and implementing standards-based bilingual, ESL, and content instruction is addressed by
assessments 2 and 6. In Key Assessment #2 (Strategies Portfolio), 100% of the candidates met the standard or met
it with weakness in the Spring 2013 and Spring 2012 semesters. In Key Assessment #6 (Lesson Demonstration),
100% of the candidates met the standard or met it with weakness in the Spring 2013 and Spring 2012 semesters.
Data proves that candidates know and implement a variety of standards-based teaching strategies and techniques
for developing and integrating English and Spanish listening, speaking, reading, and writing, for accessing the core
curriculum
Standard 3c Using resources effectively in ESL, bilingual, and content instruction is addressed by assessments 2
and 6. In Key Assessment #2 (Strategies Portfolio), 100% of the candidates met the standard at the highest level in
the Spring 2013 and Spring 2012 semesters. In Key Assessment #6 (Lesson Demonstration), 100% of the
candidates met the standard or met it with weakness in the Spring 2013 and Spring 2012 semesters. Data shows
that candidates are familiar with a wide range of standards-based materials, resources, and technologies, and
choose, adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content teaching.
Standard 4a Issues of assessment for bilingual classrooms is addressed by assessments 1 and 5. In Key
Assessment #1 (Comprehensive Exam), 100% of the candidates met the standard or met it with weakness in the
Summer 2013, while 82% of candidates met the standard or met it with weakness in the Spring 2013 semester, and
50% of the candidates met the standard in the Fall 2012 semester. This data indicates significant improvement in
226
candidate performance in standard 4a on the comprehensive exam over the course of the academic year. In Key
Assessment #5 (Key Paper on Assessment), 75% of the candidates met the standard or met the standard with
weakness in the Fall 2012 semester, which is the most recent administration of the assessment. The data shows that
candidates demonstrate an understanding of the relationships between the standards and assessment as well as an
understanding of the difference between language proficiency and other types of assessment
Standard 4b Language proficiency assessment is addressed by assessments 1 and 5. In Key Assessment #1
(Comprehensive Exam), 100% of the candidates met the standard or met it with weakness in the Summer 2013,
while 76% of candidates met the standard or met it with weakness in the Spring 2013 semester, and 80% of the
candidates met the standard or met it with weakness it the Fall 2012 semester. In Key Assessment #5 (Key Paper
on Assessment), 75% of the candidates met the standard or met the standard with weakness in the Fall 2012
semester, which is the most recent administration of the assessment. The data shows that candidates demonstrate
the ability to choose and use a variety of standards based bilingual or ESL proficiency instruments to interpret
students identification, placement, and language growth in Spanish and English.
Standard 4c Classroom-based assessment for bilingual students is addressed by assessments 1 and 5. In Key
Assessment #1 (Comprehensive Exam), 80% of the candidates met the standard or met it with weakness in the
Summer 2013. The Spring 2013 version of the Comprehensive Exam did not assess standard 4c. In the Fall 2012
semester, 80% of the candidates met the standard or met it with weakness. In Key Assessment #5 (Key Paper on
Assessment), 75% of the candidates met the standard or met the standard with weakness in the Fall 2012 semester,
which is the most recent administration of the assessment. The data shows that candidates demonstrate the ability
to choose and use a variety of standards based bilingual or ESL language proficiency instruments to inform
instruction.
Standard 5a Bilingual education research and history is addressed by assessments 1, 3, and 7. In Key Assessment
1, 80% of the candidates met the standard in the Summer 2013. In the Spring 2013, 88% of the candidates met the
standard or met it with weakness. The Fall 2012 version of the comprehensive exam did not assess standard 5a. In
Key Assessment #3 (Case Study), 100% of the candidates met the standard or met the standard with weakness in
the most recent administration of the assessment (Fall 2012). In Key Assessment #7 (Philosophy and Advocacy
Paper), 100% of the candidates met the standard or met it with weakness in the Fall 2012, which is the most recent
administration of the assessment. The data shows that candidates demonstrate knowledge of history, research, and
current practice in the field of bilingual education and apply that knowledge to improve the teaching and learning
of their bilingual students. Candidates also become familiar with different models of bilingual education and the
effectiveness of different models.
Standard 5b Partnerships and Advocacy is addressed by assessments 3 and 7. In Key Assessment #3 (Case Study),
100% of the candidates met the standard or met the standard with weakness in the most recent administration of
the assessment (Fall 2012). In Key Assessment #7 (Philosophy and Advocacy Paper), 100% of the candidates met
the standard or met it with weakness in the Fall 2012, which is the most recent administration of the assessment.
The data shows that candidates understand the importance of serving as professional resources, advocating for ESL
students, and building partnerships with students’ families.
Standard 5c Professional Development and Collaboration is addressed by assessments 1, 3 and 7. In Key
Assessment 1, 100% of the candidates met the standard or met it with weakness in the Summer 2013. The Spring
2013 version of the comprehensive exam did not assess standard 5c. In the Fall 2012, 71% of the candidates met
the standard or met it with weakness. In Key Assessment #3 (Case Study), 100% of the candidates met the
standard or met the standard with weakness in the most recent administration of the assessment (Fall 2012). In Key
Assessment #7 (Philosophy and Advocacy Paper), 100% of the candidates met the standard or met it with
weakness in the Fall 2012, which is the most recent administration of the assessment. The data shows that
candidates know how to collaborate with and are prepared to serve as a resource to all staff, including
paraprofessionals, to improve learning for all bilingual students.
227
As can be appreciated, candidates in the master’s in Bilingual Education program perform satisfactorily in all assessments which are aligned to the program standards. In addition, program standards are distributed across
assessments with at least two assessments addressing each standard. The analysis of the data demonstrates that
when the assessments are considered as a whole, they are evidence of candidate mastery of program standards.
2. State licensure tests or professional examinations of content knowledge. 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. (Assessment Required)
Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV
See Assessment 1 attachment
3. EFFECTS ON STUDENT LEARNING. Assessment that demonstrates candidate effects on student learning. Examples of
assessments include those based on student work samples, portfolio tasks, case studies, follow-up studies, and employer surveys.
Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV
See Assessment 2 attachment
4. Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV
See Assessment 3 attachment
5. Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV
See Assessment 4 attachment
6. Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV
See Assessment 5 attachment
7. Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV
See Assessment 6 attachment
8. Provide assessment information as outlined in the directions for Section IV
See Assessment 7 attachment
SECTION V – USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE PROGRAM
1. Content Knowledge
All the key assessments evaluate candidates’ content knowledge: 1) Comprehensive exam, 2) Strategies portfolio, 3) Case study, 4) Paper on the systematic nature of language, 5) Key paper on assessment, 6) Lesson demonstration, 7) Philosophy
and advocacy refection paper. These key assessments were created when the program was revised in an attempt to improve
the overall quality and academic rigor of the program. They key assessments help faculty evaluate their instruction, the texts
and articles they choose to support content learning, and the assignments they give candidates to help them understand and
internalize theory and research in the field. Moreover, the key assessments help faculty evaluate candidate content knowledge
in an ongoing format throughout the program. The faculty disaggregates data by off campus cohorts. Faculty reflections
show that candidates in the different contexts respond differently to assignments and assessments. As a result, faculty adapt
to the needs of candidates in different contexts.
The assessment results showed that the majority of the candidates met the standards. Nevertheless, program faculty has
identified specific areas of concern. For example, it was noted that candidates have a difficult time answering the
comprehensive exam questions synthesizing the knowledge acquired and applying it to analytical situations. Therefore,
faculty will incorporate midterm exams into several courses in which the questions given will resemble the nature of
questions that students will encounter in their comprehensive exams. This will allow candidates to practice synthesizing
content knowledge and elaborating on the instruction implications of the concepts acquired.
228
2. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge
The following assessments specifically evaluate candidates’ professional and pedagogical knowledge: Assessment #3: Case Study; Assessment #6: Lesson demonstration; and Assessment #7: Philosophy and Advocacy Reflection Paper. All three of
these assessments require that candidates translate theory and research into practice.
1) The Case Study (Assessment #3) requires that candidates analyze the past and present context of an ELL with whom they
are working to identify the factors that influence second language acquisition and academic achievement. In addition,
candidates make recommendations for the future instruction of the case study student which requires candidates’ application of professional and pedagogical knowledge.
2) The Lesson Demonstration (Assessment #6) also requires candidates to apply their professional and pedagogical
knowledge when they identify a specific grade level and grade level standards to design a lesson in which they demonstrate
their ability to design instruction according to research-based best practices for emergent bilinguals to promote a supportive
classroom environment for bilingual students.
3) Finally, in the Philosophy and Advocacy Reflection Paper (Assessment #7) candidates apply their professional and
pedagogical knowledge on their role in advocating for students and their families assuring that schools meet their academic
and social needs.
The scoring rubrics used for the above-mentioned assessments are specifically designed to show how candidates are applying
the knowledge of research-based best practices. Candidates’ performance on these three assignments indicates that the standards that require attention are 2.b Cultural Groups and Identity, and 5.c Professional Development and Collaboration.
One major change in the program that has been discussed by the faculty is the design of a new key assessment that will
specifically address standards 2.a Nature and Role of Culture and 2.b Cultural Groups and Identity. This new assessment
will be implemented in EDFR 6388 – Intercultural Foundations of Education, which is a core course in the master’s program and required of all candidates. Regarding Standard 5.c Professional Development and Collaboration, faculty will introduce
and reinforce the importance of collaboration among staff to better meet the needs of emergent bilingual students throughout
coursework, even when the standard is not being formally assessed, in order to give candidates increased opportunities to
develop competency in the standard and perform satisfactorily once it is assessed.
3. Student Learning
The Strategies Portfolio (Assessment #2) is used to assess student learning. This assessment has been modified by
the professors to focus on candidates’ effect on ELLs’ learning through the implementation of strategies while working with students in the classroom and collecting artifacts as evidence of their field work. Candidates are
expected to apply specific strategies that allow students to access content and develop academic language in
content area courses. Candidates collect student work samples and additional evidence of the application of the
strategies. Additional evidence can include, but is not limited to, materials used in delivery of strategy, pictures of
students at work, etc.
Candidates are also expected to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies by analyzing student performance and
artifacts. Because these strategies and reflective analyses are compiled in a portfolio over the course of a semester,
the portfolio also allows candidates and professors to monitor candidates’ growth as the semester progresses.
The scoring rubric used to evaluate candidates on the above-mentioned assessment is specifically designed to show
how candidates are applying the knowledge of research-based best practices. The assessment results showed that
the majority of the candidates met the standards. Nevertheless, the standard in which candidates score the lowest is
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts, research, and best practices to plan classroom instruction in
a supportive learning environment for bilingual students. Based on analysis of the data and reflecting on the
assessment results, faculty have decided to provide extended modeling for candidates on how to plan effective
229
lessons for emergent bilingual learners drawing on best practices and research. Instructors plan to embed time to
demonstrate effective planning of instruction, and to provide extended time for candidates to work collaboratively,
with the support of the professor, in joint planning of instruction. In other words, faculty plan to incorporate the
gradual release of responsibility model to scaffold instruction for candidates and maximize the opportunities for
success in the attainment of standard 3.a.
Overall, each program standard was addressed by several key assessments. Candidates performed satisfactorily in
most key assessments. Therefore, when all assessments are considered as a whole, every program standard is met
by the great majority of candidates. The program faculty plans to engage in regular conversations to disaggregate
data in an effort to ensure continuous improvement.
The University of Texas at Brownsville
and Texas Southmost College
GRADUATE PROGRAM OF STUDY
Instructions: This Program of Study must be prepared in consultation with the graduate advisor. It must reflect the
degree requirements listed in the Graduate Catalog. Any changes to the degree requirements as shown on the POS
must have the written approval and justification of the graduate advisor and the Department Chair prior to submission
to the Office of Graduate Studies. Information given must be complete.
The POS must be typed.
Name
Student ID#
Last
First
Address
MI
TX
Street
City
State
Zip
Home Phone:
Cell. Phone#:
Email:
Degree Program: Language, Literacy, and Intercultural Studies
Concentration: Bilingual
1. Transfer courses (if any).
If applicable, list the courses you are requesting to transfer (attach copy of transcript). Transfer courses must
meet guidelines set forth in the Graduate Catalog.
Transfer Course
Institution
UTB Equivalent
Year Taken
230
Course
2. Courses that have been or will be completed at UTB/TSC
If pursuing 2nd master’s degree, maximum of 9 hours from first master’s degree can be used toward second master’s degree.
Course Prefix & Number
Course Name
Semester/Year
Required
EDCI 6300
Intro to Research
BILC/EDSL 6324
Language Acquisition and Implications for
Teaching
EDCI 6388
Socio-Cultural Foundations of Education
EDSL 6327
ESL Techniques in the Content Areas
EDLI 6351
Linguistics for Reading and ESL
BILC 6361
Issues in Bilingual and ESL Education
BILC/EDSL 6367
Assessing English Language Learners
BILC 6362
Principles of Curriculum Development in
Dual Language and ESL Programs
BILC 6365
Action Research in Dual Lang Education
For Dual Language Strand
BILC 6364
Principles and Practices of Biliteracy
Development
BILC 6363
Literatura Infantil
BILC 6366
Academic Spanish Across the Content Area
For ESL Strand
EDSL 6323
EDSL 6325
EDSL 6329
Approaches and Current Practices in
Second Language Instruction
ESL for Bilingual and Multicultural Settings
Foundations of ESL and Professionalism
3.Statement of your professional objectives for the program and certification(s) if any.
231
4. Experiences other than formal course work necessary or desired to achieve your
objectives.
5. Indicate the method of final examination that will document that you have achieved your
professional objectives. For a final exiting examination, a capstone experience or a
thesis defense, give the anticipated semester and anticipated date of completion.
Semester/Year
Comprehensive Exam
_____________________
Thesis
Capstone Course (MBA & MSN)
__________________________
Portfolio (M.Ed. in Educational Technology) __________________________
Students must complete all graduate work for a degree within seven years of the time of their first graduate
course registration. Graduate courses more than seven years old will not be accepted for credit toward a
degree program.
Graduate Student Signature:_________________________________
Date______________
232
Faculty Advisor Approval:___________________________________
Date______________
Department Chair Approval:_________________________________
Date______________
Graduate Office Approval:___________________________________
Date______________
xc:
Student
Advisor
Department Chair
Graduate Office retains original
Assessment #1
Comprehensive Exam
a. Assessment Tool
Comprehensive Exam Questions for
Master’s in Bilingual Education
You will be allowed four hours to complete the examination. Plan your time accordingly. Avoid spending too much time on any one answer;
leave enough time for each of your responses.
READ THE INSTRUCTIONS AND QUESTIONS CAREFULLY.
Identify your answers with the numbers of the questions and the letters of the sections.
A faculty committee will evaluate your examination. This process should be completed within ten (10) days. You may contact the graduate
office at that time for the results.
EXAM INSTRUCTIONS
Answer the four questions below. Read each question carefully and organize your answer carefully. Be sure you answer ALL parts of the
questions, including ALL the information asked for by the question. NOTE you should answer A and B (and C for # 1).
1.) Language Acquisition and ESL Techniques in Content Areas (one hour). (Standards 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 5a)
A) A) Current approaches to teaching ESL call for teaching language through content organized through units of inquiry rather than in isolation.
Discuss WHY it is important to teach language through content and WHY it is important to organize through units of inquiry. Once you have discussed
teaching language through content and the importance of organizing around units of inquiry explain how Cummins’ quadrants support these approaches
over traditional approaches. In addition, provide examples of activities for each quadrant contextualizing the activities in one unit of inquiry of your
choice.
B) Draw on three of the following theorists and researchers and explain their theory and/ or research explaining how their work influences student
achievement and the schooling of English language learners:
Krashen’s hypotheses (all five)
Cummins’ Threshold Hypothesis
Ogbu’s differentiation between immigrant and involuntary minorities
Types of English Language Learners
Sue and Padilla Perspectives on Failure
Cortés Contextual Interaction Model
233
C). Ofelia García suggests that we use the term “emergent bilinguals” to refer to our second language learners. Why does she prefer this term? What does
“emergent bilingual” means and how is this label different from the ELL or LEP label?
Question 2 for double emphasis (Standards 1b, 5c):
2.) Biliteracy Instruction and Literature. Answer en español.
Contestar la parte A en español.
A) Explique la concepción sociopsicolingüística de la lectura y enumere las características . Explique la diferencia entre la modalidad PRE y el habla
explorativa al hablar sobre los libros de literatura infantil con los niños.¿Cuál de las dos modalidades representa la concepción sociopsicolingüística?
Describir en detalle el modelo de transferencia gradual de la responsabilidad de la lectura. Incluir todas las etapas (la lectura en voz alta, la lectura
compartida, la lectura interactiva, la lectura guiada, y la lectura independiente) Explicar de que manera este modelo apoya la alfabetizaciín de los
estudiantes bilingües emergentes.
Answer Part B in English
B) Reshaping the school climate allows educators to incorporate and appreciate diversity. Explain the importance of creating a school climate that is
inclusive of ELLs. Provide specific examples of what the school vision and mission should be when ELLs’ identities are respected and valued. Then
provide specific ideas on the type of professional development that should be provided for the teachers and staff in the campus. Mention both the content
that would be covered and include at least two different structures of professional development that would be used.
Question 2 for Dual Language emphasis (Standard 1b):
2.) Biliteracy Instruction and Literature. Answer en español.
A) Compare la concepción de la lectura de reconocimiento de palabras con la concepción sociopsicolingüística de la lectura. Enumere las características
de cada una, o escriba una definición detallada de cada concepción. Dentro de la concepción sociopsicolingüística describa en detalle el modelo de
transferencia gradual de la responsabilidad.
B) ¿Cuál de las dos concepciones descriptas en la pregunta anterior apoya más el uso de la literatura auténtica en la enseñanza de la lectura? ¿Por qué?
De ejemplos de algunas estrategias (por ejemplo el uso de la imagen) que han implementado algunos maestros en el salón de clase usando la literatura
infantil. En su respuesta debe hacer explícito la importancia del uso de libros que reflejan la(s) cultura(s) de los hispanohablantes y el uso de libros
ilustrados. Además, explique la diferencia entre la modalidad PRE y el habla explorativa al hablar sobre los libros con los niños.
Question 2 for ESL emphasis (Standard 1b, 5c ):
2.) Biliteracy Instruction and ESL Professionalism.
A) Compare the two perspectives on early literacy: reading readiness and emergent literacy. Explain which perspective aligns better with the
sociopsycholinguistic view of reading. Then provide an overview of the checklist for effective reading instruction. Give an example of a lesson
in which a teacher delivers literacy instruction following the checklist and the sociopsycholinguistic view of reading. In your response, focus on
the stages of the balanced approach to literacy mentioning the kinds of books and structures (read aloud, guided reading, shared reading,
independent reading) that would support English language learners’ literacy development in English.
B)
Reshaping the school climate allows educators to incorporate and appreciate diversity. Explain the importance of creating a school climate that
is inclusive of ELLs. Provide specific examples of what the school vision and mission should be when ELLs’ identities are respected and valued.
Then provide specific ideas on the type of professional development that should be provided for the teachers and staff in the campus. Mention
both the content that would be covered and include at least two different structures of professional development that would be used.
3) Dual Language Issues and Curriculum Development (1 hour). (Standard 3a, 5a)
A.) Describe in detail the following programs offered to emergent bilingual in the United States. You must include their effectiveness in helping students
develop academic proficiency in English and reaching appropriate academic grade levels:
Two-Way Dual language programs
One-Way Dual language programs
Late-Exit bilingual programs
Early-Exit bilingual programs with content ESL
Early-Exit bilingual programs with traditional ESL
ESL pull-out programs
B) In the Dual Language Essentials book, the authors discuss curriculum essentials, and planning essentials. Discuss both of these essentials providing
classroom examples that exemplify them. Be sure that you include
234
1) preview, view, review
2) daily routine
3) scaffolded instruction for comprehensible input
4) vertical and horizontal planning
5) Collaborative planning
4.) Linguistics and Language Assessment (Standards 1a, 4a, 4b, 4c)
A.) Three areas of language studied by linguists are phonology, morphology, and syntax. Explain each of these areas by telling what is studied and what
the key concepts are in that area. Then, using examples from one of the three areas, demonstrate that language is systematic, not random.
B.) TESOL has developed sample performance indicators to help determine ELLs’ academic language proficiency. Describe how the TESOL
performance indicators are organized. Then choose one content area, one domain, and one grade level cluster and write a performance indicator for each
of the five levels of proficiency. For this part of your answer, put the model performance indicators in a chart like the one below. Be sure each
performance indicator includes the content, the language function, and the support or strategy.
starting
emerging
developing
expanding
bridging
b. Scoring Guide
Program Standard
Met
Met with Weakness
Not Met
Standard 1.a. Describing language.
Candidates demonstrate an
understanding of language as a system
and demonstrate a high level of
competence in both Spanish and
English. Candidates understand how to
support students in their acquisition and
use of English and Spanish in listening,
speaking, reading, and writing for social
and academic purposes.
Response clearly displays
an understanding of
language as a system and
how teachers should teach
to help students develop
academic language
Response displays a
partial understanding of
language as a system and
how teachers should teach
to help students develop
academic language
Response lacks necessary
information to display an
understanding of
language as a system and
how teachers should
teach to help students
develop academic
language
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and
development. Candidates understand
and apply concepts, theories, research,
and practice to facilitate the acquisition
of the primary language (Spanish) and a
new language in and out of classroom
settings. They view different approaches
to teaching reading and writing in the
bilingual classroom. They carry out
literacy projects to understand how
children develop literacy.
Response clearly displays
an understanding of
concepts, theories,
research, and practice to
facilitate the acquisition of
both the first and second
language, an
understanding of the two
views of reading , how
teachers can best support
literacy development in
both Spanish and English,
and what materials best
meet the needs of students
developing literacy and
content knowledge in two
languages
Response displays a
partial understanding of
concepts, theories,
research, and practice to
facilitate the acquisition of
both the first and second
language, an
understanding of the two
views of reading , how
teachers can best support
literacy development in
both Spanish and English,
and what materials best
meet the needs of students
developing literacy and
content knowledge in two
languages
Response lacks necessary
information to display an
understanding of
concepts, theories,
research, and practice to
facilitate the acquisition
of both the first and
second language, an
understanding of the two
views of reading , how
teachers can best support
literacy development in
both Spanish and
English, and what
materials best meet the
needs of students
developing literacy and
content knowledge in two
languages
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of
Culture. Candidates know, understand,
and use the major concepts, principles,
theories, and research related to the
nature and role of culture in language
Response clearly displays
an understanding of the
role of cultural identity
and academic achievement
Response clearly displays
a partial understanding of
the role of cultural identity
and academic achievement
Response lacks necessary
information to display an
understanding of the role
of cultural identity and
academic achievement of
235
development and academic achievement
that support individual students’ learning. In particular, they look at
Latino culture and the culture of the
borderland area.
of ELLs.
of ELLs.
ELLs.
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and
Identity. Candidates know, understand,
and use knowledge of how cultural
groups and students’ cultural identities affect language learning and school
achievement.
Response clearly displays
an understanding of
concepts, principles,
theories and research
related to the role of
culture in language
development and
academic achievement.
Response displays a
partial understanding of
concepts, principles,
theories and research
related to the role of
culture in language
development and
academic achievement.
Response lacks necessary
information to display an
understanding of
concepts, principles,
theories and research
related to the role of
culture in language
development and
academic achievement.
Standard 3.a. Planning for StandardsBased Bilingual, ESL, and Content
Instruction. Candidates know,
understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to plan
classroom instruction in a supportive
learning environment for bilingual
students.
Response clearly displays
an understanding of good
curriculum in Spanish and
English for
ESL/bilingual/dual
language classrooms and
an understanding of how
to plan instruction for
instruction in both Spanish
and English
Response displays a
partial understanding of
good curriculum in
Spanish and English for
ESL/bilingual/dual
language classrooms and
an understanding of how
to plan instruction for
instruction in both Spanish
and English
Response lacks necessary
information to display an
understanding of good
curriculum in Spanish
and English for
ESL/bilingual/dual
language classrooms and
an understanding of how
to plan instruction for
instruction in both
Spanish and English
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for
Bilingual Classrooms. Candidates
understand various issues of assessment
(e.g. cultural and linguistic bias, issues
of translation, political, social, and
psychological factors) in assessment, IQ,
and special education testing (including
gifted and talented); the importance of
standards; and the difference between
language proficiency and other types of
assessment (e.g. standardized
achievement tests of overall mastery), as
they affect bilingual student learning.
Response clearly displays
an understanding various
issues of assessment and
the importance of
standards.
Response displays a
partial understanding
various issues of
assessment and the
importance of standards.
Response lacks necessary
information to display an
understanding various
issues of assessment and
the importance of
standards.
Standard 4.b. Language Proficiency
Assessment. Candidates know and use a
variety of standards-based bilingual and
ESL language proficiency instruments to
inform their instruction and understand
their uses for identification, placement,
and demonstration of language growth
of bilingual students in Spanish and
English.
Response clearly displays
an understanding of how
to determine students’ academic language
proficiency and an
understanding of how to
write performance
indicators at different
levels of English language
proficiency.
Response displays a
partial understanding of
how to determine
students’ academic language proficiency and
an understanding of how
to write performance
indicators at different
levels of English language
proficiency.
Response lacks important
information to display an
understanding of how to
determine students’ academic language
proficiency and an
understanding of how to
write performance
indicators at different
levels of English
language proficiency.
Standard 4.c. Classroom-based
Assessment for bilingual students.
Candidates know and use a variety of
performance-based assessment tools and
techniques to inform instruction.
Response displays a clear
understanding of how to
use assessment to inform
instruction
Response displays a
partial understanding of
how to use assessment to
inform instruction
Response lacks important
information to display a
clear understanding of
how to use assessment to
inform instruction
Standard 5.a. Bilingual Education
Research and History. Candidates
Response clearly displays
an understanding of
Response displays a
partial understanding of
Response lacks important
information to display an
236
demonstrate knowledge of history,
research, and current practice in the field
of bilingual education and apply that
knowledge to improve the teaching and
learning of their bilingual students.
Candidates become familiar with
different models of bilingual education
and the effectiveness of different
models.
different models of
teaching bilingual students
and the pros and cons for
each model.
different models of
teaching bilingual students
and the pros and cons for
each model.
understanding of
different models of
teaching bilingual
students and the pros and
cons for each model.
Standard 5.c. Professional
Development and Collaboration.
Candidates collaborate with and are
prepared to serve as a resource to all
staff, including paraprofessionals, to
improve learning for all bilingual
students.
Response clearly displays
an understanding of how
to promote collaboration
among and professional
development for teachers
of bilingual students.
Response displays a
partial understanding of
how to promote
collaboration among and
professional development
for teachers of bilingual
students.
Response lacks important
information to display an
understanding of how to
promote collaboration
among and professional
development for teachers
of bilingual students.
n.a.
Response is clearly
written and well
organized. Topic/thesis is
clearly stated and well
developed; all parts of the
topic are addressed;
evidence of effective,
clear thinking and depth of
subject area knowledge.
Response lacks some
elements of organization
and clarity. Topic is
evident; some supporting
details; some unnecessary
repetitiveness is
evidenced; some problems
with clarity of thought and
lack of focus on the topic
or argument. Parts of the
topic are not addressed
Response is poorly
developed, support is
only vague or general;
ideas are trite; wording is
unclear, simplistic;
information irrelevant to
topic/argument is
frequent; extensive
repetitiveness; excessive
lack of focus on topic or
argument.
c. Candidate Data Charts
Table 1.1 Comprehensive Exam Results Summer 2011 – Spring 2013
Semester
No. of Students
Pass
Summer 2011
1
Fall 2011
1
Spring 2012
8
5
Summer 2012
3
2
Fall 2012
7
2
Spring 2013
17
16
Weak Pass
Fail
% Passing
1
0%
1
2
4
100%
1
88%
1
66%
1
86%
1
94%
237
Summer 2013
5
4
1
80%
Table 1.2: Total Results Summer 2013 n=5 (Brownsville, Donna, Spring Branch)
No. of
Students
Met
Met with
Weakness
Not
Met
% Met
Standards/Met
with
Weakness
Standard 1.a. Describing language.
5
1
4
0
100%
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and
development.
5
3
1
1
80%
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture.
5
4
1
0
100%
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and Identity.
5
4
0
1
80%
5
3
1
1
80%
5
3
2
0
100%
5
3
2
0
100%
5
2
2
1
80%
5
4
0
1
80%
2
1
1
0
100%
No. of
Students
Met
Met with
Weakness
Not
Met
% Met
Standards/Met
with
Weakness
Standard 1.a. Describing language.
1
0
1
0
100%
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and
development.
1
0
0
1
0%
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture.
1
0
1
0
100%
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and Identity.
1
0
0
1
0%
Standard
Standard 3.a. Planning for StandardsBased Bilingual, ESL, and Content
Instruction.
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for
Bilingual Classrooms.
Standard 4.b.
Assessment.
Language
Proficiency
Standard 4.c. Classroom-based Assessment for
bilingual students.
Standard
5.a.
Bilingual
Research and History.
Education
Standard 5.c. Professional Development and
Collaboration.
Table 1.3 Brownsville Cohort Summer 2013 n=1
Standard
238
1
0
0
1
0%
1
0
1
0
100%
1
0
1
0
100%
1
0
0
1
0%
1
0
0
1
0%
No. of
Students
Met
Met with
Weakness
Not
Met
% Met
Standards/Met
with
Weakness
Standard 1.a. Describing language.
3
1
2
0
100%
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and
development.
3
3
0
0
100%
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture.
3
3
0
0
100%
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and Identity.
3
3
0
0
100%
3
2
1
0
100%
3
3
0
0
100%
3
3
0
0
100%
3
2
1
0
100%
3
3
0
0
100%
1
1
0
0
100%
Standard 3.a. Planning for StandardsBased Bilingual, ESL, and Content
Instruction.
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for
Bilingual Classrooms.
Standard 4.b.
Assessment.
Language
Proficiency
Standard 4.c. Classroom-based Assessment for
bilingual students.
Standard
5.a.
Bilingual
Research and History.
Education
Table 1.4 Donna Cohort Summer 2013 n=3
Standard
Standard 3.a. Planning for StandardsBased Bilingual, ESL, and Content
Instruction.
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for
Bilingual Classrooms.
5Standard 4.b.
Assessment.
Language
Proficiency
Standard 4.c. Classroom-based Assessment for
bilingual students.
Standard
5.a.
Bilingual
Research and History.
Education
Standard 5.c. Professional Development and
Collaboration.
Table 1.5 Spring Branch Summer 2013 n=1
239
No. of
Students
Met
Met with
Weakness
Not
Met
% Met
Standards/Met
with
Weakness
Standard 1.a. Describing language.
1
0
1
0
100%
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and
development.
1
0
1
0
100%
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture.
1
1
0
0
100%
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and Identity.
1
1
0
0
100%
1
1
0
0
100%
1
0
1
0
100%
1
0
1
0
100%
1
0
1
0
100%
1
1
0
0
100%
1
0
1
0
100%
Standard
Standard 3.a. Planning for StandardsBased Bilingual, ESL, and Content
Instruction.
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for
Bilingual Classrooms.
5Standard 4.b.
Assessment.
Language
Proficiency
Standard 4.c. Classroom-based Assessment for
bilingual students.
Standard
5.a.
Bilingual
Research and History.
Education
Standard 5.c. Professional Development and
Collaboration.
Table 1.6: Total Results Spring 2013 n=17 (Brownsville, Donna, Spring Branch)
No. of
Students
Met
Met with
Weakness
Not
Met
% Met
Standards/Met
with
Weakness
Standard 1.a. Describing language.
17
8
7
2
88%
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and
development.
17
10
6
1
94%
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture.
17
15
1
1
94%
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and Identity.
17
13
3
1
94%
17
7
9
1
94%
Standard
Standard 3.a. Planning for StandardsBased Bilingual, ESL, and Content
Instruction.
240
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for
Bilingual Classrooms.
17
6
8
3
82%
Language
Proficiency
17
7
6
4
76%
Standard
5.a.
Bilingual
Research and History.
Education
17
7
8
2
88%
Standard 4.b.
Assessment.
*This previous version of the exam did not assess standard 4c or 5c
Table 1.7 Brownsville Cohort Spring 2013 n=2
No. of
Students
Met
Met with
Weakness
Not
Met
% Met
Standards/Met
with
Weakness
Standard 1.a. Describing language.
2
2
0
0
100%
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and
development.
2
2
0
0
100%
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture.
2
2
0
0
100%
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and Identity.
2
2
0
0
100%
2
1
1
0
100%
2
1
0
1
50%
Standard
Standard 3.a. Planning for StandardsBased Bilingual, ESL, and Content
Instruction.
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for
Bilingual Classrooms.
Language
Proficiency
2
1
1
0
50%
Standard
5.a.
Bilingual
Research and History.
Education
2
0
2
0
100%
Standard 4.b.
Assessment.
*This previous version of the exam did not assess standard 4c or 5c
Table 1.8 Donna Cohort Spring 2013 n=5
No. of
Students
Met
Met with
Weakness
Not
Met
% Met
Standards/Met
with
Weakness
Standard 1.a. Describing language.
5
1
2
2
60%
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and
development.
5
2
2
1
80%
Standard
241
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture.
5
4
1
0
80%
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and Identity.
5
3
1
1
80%
5
0
4
1
80%
5
1
3
1
80%
Standard 3.a. Planning for StandardsBased Bilingual, ESL, and Content
Instruction.
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for
Bilingual Classrooms.
Language
Proficiency
5
1
2
2
60%
Standard
5.a.
Bilingual
Research and History.
Education
5
0
4
1
80%
Standard 4.b.
Assessment.
*This previous version of the exam did not assess standard 4c or 5c
Table 1.9 Spring Branch Spring 2013 n=10
No. of
Students
Met
Met with
Weakness
Not
Met
% Met
Standards/Met
with
Weakness
Standard 1.a. Describing language.
10
5
5
0
100%
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and
development.
10
6
4
0
100%
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture.
10
9
1
0
100%
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and Identity.
10
8
2
0
100%
10
6
4
0
100%
10
5
5
0
100%
Standard
Standard 3.a. Planning for StandardsBased Bilingual, ESL, and Content
Instruction.
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for
Bilingual Classrooms.
Language
Proficiency
10
5
5
0
100%
Standard
5.a.
Bilingual
Research and History.
Education
10
7
2
1
90%
Standard 4.b.
Assessment.
*This previous version of the exam did not assess standard 4c or 5c
242
Table 1.10 Total Results Fall 2012 n=7 (Brownsville, Donna, Spring Branch)
No. of
Students
Met
Met with
Weakness
Not Met
% Met
Standards/Met
with
Weakness
Standard 1.a. Describing language.
7
2
3
2
71%
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and development.
7
2
5
0
100%
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture.
7
2
4
1
86%
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and Identity.
7
2
4
1
86%
7
3
3
1
86%
4
2
0
2
50%
5
2
2
1
80%
5
2
2
1
80%
7
2
3
2
71%
Standard
Standard 3.a. Planning for Standards-Based Bilingual,
ESL, and Content Instruction.
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for Bilingual
Classrooms.
Standard 4.b. Language Proficiency Assessment.
Standard 4.c. Classroom-based
bilingual students.
Assessment
for
Standard 5.c. Professional Development and
Collaboration.
*This previous version of the comprehensive exam did not assess standard 5a.
Table 1.11 Brownsville Fall 2012 n=5
No. of
Students
Met
Met with
Weakness
Not
Met
% Met
Standards/Met
with
Weakness
Standard 1.a. Describing language.
5
1
3
1
80%
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and
development.
5
1
4
0
100%
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture.
5
1
3
1
80%
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and
Identity.
5
1
3
1
80%
5
2
3
0
100%
2
1
0
1
50%
Standard
Standard 3.a. Planning for StandardsBased Bilingual, ESL, and Content
Instruction.
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for
Bilingual Classrooms.
243
Standard 4.b.
Assessment.
Language
Proficiency
Standard
4.c.
Classroom-based
Assessment for bilingual students.
Standard 5.c. Professional Development
and Collaboration.
3
1
2
0
100%
3
1
3
1
80%
5
1
3
1
80%
*This previous version of the comprehensive exam did not assess standard 5a.
Table1.12 Donna Fall 2012 n=1
No. of
Students
Met
Met with
Weakness
Not
Met
% Met
Standards/Met
with
Weakness
Standard 1.a. Describing language.
1
0
0
1
0%
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and
development.
1
0
1
0
100%
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture.
1
0
1
0
100%
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and
Identity.
1
0
1
0
100%
1
0
0
1
0%
1
0
0
1
0%
1
0
0
1
0%
1
0
0
1
0%
1
0
0
1
0%
Standard
Standard 3.a. Planning for StandardsBased Bilingual, ESL, and Content
Instruction.
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for
Bilingual Classrooms.
Standard 4.b.
Assessment.
Language
Proficiency
Standard
4.c.
Classroom-based
Assessment for bilingual students.
Standard 5.c. Professional Development
and Collaboration.
*This previous version of the comprehensive exam did not assess standard 5a.
Table1.13 Spring Branch Fall 2012 n=1
Standard
No. of
Students
Met
Met with
Weakness
Not
Met
% Met
Standards/Met
with
244
Weakness
Standard 1.a. Describing language.
1
1
0
0
100%
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and
development.
1
1
0
0
100%
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture.
1
1
0
0
100%
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and
Identity.
1
1
0
0
100%
1
1
0
0
100%
1
1
0
0
100%
1
1
0
0
100%
1
1
0
0
100%
1
1
0
0
100%
Standard 3.a. Planning for StandardsBased Bilingual, ESL, and Content
Instruction.
Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for
Bilingual Classrooms.
Standard 4.b.
Assessment.
Language
Proficiency
Standard
4.c.
Classroom-based
Assessment for bilingual students.
Standard 5.c. Professional Development
and Collaboration.
*This previous version of the comprehensive exam did not assess standard 5a.
Assessment #2
Strategies Portfolio
a. Assessment Tool
Candidates are required to carry out 4 strategies learned in EDSL 6327 through which they facilitate access to content and
language development for ELLs. This assessment focuses on determining candidates’ effect on ELLs’ learning through the implementation of strategies while working with students in the classroom. Candidates are required to collect student work
samples and additional evidence of the application of the strategies to facilitate the assessment of candidate effect on student
learning. Additional evidence of the implementation of ESL strategies with students in the classroom can include, but is not
limited to, materials used in delivery of strategy, pictures of students at work, etc. Candidates are expected to briefly explain
to the class and the professor what they have done in the application of the strategy. Each strategy should apply to a different
content area other than reading/language arts (math, science, social studies, etc.).
Candidates collect the artifacts in an e-portfolio. The documentation of each strategy in the portfolio includes a lesson plan, a
description of the strategy with references to the readings completed in the course that support the use of the strategy, an
analysis of the effect of the strategy on student learning, and student work samples along with any other evidence of strategy
implementation.
245
b. Scoring Guide
Program Standard
Standard 3.a. Planning for
Standards-Based Bilingual, ESL,
and Content Instruction.
Candidates know, understand, and
apply concepts, research, and best
practices to plan classroom
instruction in a supportive learning
environment for bilingual students.
Met
Met with Weakness
Not Met
The lesson plans effectively
integrate language into
content instruction.
The lesson plans attempt to
integrate language into
content instruction.
The lesson plans do not
integrate language into
content instruction.
The strategies are described
in detail. Appropriate
literature is cited effectively
to support the use of the
strategies in the teaching of
content to ELLs.
The strategies are described
and appropriate literature is
cited.
The strategies are not
clearly described and/or
appropriate literature is
not cited.
4
1
3
Standard 3.b. Managing and
Implementing Standards-based
Bilingual, ESL, and Content
Instruction. Candidates know,
manage, and implement a variety of
standards-based teaching strategies
and techniques for developing and
integrating English and Spanish
listening, speaking, reading, and
writing, and for accessing the core
curriculum. Candidates support
bilingual students in accessing the
core curriculum as they learn
language and academic content
together.
The lesson plans clearly
indicate the content
standards addressed by the
lesson.
Clear and precise
description of the
strategies’ effects on student learning is
provided. Pre- and poststudent performance is
described. Student
responses to the strategies
are also described.
The lesson plans identify
some content standards
addressed by the lesson.
The effect of the strategy on
student learning is described.
Evidence for the
implementation of the strategy
is provided.
The lesson plans do not
identify content
standards addressed by
the lesson.
The effect of the
strategy on student
learning is not clearly
described.
Evidence of the
implementation of the
strategy is not provided
or is not relevant.
Relevant and appropriate
evidence for the
implementation of the
strategies is provided.
4
Standard 3.c. Using Resources
Effectively in ESL, Bilingual, and
Content Instruction. Candidates
are familiar with a wide range of
standards-based materials, resources,
and technologies, and choose, adapt,
and use them in effective bilingual,
ESL, and content teaching.
The lesson plans specify
appropriate materials for
the teaching of content to
ELLs.
Samples of appropriate
materials used are also
provided.
3
1
The lesson plans specify
materials used for the teaching
of content to ELLs.
The lesson plans do not
specify materials used
for the teaching of
content to ELLs.
Samples of materials used are
also provided.
2
1
0
246
Grading:
10=100 9.75= 97.5
7.5=75 7.25=72.5
9.5= 95
9.25= 92.5
9=90
8.75= 87.5
8.5= 85
8.25=82.5
8= 80
7.75=77.5
c. Candidate Data Charts
Table 2.1: Total (Brownsville, Alvin) Spring 2013 n=11
Standard
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a
supportive learning environment for bilingual students.
3b. Candidates know, manage, and implement a variety of
standards-based teaching strategies and techniques for
developing and integrating English and Spanish listening,
speaking, reading, and writing, for accessing the core
curriculum. Candidates support bilingual students in
accessing the core curriculum as they learn language and
academic content together.
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standardsbased materials, resources, and technologies, and choose,
adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content
teaching.
Met Standard
Met with
Weakness
Not Met
% Met
Standards /
Met with
Weakness
6
4
1
90%
8
3
0
100%
11
0
0
100%
Table 2.2: Brownsville Spring 2013 n=7
Standard
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a
supportive learning environment for bilingual students.
3b. Candidates know, manage, and implement a variety of
standards-based teaching strategies and techniques for
developing and integrating English and Spanish listening,
speaking, reading, and writing, for accessing the core
curriculum. Candidates support bilingual students in
accessing the core curriculum as they learn language and
academic content together.
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standardsbased materials, resources, and technologies, and choose,
adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content
teaching.
Met Standard
Met with
Weakness
Not Met
% Met
Standards /
Met with
Weakness
4
3
0
100%
5
2
0
100%
7
0
0
100%
247
Table 2.3: Alvin Spring 2013 n=4
Standard
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a
supportive learning environment for bilingual students.
3b. Candidates know, manage, and implement a variety of
standards-based teaching strategies and techniques for
developing and integrating English and Spanish listening,
speaking, reading, and writing, for accessing the core
curriculum. Candidates support bilingual students in
accessing the core curriculum as they learn language and
academic content together.
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standardsbased materials, resources, and technologies, and choose,
adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content
teaching.
Met Standard
Met with
Weakness
Not Met
% Met
Standards /
Met with
Weakness
2
1
1
75%
3
1
0
100%
4
0
0
100%
Table 2.4: Total (Brownsville, New Caney) Spring 2012 n=10
Standard
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a
supportive learning environment for bilingual students.
3b. Candidates know, manage, and implement a variety of
standards-based teaching strategies and techniques for
developing and integrating English and Spanish listening,
speaking, reading, and writing, for accessing the core
curriculum. Candidates support bilingual students in
accessing the core curriculum as they learn language and
academic content together.
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standardsbased materials, resources, and technologies, and choose,
adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content
teaching.
Met Standard
Met with
Weakness
Not Met
% Met
Standards /
Met with
Weakness
1
9
0
100%
8
2
0
100%
10
0
0
100%
Not Met
% Met
Standards /
Met with
Weakness
Table 2.5: Brownsville Spring 2012 n=4
Standard
Met Standard
Met with
Weakness
248
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a
supportive learning environment for bilingual students.
3b. Candidates know, manage, and implement a variety of
standards-based teaching strategies and techniques for
developing and integrating English and Spanish listening,
speaking, reading, and writing, for accessing the core
curriculum. Candidates support bilingual students in
accessing the core curriculum as they learn language and
academic content together.
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standardsbased materials, resources, and technologies, and choose,
adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content
teaching.
0
4
0
100%
2
2
0
100%
4
0
0
100%
Table 2.6: New Caney Spring 2012 n=6
Standard
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a
supportive learning environment for bilingual students.
3b. Candidates know, manage, and implement a variety of
standards-based teaching strategies and techniques for
developing and integrating English and Spanish listening,
speaking, reading, and writing, for accessing the core
curriculum. Candidates support bilingual students in
accessing the core curriculum as they learn language and
academic content together.
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standardsbased materials, resources, and technologies, and choose,
adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content
teaching.
Met Standard
Met with
Weakness
Not Met
% Met
Standards /
Met with
Weakness
1
5
0
100%
6
0
0
100%
6
0
0
100%
Assessment #3
Case Study
A. Assessment Tool
Candidates will be showing their understanding of concepts, theories, research, and cultural influences on second
language acquisition. They will also apply research-based best practices as they analyze the needs of a case study
student in BILC/EDSL 6324: Language Acquisition and Implications for Teaching.
Directions for Candidates:
During the case study you should be observing someone who is acquiring a second language. That person may be
just starting to learn English or may be more advanced. The following guidelines will help you as you collect
information. Your case study will have three parts: past, present, and future:
Past - Give us some background
249
The past section of the case study includes the personal and educational background of the student.
You should include answers to questions such as: What is the student’s first language? How long has he or she been in the U.S.? Where did he or she come from? (Many second language students were born in the U.S.) What
has been the schooling history (here and in other countries) of the person and how much schooling did the person
receive in his/her first language? What is the family situation like? What is the schooling history of the students’ parents or guardians? What has been the parents’ involvement in your case study subjects’ schooling? What do you know about the siblings or other close relatives? Some of this information can come from an interview of the person
and/or parents.
In your analysis of this information you should answer questions such as
How does this person's academic and personal background compare with the case studies you have read about in this
and other coursework? What would different researchers and theorists you have read say about your case study? Is
he/she an example of what the research says?
Present –
In this part of your paper, you should include the present educational situation of your case study subject
from information that you have gathered in the interviews and observations done in both the home and school
environments. You could include observations of oral interactions both inside and outside the classroom, lists of
things the person reads, any analysis of that reading, and samples of the person's writing.
In your analysis you should focus specifically on your assessment of the student’s oral and written language
proficiency in both English and his/her primary language.
It will be critical that as you are studying the person's acquisition of English, you also analyze the person’s proficiency in reading and writing the first language.
As you describe the person's oral and written English and Spanish proficiency, you should use terminology
and concepts from your readings and from class discussions. In other words, try to make some links between what
you are observing and what you have studied.
Future The last section of your paper should describe some of the best practices that would help the case study
subject become more proficient in English. Be sure to include how the students’ first language should be included in any kind of instruction. You should connect your recommendations to the best practices you have been studying
about in your coursework.
Conclusion- In your conclusion summarize the linguistic, educational social, and cultural influences on your case
study drawing on what you have studied in your coursework. Your analysis should include references to key
researchers and theorists.
Try to do all this in about 15 pages. You'll get feedback on drafts of your case study before turning in the
final copy. Your final paper will be graded by the rubric for the case study.
B. Scoring Guide
Program Standard
Met
Met with Weakness
Not Met
andard 1.b. Language acquisition and
velopment. Candidates understand and
ply concepts, theories, research, and
ctice to facilitate the acquisition of the
mary language (Spanish) and a new
guage in and out of classroom settings.
Case study narrative
includes key concepts,
theories and research of first
and second language and
makes connections from the
case study subject to theory
and research
Case study narrative includes
some of the key concepts,
theories and research of first
and second language
acquisition as covered in
coursework.
Case study narrative includes
very few concepts, theories
and research of first and
second language acquisition
as covered in coursework.
andard 2.a. Nature and Role of
lture. Candidates know, understand,
Case study narrative
includes an understanding of
Case study narrative includes
some examples from the case
Case study narrative includes
almost no examples from the
250
d use the major concepts, principles,
ories, and research related to the nature
d role of culture in language
velopment and academic achievement
t support individual students’ learning. particular, they look at Latino culture
d the culture of the borderland area.
the cultural background of
the students providing
quality examples from the
case study subjects and
making relevant connections
describing the students in
and out of school.
study subject and makes
some connections describing
the students in and out of
school.
case study subject and makes
few connections describing
the students in and out of
school.
andard 2.b. Cultural Groups and
entity. Candidates know, understand,
d use knowledge of how cultural groups
d students’ cultural identities affect guage learning and school achievement.
Case study narrative
includes an analysis of the
cultural influences on the
case study subjects’ academic achievement.
Case study narrative
mentions how cultural
influences impact the case
study subjects’ academic achievement.
Case study narrative includes
no information on how
cultural influences impact the
case study subjects’ academic achievement.
andard 3.a. Planning for Standardssed Bilingual, ESL, and Content
struction.
Candidates
know,
derstand, and apply concepts, research,
d best practices to plan classroom
truction in a supportive learning
vironment for bilingual students.
Case study narrative
provides a clear description
of past and present
educational background
(language background,
language of schooling, type
of instruction and services
student
Case study narrative provides
some understanding of best
practices and/or supportive
learning environments for
second language learners
Case study narrative provides
no understanding of best
practices and/or supportive
learning environments for
second language learners
Case study narrative
demonstrates sound
knowledge of current
practice in the field of
bilingual education and
appropriately applies that
knowledge to address the
case study subject’s academic needs.
Case study narrative
demonstrates some
knowledge of current
practice in bilingual
education and attempts to
apply that knowledge to
address the case study
subject’s academic needs.
Case study narrative does not
demonstrate knowledge of
current practice in bilingual
education or does not apply
that knowledge to address the
case study subject’s academic needs.
Case study narrative makes
clear recommendations of
appropriate practices to help
the case study subject move
towards academic success
Case study narrative makes a
few recommendations of
practices to help the case
study subject move towards
academic success
Case study narrative makes
no recommendations of
practices to help the case
study subject move towards
academic success
andard 5.a. Bilingual Education
search and History. Candidates
monstrate knowledge of history,
earch, and current practice in the field
bilingual education and apply that
owledge to improve the teaching and
rning of their bilingual students.
ndidates become familiar with different
dels of bilingual education and the
ectiveness of different models
andard
5.b.
Partnerships
and
vocacy. The knowledge candidates
n of the history of and research on
ingual education helps them take
vocacy positions at their schools in their
tricts. Candidates serve as professional
ources and build partnerships with
dents’ families.
receives and academic
success) and gives
clear evidence of an
understanding of best
practices and supportive
learning environments for
second language learners.
251
andard 5.c. Professional Development
d
Collaboration.
Candidates
laborate with and are prepared to serve
a resource to all staff, including
aprofessionals, to improve learning for
bilingual students.
.
Case study narrative
includes quality
recommendations for
collaboration among staff to
improve learning for the
case study subject.
Case study narrative includes
recommendations for
collaboration among staff to
improve learning for the case
study subject.
Case study narrative does not
include recommendations for
collaboration among staff to
improve learning for the case
study subject.
. In addition, paper is clearly
writing and well organized.
Topic/thesis is clearly stated
and well developed; all parts
of the topic are addressed;
evidence of effective, clear
thinking and depth of
subject area knowledge.
. Paper lacks some elements
of organization and clarity.
Topic is evident; some
supporting details; some
unnecessary repetitiveness is
evidenced; some problems
with clarity of thought and
lack of focus on the topic or
argument. Parts of the topic
are not addressed
Topic is poorly developed,
support is only vague or
general; ideas are trite;
wording is unclear, simplistic;
information irrelevant to
topic/argument is frequent;
extensive repetitiveness;
excessive lack of focus on
topic or argument.
C. Candidate Data Charts
Table 1: Total (Brownsville, Alvin) Fall 2012 n=10
Standard
No. of
Students
Met
Met with
Weakness
Not Met
% Met
Standards/Met
with Weakness
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and development. Candidates
understand and apply concepts, theories, research, and practice to
facilitate the acquisition of the primary language (Spanish) and a
new language in and out of classroom settings.
10
6
4
0
100%
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture. Candidates know,
understand, and use the major concepts, principles, theories, and
research related to the nature and role of culture in language
development and academic achievement that support individual
students’ learning. In particular, they look at Latino culture and
the culture of the borderland area.
10
8
2
0
100%
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and Identity. Candidates know,
understand, and use knowledge of how cultural groups and
students’ cultural identities affect language learning and school
achievement.
10
8
2
0
100%
10
10
0
0
100%
10
7
3
0
100%
Standard 3.a. Planning for Standards-Based Bilingual, ESL, and
Content Instruction. Candidates know, understand, and apply
concepts, research, and best practices to plan classroom
instruction in a supportive learning environment for bilingual
students.
Standard 5.a. Bilingual Education Research and History.
Candidates demonstrate knowledge of history, research, and
252
current practice in the field of bilingual education and apply that
knowledge to improve the teaching and learning of their bilingual
students. Candidates become familiar with different models of
bilingual education and the effectiveness of different models.
10
7
3
0
100%
10
5
5
0
100%
Standard
No. of
Students
Met
Met with
Weakness
Not Met
% Met
Standards/Met
with Weakness
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and development. Candidates
understand and apply concepts, theories, research, and practice to
facilitate the acquisition of the primary language (Spanish) and a
new language in and out of classroom settings.
7
4
3
0
100%
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture. Candidates know,
understand, and use the major concepts, principles, theories, and
research related to the nature and role of culture in language
development and academic achievement that support individual
students’ learning. In particular, they look at Latino culture and the culture of the borderland area.
7
6
1
0
100%
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and Identity. Candidates know,
understand, and use knowledge of how cultural groups and
students’ cultural identities affect language learning and school
achievement.
7
6
1
0
100%
7
7
0
0
100%
7
4
3
0
100%
7
5
2
0
100%
7
4
3
0
100%
Standard 5.b. Partnerships and Advocacy. The knowledge
candidates gain of the history of and research on bilingual
education helps them take advocacy positions at their schools in
their districts. Candidates serve as professional resources and
build partnerships with students’ families.
Standard 5.c. Professional Development and Collaboration.
Candidates collaborate with and are prepared to serve as a
resource to all staff, including paraprofessionals, to improve
learning for all bilingual students.
Table 2: Brownsville Fall 2012 n=7
Standard 3.a. Planning for Standards-Based Bilingual, ESL, and
Content Instruction. Candidates know, understand, and apply
concepts, research, and best practices to plan classroom
instruction in a supportive learning environment for bilingual
students.
Standard 5.a. Bilingual Education Research and History.
Candidates demonstrate knowledge of history, research, and
current practice in the field of bilingual education and apply that
knowledge to improve the teaching and learning of their bilingual
students. Candidates become familiar with different models of
bilingual education and the effectiveness of different models.
Standard 5.b. Partnerships and Advocacy. The knowledge
candidates gain of the history of and research on bilingual
education helps them take advocacy positions at their schools in
their districts. Candidates serve as professional resources and
build partnerships with students’ families.
Standard 5.c. Professional Development and Collaboration.
Candidates collaborate with and are prepared to serve as a
resource to all staff, including paraprofessionals, to improve
learning for all bilingual students.
253
Data Table 3: Alvin Fall 2012 n=3
Standard
No. of
Students
Met
Met with
Weakness
Not Met
% Met
Standards/Met
with Weakness
Standard 1.b. Language acquisition and
development. Candidates understand and apply
concepts, theories, research, and practice to
facilitate the acquisition of the primary
language (Spanish) and a new language in and
out of classroom settings.
3
2
1
0
100%
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture.
Candidates know, understand, and use the
major concepts, principles, theories, and
research related to the nature and role of culture
in language development and academic
achievement that support individual students’ learning. In particular, they look at Latino
culture and the culture of the borderland area.
3
2
1
0
100%
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and Identity.
Candidates know, understand, and use
knowledge of how cultural groups and students’ cultural identities affect language learning and
school achievement.
3
2
1
0
100%
3
3
0
0
100%
3
3
0
0
100%
3
2
1
0
100%
3
1
2
0
100%
Standard 3.a. Planning for Standards-Based
Bilingual, ESL, and Content Instruction.
Candidates know, understand, and apply
concepts, research, and best practices to plan
classroom instruction in a supportive learning
environment for bilingual students.
Standard 5.a. Bilingual Education Research and
History. Candidates demonstrate knowledge of
history, research, and current practice in the
field of bilingual education and apply that
knowledge to improve the teaching and learning
of their bilingual students. Candidates become
familiar with different models of bilingual
education and the effectiveness of different
models.
Standard 5.b. Partnerships and Advocacy. The
knowledge candidates gain of the history of and
research on bilingual education helps them take
advocacy positions at their schools in their
districts. Candidates serve as professional
resources and build partnerships with students’ families.
Standard 5.c. Professional Development and
Collaboration. Candidates collaborate with and
are prepared to serve as a resource to all staff,
including paraprofessionals, to improve
learning for all bilingual students.
Assessment #4
Paper on the Systematic Nature of Language
254
A. Assessment Tool
Students will demonstrate their understanding of language as a system. This understanding will be
demonstrated by writing a paper in EDLI 6351 in which students use examples from the phonological system
of English to show that language is systematic. The following are the directions students receive to write their
paper:
Paper (meets standard 1a) – In this paper, explain the systematic nature of language by using examples from
the phonological system of English. In your introduction, explain what a phoneme is and how linguists
categorize phonemes. In the body of the paper explain how language is systematic by using examples of
natural classes of phonemes (for example, voiceless stops or short vowels). Include examples of classes that
represent vowel sounds and classes that represent consonant sounds. Your paper should have examples, but
you should not discuss all the phonemes of English. Use Chapter 3 as a reference. Conclude the paper by
summarizing what your discussion shows about the systematic nature of language. This paper should be 3-5
pages long.
You will submit a draft of the paper. One member of your group will do a peer review of your paper. You will
not review the person who reviewed your paper. The review should be based on the rubric below. In your
review, state whether you think the paper meets the requirements, meets with weakness, or does not meet. Then
explain why you made this decision. Be specific about things that were good or things that could be improved.
B. Scoring Guide
Program Standard
Met
Met with Weakness
Not Met
Standard 1.a. Describing
language. Candidates
demonstrate understanding of
language as a system and
demonstrate a high level of
competence in helping
bilingual students acquire and
use English and Spanish in
listening, speaking, reading,
and writing for social and
academic purposes.
paper explains the systematic
nature of language by
providing clear examples
from the phonological system
of English showing that
phonemes can be classified
systematically by voicing,
manner of articulation, and
place of articulation
paper explains the systematic
nature of language by
providing some examples
from the phonological system
of English showing how
phonemes can be classified
systematically, but not
including one of the
following: voicing, manner of
articulation, and place of
articulation
paper explains the systematic
nature of language by
providing only a few
examples from the
phonological system of
English showing how
phonemes can be classified
systematically, but not
including two of the
following: voicing, manner of
articulation, and place of
articulation
paper will be well-organized
using subheads and
containing an introduction
and conclusion, written in a
consistently academic style,
and will contain only a
minimal number of
mechanical errors
paper will be organized with
an introduction and
conclusion and some
subheads, will generally be
written in an academic style
with some instances of
conversational language, and
will contain only a few
mechanical errors
paper will lack clear
organization, will generally
be written in a conversational,
and will contain several
mechanical errors
C. Candidate data charts
Table 4.1 - Total (Brownsville, New Caney) Spring 2013 n=8
Standard
Met Standard
Met with
Weakness
Not Met
% Met
Standards /
Met with
Weakness
1a Candidates understand language as a system
255
8
0
0
100%
Table 4.2 Brownsville Spring 2013 n=1
Standard
Met Standard
Met with
Weakness
Not Met
1
0
0
% Met
Standards /
Met with
Weakness
1a Candidates understand language as a system
100%
Table 4.3 New Caney Spring 2013 n=7
Standard
Met Standard
Met with
Weakness
Not Met
7
0
0
% Met
Standards /
Met with
Weakness
1a Candidates understand language as a system
Table 4.4 - Total (Brownsville, Donna, Spring Branch)
100%
Spring 2012 n=32
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
Standard
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
14
12
6
1a Candidates understand language as a system
Table 4.5 - Brownsville
81%
Spring 2012 n=11
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
Standard
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
3
5
3
1a Candidates understand language as a system
Table 4.6 - Donna
72%
Spring 2012 n=8
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
Standard
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
4
2
2
1a Candidates understand language as a system
Table 4.7 - Spring Branch
75%
Spring 2012 n=13
256
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
Standard
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
7
5
1
1a Candidates understand language as a system
92%
Assessment #5
Key Paper on Assessment
A. Assessment Tool
Candidates will write a paper on assessment in BILC/EDSL 6367 in which they demonstrate their understanding of
issues of assessment, as well as their ability to choose and use a variety of standards-based assessments and language
proficiency instruments.
Directions for Candidates:
In her preface to Assessing English Language Learners: Bridges from Language Proficiency to Academic
Achievement, Gottlieb explains that educational assessment in the U.S. is undergoing a paradigm shift that results
from two forces: (1) the increase in ELLs in the K-12 educational system, and (2) the treatment of ELLs in research,
practice, and federal legislation. The book is organized around a series of eight bridges. Each chapter discusses one
of these bridges “that educators must cross and illustrates how theory and practice are undergoing change.” (xi). Candidates will write a paper in which they explain each of the eight bridges. Candidates will include the key
information from each chapter as they explain the bridges. Candidates can use the chapter headings as subheads for
their paper. Candidates must explain the key concepts related to assessment in each chapter. The introduction should
introduce the topic of assessment and provide a brief overview of the paper. The body of the paper will consist of
summaries of key ideas from each chapter. The conclusion should briefly summarize the main points of the book.
Candidates must follow APA style.
B. Scoring Guide
Program Standard
Met
Met with Weakness
Not Met
Standard 4a. The students
will demonstrate an
understanding of issues of
assessment. The students will
demonstrate an understanding
of the relationships between
the standards and assessment.
The students will demonstrate
an understanding of the
difference between language
proficiency and other types of
assessment.
In paper #1 candidates
demonstrate an understanding
that language proficiency
assessment is based on
English language proficiency
standards and academic
achievement assessment is
based on academic content
standards.
In paper #1 candidates show
some understanding of the
difference between language
proficiency measures and
assessments of academic
achievement.
In paper #1 candidates show
only limited understanding of
the difference between
language proficiency
measures and assessments of
academic achievement.
Standard 4b. • The students will demonstrate the ability to
choose and use a variety of
standards based bilingual or
ESL proficiency instruments
to interpret students
identification, placement, and
language growth in Spanish
and English.
Candidates explain different
instruments that can be used
to identify and place students
and then assess growth in
Spanish and English.
Candidates show limited
understanding of the
relationship between
standards and assessment.
They describe only one or
two instruments that can be
used to identify and place
students and measure their
growth.
Candidates show little
understanding of the
relationship between
standards and assessment.
They fail to list instruments
that can be used to identify
and place students and
measure their growth.
Standard 4c • The students will demonstrate the ability to
Candidates explain how
results from assessment can
Candidates make few
connections between
Candidates fail to make clear
connections between
257
choose and use a variety of
standards based bilingual or
ESL language proficiency
instruments to inform
instruction.
inform instruction for
bilingual and ESL students
assessment and instruction.
assessment and instruction.
In addition, paper is clearly
written and well organized.
Topic/thesis is clearly stated
and well developed; all parts
of the topic are addressed;
evidence of effective, clear
thinking and depth of subject
area knowledge.
Paper lacks some elements of
organization and clarity.
Topic is evident; some
supporting details; some
unnecessary repetitiveness is
evidenced; some problems
with clarity of thought and
lack of focus on the topic or
argument. Parts of the topic
are not addressed
Topic is poorly developed,
support is only vague or
general; ideas are trite;
wording is unclear,
simplistic; information
irrelevant to topic/argument is
frequent; extensive
repetitiveness; excessive lack
of focus on topic or
argument.
C. Candidate data charts
Table 5.1 - Total (Brownsville, New Caney) Fall 2012 n=8
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
Standard
Standard 4a . The students will demonstrate an understanding
of issues of assessment. The students will demonstrate an
understanding of the relationships between the standards and
assessment. The students will demonstrate an understanding of
the difference between language proficiency and other types of
assessment.
Standard 4b. • The students will demonstrate the ability to
choose and use a variety of standards based bilingual or ESL
proficiency instruments to interpret students identification,
placement, and language growth in Spanish and English.
Standard 4c • The students will demonstrate the ability to choose and use a variety of standards based bilingual or ESL
language proficiency instruments to inform instruction.
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
5
1
2
75%
5
1
2
75%
5
1
2
75%
Table 5.2 - Brownsville Fall 2012 n=2
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
Standard
Standard 4a . The students will demonstrate an understanding
of issues of assessment. The students will demonstrate an
understanding of the relationships between the standards and
assessment. The students will demonstrate an understanding of
the difference between language proficiency and other types of
assessment.
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
0
0
2
0%
258
Standard 4b. • The students will demonstrate the ability to choose and use a variety of standards based bilingual or ESL
proficiency instruments to interpret students identification,
placement, and language growth in Spanish and English.
Standard 4c • The students will demonstrate the ability to choose and use a variety of standards based bilingual or ESL
language proficiency instruments to inform instruction.
Table 5.2 - New Caney
0
0
2
0%
0
0
2
0%
Fall 2012 n=6
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
Standard
Standard 4a . The students will demonstrate an understanding
of issues of assessment. The students will demonstrate an
understanding of the relationships between the standards and
assessment. The students will demonstrate an understanding of
the difference between language proficiency and other types of
assessment.
Standard 4b. • The students will demonstrate the ability to choose and use a variety of standards based bilingual or ESL
proficiency instruments to interpret students identification,
placement, and language growth in Spanish and English.
Standard 4c • The students will demonstrate the ability to choose and use a variety of standards based bilingual or ESL
language proficiency instruments to inform instruction.
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
5
1
0
100%
5
1
0
100%
5
1
0
100%
Assessment #6
Lesson Demonstration
A. Assessment Tool
Assessment #6 consists of a lesson demonstration in which candidates plan and deliver literacy instruction tailored to
meet the needs of English language learners. Candidates in the dual language emphasis deliver this lesson
demonstration in BILC 6364. The course and the lesson demonstration are conducted in Spanish. Candidates in the
ESL and double emphases deliver this lesson demonstration in EDSL 6323. The course and the lesson demonstration
are conducted in English. The two versions of Assessment #6 are identical. The only difference is the language in
which they are delivered. Below are the directions that candidates receive for Assessment #6:
a. Lesson Demonstration – Dual Language Emphasis
Reading and Writing Lesson Demonstration: Taking into consideration the checklists for effective reading
instruction, the psycho-sociolinguistic view of reading, and the process view of writing, candidates will prepare a
demonstration lesson that includes reading and writing in Spanish with an ESL component. Some aspect of the
lesson should be technology based. The lesson should include a text set of books in Spanish and English based on a
unit of inquiry candidates would do or have done with students. Candidates may choose the grade level. A handout
259
should include an overview of the unit, targeted reading and writing skills, a list of the points on the checklist
covered, and a bibliography of the text set.
b. Lesson Demonstration – ESL and Double Emphases
Reading and Writing Lesson Demonstration: Taking into consideration the standards for a particular grade
level, the checklist for effective reading instruction, the psycho-sociolinguistic view of reading, and the process
view of writing, candidates will prepare a demonstration ESL lesson that includes listening, speaking, reading and
writing. Some aspect of the lesson should be technology based. The lesson should include a text set of books in
English and Spanish based on a standards-based unit of inquiry candidates would do or have done with students.
Candidates may choose their grade level. A handout should include an overview of the unit, targeted reading and
writing standards, and a bibliography of the text set.
B. Scoring Guide
a. Lesson Demonstration Rubric – Dual Language Strand
Estándar del Programa
Está muy bien y
completo
Está bastante bien
pero falta algo
Met
Met with Weakness
Falta mucho
Not Met
1a Candidates demonstrate a high level of
competence in Spanish
La gramática,
ortografía y
expresión oral en
español son buenas.
Algunos problemas
con la gramática,
ortografía y/o
expresión oral del
español.
Muchos problemas
con la gramática,
ortografía y/o
expresión oral del
español.
1
0
Indica y demuestra
con precisión las
estructuras de
literatura balanceada
utilizadas en la
lección
Algunas estructuras de
literatura balanceada
utilizadas en la lección
no se explican o
demuestran con
precisión.
No indica o
demuestra estructuras
de literatura
balanceada.
4
3
La lección está bien
organizada. Las
diferentes estructuras
están conectadas
entre sí y al tema. La
lección apoya el
desarrollo de la
lectoescritura de los
alumnos bilingües.
La lección presenta
algunos problemas de
organización. Las
diferentes estructuras
no están bien
conectadas entre sí y
al tema. La lección
trata de apoyar el
desarrollo de la
lectoescritura de los
alumnos bilingües.
2
1 b. Candidates will demonstrate an understanding of
different theories and research of literacy
development in order to select appropriate approaches
for teaching reading and writing in the bilingual
classroom.
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to plan classroom
instruction in a supportive learning environment for
bilingual students.
4
1
La lección presenta
serios problemas de
organización. Las
diferentes estructuras
no están conectadas
entre sí o al tema. La
lección no apoya el
desarrollo de la
lectoescritura de los
alumnos bilingües.
1
3
3b. Candidates know and implement a variety of
standards-based teaching strategies and techniques for
developing and integrating English and Spanish
listening, speaking, reading, and writing, for
accessing the core curriculum.
La lección demuestra
y explica las
preguntas de la lista
de evaluación de la
lectoescritura
efectiva:
#1,2,3,5,6,7, 8
La lección demuestra
y explica algunas
preguntas de la lista de
evaluación de la
lectoescritura efectiva.
3
5
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of
La bibliografía
La lección no
demuestra y explica
casi ningunas de las
preguntas de la lista
de evaluación de la
lectoescritura
efectiva.
1
La bibliografía incluye
La bibliografía no
260
standards-based materials, resources, and
technologies, and choose, adapt, and use them in
effective bilingual, ESL, and content teaching.
incluye un set
apropidado de libros
en español e inglés
relacionados con el
tema presentado
algunos libros en
español o inglés
relacionados con el
tema presentado
incluye buenos libros
en español e ingles
relacionados con el
tema presentado
3
1
4
b. Lesson Demonstration Rubric – ESL Strand
Category
Met
1a Candidates demonstrate a high level of competence in
English
Oral and written
English is
conventional with no
significant mechanical
errors.
Met with
Weakness
Not Met
Oral and written
English present
some errors.
Oral and written
English present
significant errors.
1
0
Accurately indicates
and demonstrates the
balanced literacy
structures used in the
lesson.
Some of the
balanced literacy
structures are not
accurately indicated
or demonstrated.
Does not indicate
or demonstrate the
balanced literacy
structures.
4
3
Lesson is well
organized. The
different structures
are connected among
them and to the
theme. The lesson
supports literacy
development for
ELLs.
Lesson presents
some organizational
problems. The
different structures
are not well
connected among
them or with the
theme. The lesson
attempts to support
literacy
development for
ELLs.
Lesson presents
serious
organization
problems. The
different structures
are not connected
among them or to
the theme. The
lesson does not
support literacy
development of
ELLs.
3
1
Lesson demonstrates
and explains some
questions from the
checklist for
effective Reading
instruction.
Lesson
demonstrates and
explains very few
or none of the
questions from the
checklist for
effective Reading
instruction.
2
1 b. Candidates will demonstrate an understanding of
different theories and research of literacy development in
order to select appropriate approaches for teaching
reading and writing in the bilingual classroom.
1
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to plan classroom instruction
in a supportive learning environment for bilingual
students.
4
3b. Candidates know and implement a variety of
standards-based teaching strategies and techniques for
developing and integrating English and Spanish
listening, speaking, reading, and writing, for accessing
the core curriculum.
Lesson demonstrates
and explains the
checklist for effective
reading instruction:
#1,2,3,5,6,7, 8
5
3
1
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of
standards-based materials, resources, and technologies,
and choose, adapt, and use them in effective bilingual,
ESL, and content teaching.
The text set is
appropriate for
targeted students and
reflects a variety of
text levels and quality
literature in English.
Some of the books are
in Spanish.
The text set includes
some books at
different levels and
is somewhat
appropriate for
targeted students.
The text set does
not include a
variety of text
levels and is not
appropriate for
targeted students.
3
1
4
261
C. Candidate data charts
Table 6.1 ESL and Double Emphases Total (Brownsville, Donna, Spring Branch)
Spring 2013 n=9
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
% Met Standards
/ Met with
Weakness
9
0
0
100%
7
2
0
100%
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts, research,
and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a supportive
learning environment for bilingual students.
7
2
0
100%
3b. Candidates know and implement a variety of standardsbased teaching strategies and techniques for developing and
integrating English and Spanish listening, speaking, reading,
and writing, for accessing the core curriculum.
7
2
0
100%
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standardsbased materials, resources, and technologies, and choose,
adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content
teaching.
7
2
0
100%
Standard
1a Candidates demonstrate a high level of competence in
English
1 b. Candidates will demonstrate an understanding of different
theories and research of literacy development in order to select
appropriate approaches for teaching reading and writing in the
bilingual classroom.
Table 6.2 Brownsville ESL and Double Emphases
Standard
Spring 2013 n=5
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
5
0
0
100%
3
2
0
100%
3
2
0
100%
1a Candidates demonstrate a high level of competence in
English
1 b. Candidates will demonstrate an understanding of
different theories and research of literacy development in
order to select appropriate approaches for teaching reading
and writing in the bilingual classroom.
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a
supportive learning environment for bilingual students.
262
3b. Candidates know and implement a variety of standardsbased teaching strategies and techniques for developing and
integrating English and Spanish listening, speaking, reading,
and writing, for accessing the core curriculum.
3
2
0
100%
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standardsbased materials, resources, and technologies, and choose,
adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content
teaching.
3
2
0
100%
Table 6.3 Donna ESL and Double Emphases
Standard
Spring 2013 n=1
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
1
0
0
100%
1
0
0
100%
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a
supportive learning environment for bilingual students.
1
0
0
100%
3b. Candidates know and implement a variety of standardsbased teaching strategies and techniques for developing and
integrating English and Spanish listening, speaking, reading,
and writing, for accessing the core curriculum.
1
0
0
100%
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standardsbased materials, resources, and technologies, and choose,
adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content
teaching.
1
0
0
100%
Not Met
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
1a Candidates demonstrate a high level of competence in
English
1 b. Candidates will demonstrate an understanding of
different theories and research of literacy development in
order to select appropriate approaches for teaching reading
and writing in the bilingual classroom.
Table 6.4 Spring Branch ESL and Double Emphases
Standard
Spring 2013 n=3
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
263
1a Candidates demonstrate a high level of competence in
English
3
0
0
100%
3
0
0
100%
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a
supportive learning environment for bilingual students.
3
0
0
100%
3b. Candidates know and implement a variety of standardsbased teaching strategies and techniques for developing and
integrating English and Spanish listening, speaking, reading,
and writing, for accessing the core curriculum.
3
0
0
100%
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standardsbased materials, resources, and technologies, and choose,
adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content
teaching.
3
0
0
100%
1 b. Candidates will demonstrate an understanding of
different theories and research of literacy development in
order to select appropriate approaches for teaching reading
and writing in the bilingual classroom.
Table 6.5 Total Dual Language Emphasis (Brownsville, New Caney)
Spring 2012 n=10
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
Standard
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
9
1
0
100%
10
0
0
100%
10
0
0
100%
10
0
0
100%
9
1
0
100%
1a Candidates demonstrate a high level of competence in
Spanish
1 b. Candidates will demonstrate an understanding of different
theories and research of literacy development in order to
select appropriate approaches for teaching reading and writing
in the bilingual classroom.
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a
supportive learning environment for bilingual students.
3b. Candidates know and implement a variety of standardsbased teaching strategies and techniques for developing and
integrating English and Spanish listening, speaking, reading,
and writing, for accessing the core curriculum.
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standardsbased materials, resources, and technologies, and choose,
adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content
teaching.
Table 6.6 Brownsville Dual Language Emphasis
Spring 2012 n=2
264
Standard
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
% Met Standards
/ Met with
Weakness
1
1
0
100%
2
0
0
100%
2
0
0
100%
2
0
0
100%
2
0
0
100%
1a Candidates demonstrate a high level of competence in
Spanish
1 b. Candidates will demonstrate an understanding of different
theories and research of literacy development in order to select
appropriate approaches for teaching reading and writing in the
bilingual classroom.
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts, research,
and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a supportive
learning environment for bilingual students.
3b. Candidates know and implement a variety of standardsbased teaching strategies and techniques for developing and
integrating English and Spanish listening, speaking, reading,
and writing, for accessing the core curriculum.
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standardsbased materials, resources, and technologies, and choose,
adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content
teaching.
Table 6.7 New Caney Dual Language Emphasis
Spring 2012 n=8
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
Standard
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
8
0
0
100%
8
0
0
100%
8
0
0
100%
8
0
0
100%
7
1
0
100%
1a Candidates demonstrate a high level of competence in
Spanish
1 b. Candidates will demonstrate an understanding of different
theories and research of literacy development in order to
select appropriate approaches for teaching reading and writing
in the bilingual classroom.
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a
supportive learning environment for bilingual students.
3b. Candidates know and implement a variety of standardsbased teaching strategies and techniques for developing and
integrating English and Spanish listening, speaking, reading,
and writing, for accessing the core curriculum.
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standardsbased materials, resources, and technologies, and choose,
adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content
teaching.
Table 6.8 Total ESL and Double Emphases (Brownsville, New Caney)
Spring 2012 n=6
265
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
% Met Standards
/ Met with
Weakness
6
0
0
100%
4
2
0
100%
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts, research,
and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a supportive
learning environment for bilingual students.
4
2
0
100%
3b. Candidates know and implement a variety of standardsbased teaching strategies and techniques for developing and
integrating English and Spanish listening, speaking, reading,
and writing, for accessing the core curriculum.
3
3
0
100%
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standardsbased materials, resources, and technologies, and choose,
adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content
teaching.
5
1
0
100%
Standard
1a Candidates demonstrate a high level of competence in
English
1 b. Candidates will demonstrate an understanding of different
theories and research of literacy development in order to select
appropriate approaches for teaching reading and writing in the
bilingual classroom.
Table 6.9 Brownsville ESL and Double Emphases
Standard
Spring 2012 n=4
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
4
0
0
100%
2
2
0
100%
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a
supportive learning environment for bilingual students.
2
2
0
100%
3b. Candidates know and implement a variety of standardsbased teaching strategies and techniques for developing and
integrating English and Spanish listening, speaking, reading,
and writing, for accessing the core curriculum.
1
3
0
100%
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standardsbased materials, resources, and technologies, and choose,
adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content
teaching.
3
1
0
100%
1a Candidates demonstrate a high level of competence in
English
1 b. Candidates will demonstrate an understanding of
different theories and research of literacy development in
order to select appropriate approaches for teaching reading
and writing in the bilingual classroom.
266
Table 6.10 New Caney ESL and Double Emphases
Standard
Spring 2012 n=2
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
2
0
0
100%
2
0
0
100%
3a Candidates know, understand, and apply concepts,
research, and best practices to plan classroom instruction in a
supportive learning environment for bilingual students.
2
0
0
100%
3b. Candidates know and implement a variety of standardsbased teaching strategies and techniques for developing and
integrating English and Spanish listening, speaking, reading,
and writing, for accessing the core curriculum.
2
0
0
100%
3c Candidates are familiar with a wide range of standardsbased materials, resources, and technologies, and choose,
adapt, and use them in effective bilingual, ESL, and content
teaching.
2
0
0
100%
1a Candidates demonstrate a high level of competence in
English
1 b. Candidates will demonstrate an understanding of
different theories and research of literacy development in
order to select appropriate approaches for teaching reading
and writing in the bilingual classroom.
Assessment #7
Philosophy and Advocacy Paper
A. Assessment Tool
At the beginning of BILC 6361, candidates were asked to write two paragraphs reflecting on three topics. (1) How
do you feel about the second language learners in your class and how do they impact your teaching? (2) What do
you think the role the students’ families and cultures should be in the schooling of English language learners? (3) What are your roles and responsibilities for teaching English language learners?
In this final reflection paper, candidates are asked to do the following:
1. Reread the paper they submitted at the beginning of the course
2. Review the readings and application assignments they have done for the course.
3. Write a paper of from 3 to 5 pages reflecting on the question below.
Question #1:
267
After the readings and applications you have done for this class, how do you see English language learners in
our schools? What do you understand about how their culture and families may or may not impact their
learning? How should schools meet the needs of the students and their families? What are some ways teachers
can help to meet their needs? What are teachers’ roles and responsibilities? In your paper reference the readings we have done and refer to the applications you carried out.
B. Scoring Guide
Program Standard
Standard 2.a. Nature and
Role of Culture. Candidates
know, understand, and use
the major concepts,
principles, theories, and
research related to the nature
and role of culture in
language development and
academic achievement that
support individual students’ learning. In particular, they
look at Latino culture and the
culture of the borderland area.
Standard 2.b. Cultural
Groups and Identity.
Candidates know, understand,
and use knowledge of how
cultural groups and students’ cultural identities affect
language learning and school
achievement.
Standard 5.a. Bilingual
Education Research and
History. Candidates
demonstrate knowledge of
history, research, and current
practice in the field of
bilingual education and apply
that knowledge to improve
the teaching and learning of
their bilingual students.
Candidates become familiar
with different models of
bilingual education and the
effectiveness of different
models.
Standard 5.b. Partnerships
and Advocacy. Candidates
serve as professional
resources, advocate for ESL
students, and build
partnerships with students’ families.
Standard 5.c. Professional
Development and
Collaboration. Candidates
collaborate with and are
prepared to serve as a
resource to all staff, including
Met
Met with Weakness
Not Met
Paper clearly addresses issues
related to how the academic
needs of ELLs have not
traditionally been met in
schools.
Paper mentions issues related
to how the academic needs of
ELLs have not traditionally
been met in schools.
Paper does not mention issues
related to how the academic
needs of ELLs have not
traditionally been met in
schools
Paper clearly addresses the
importance of understanding
students’ backgrounds and culture
Paper somewhat explains the
importance of understanding
students’ backgrounds and culture
Paper does not explain the
importance of understanding
students’ backgrounds and culture
Paper clearly explains the
importance of addressing the
different academic and social
needs of ELLs in schools and
provides specific suggestions
for supporting students’ acquisition of English and
Spanish. Paper also provides
specific suggestions for
supporting students’ academic content learning.
Paper somewhat explains the
importance of addressing the
different academic and social
needs of ELLs in schools and
provides some suggestions
for supporting students’ acquisition of English and
Spanish. Paper also provides
some suggestions for
supporting students’ academic content learning.
Paper does not explain the
importance of addressing the
different academic and social
needs of ELLs in schools or
does not provide some
suggestions for supporting
students’ acquisition of English and Spanish. Paper
does not provide suggestions
for supporting students’ academic content learning.
Paper clearly addresses the
role of the teacher in
advocating for students and
their families assuring that
schools meet their academic
and social needs
Paper mentions the role of the
teacher in advocating for
students and their families
assuring that schools meet
their academic and social
needs
Paper does not mention the
role of the teacher in
advocating for students and
their families assuring that
schools meet their academic
and social needs
Paper clearly provides
specific suggestions for
professional development and
collaboration among staff to
support bilingual students.
Paper provides some
suggestions for professional
development and
collaboration among staff to
support bilingual students.
Paper does not provide
suggestions for professional
development and
collaboration among staff to
support bilingual students.
268
paraprofessionals, to improve
learning for all bilingual
students.
Paper is clearly written and
well organized. Topic/thesis
is clearly stated and well
developed; all parts of the
topic are addressed; evidence
of effective, clear thinking
and depth of subject area
knowledge.
Paper lacks some elements of
organization and clarity.
Topic is evident; some
supporting details; some
unnecessary repetitiveness is
evidenced; some problems
with clarity of thought and
lack of focus on the topic or
argument. Parts of the topic
are not addressed
Topic is poorly developed,
support is only vague or
general; ideas are trite;
wording is unclear,
simplistic; information
irrelevant to topic/argument is
frequent; extensive
repetitiveness; excessive lack
of focus on topic or
argument.
C. Candidate data charts
Table 7.1 Total (Brownsville, Alvin)
Fall 2012 n=12
Standard
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
11
1
0
100%
7
5
0
100%
9
3
0
100%
Standard 5.b. Partnerships and Advocacy. Candidates
serve as professional resources, advocate for ESL students,
and build partnerships with students’ families.
9
3
0
100%
Standard
5.c.
Professional
Development
and
Collaboration. Candidates collaborate with and are prepared
to serve as a resource to all staff, including paraprofessionals,
to improve learning for all bilingual students.
9
3
0
100%
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture. Candidates
know, understand, and use the major concepts, principles,
theories, and research related to the nature and role of culture
in language development and academic achievement that
support individual students’ learning. In particular, they look at Latino culture and the culture of the borderland area.
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and Identity. Candidates
know, understand, and use knowledge of how cultural groups
and students’ cultural identities affect language learning and
school achievement.
Standard 5.a. Bilingual Education Research and History.
Candidates demonstrate knowledge of history, research, and
current practice in the field of bilingual education and apply
that knowledge to improve the teaching and learning of their
bilingual students. Candidates become familiar with different
models of bilingual education and the effectiveness of
different models.
269
Table 7.2 Brownsville
Fall 2012 n=10
Standard
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
10
0
0
100%
7
3
0
100%
7
3
0
100%
Standard 5.b. Partnerships and Advocacy. Candidates
serve as professional resources, advocate for ESL students,
and build partnerships with students’ families.
7
3
0
100%
Standard
5.c.
Professional
Development
and
Collaboration. Candidates collaborate with and are prepared
to serve as a resource to all staff, including paraprofessionals,
to improve learning for all bilingual students.
9
2
0
100%
Met Standard
Met with Weakness
Not Met
% Met Standards /
Met with Weakness
1
1
0
100%
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture. Candidates
know, understand, and use the major concepts, principles,
theories, and research related to the nature and role of culture
in language development and academic achievement that
support individual students’ learning. In particular, they look at Latino culture and the culture of the borderland area.
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and Identity. Candidates
know, understand, and use knowledge of how cultural groups
and students’ cultural identities affect language learning and school achievement.
Standard 5.a. Bilingual Education Research and History.
Candidates demonstrate knowledge of history, research, and
current practice in the field of bilingual education and apply
that knowledge to improve the teaching and learning of their
bilingual students. Candidates become familiar with different
models of bilingual education and the effectiveness of
different models.
Table 7.3 New Caney
Fall 2012 n=2
Standard
Standard 2.a. Nature and Role of Culture. Candidates
know, understand, and use the major concepts, principles,
theories, and research related to the nature and role of culture
in language development and academic achievement that
support individual students’ learning. In particular, they look at Latino culture and the culture of the borderland area.
270
Standard 2.b. Cultural Groups and Identity. Candidates
know, understand, and use knowledge of how cultural groups
and students’ cultural identities affect language learning and school achievement.
0
2
0
100%
2
0
0
100%
Standard 5.b. Partnerships and Advocacy. Candidates
serve as professional resources, advocate for ESL students,
and build partnerships with students’ families.
2
0
0
100%
Standard
5.c.
Professional
Development
and
Collaboration. Candidates collaborate with and are prepared
to serve as a resource to all staff, including paraprofessionals,
to improve learning for all bilingual students.
0
1
0
100%
Standard 5.a. Bilingual Education Research and History.
Candidates demonstrate knowledge of history, research, and
current practice in the field of bilingual education and apply
that knowledge to improve the teaching and learning of their
bilingual students. Candidates become familiar with different
models of bilingual education and the effectiveness of
different models.
271