EDUCATOR PREPARATION PROGRAM in School of Education ... · EDUCATOR PREPARATION PROGRAM in School of Education & Human Development College of Arts and Sciences Shenandoah Conservatory

EDUCATOR PREPARATION PROGRAM in

School of Education & Human Development College of Arts and Sciences Shenandoah Conservatory

INQUIRY BRIEF

Primary Author: Mary Bowser

Data Collection, Input, Editing, Analysis, Instrument Development: Educator Preparation Council Faculty Members:

Peter Edwards, Dale Foreman (retired), Erica Helm, Karen Huff, Jeffrey Marlatt, Brenda Murphy, Diane Painter, Cynthia Schendel, Pamela

Stockinger (retired)

Submitted to the

Teacher Education Accreditation Council and

Virginia Department of Education

September 15, 2011

SHENANDOAH U – TEACHER EDUCATION ii

Table of Contents

Page List of Tables and Figures iii TEAC Team v Section 1: Program Overview 1 Section 2: Claims and Rationale 13 Section 3: Method of Assessment 16 Section 4: Data 22 Section 5: Discussion of Data; Plan for Future Data 24 Section 6: References 35 Section 7: Appendices Appendix A: Report of the Internal Audit of Quality Control System 37 Appendix B: Evidence of Capacity 47 Appendix C: Faculty Qualifications 66 Appendix D: Program Option Tables of TEAC Quality Principle I, Requirements,

and VDOE Program Matrix Competencies 92

Appendix E: Inventory of Evidence 111 Appendix F: Assessment Instruments 116 F.1 Common Features, Scoring Guide, Performance Assessment Guide 116 F.2 Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation and Scoring Key 117 F.3 Teacher Work Sample Rubric and Scoring Key 135 F.4 Scoring Rubric for e-Portfolio 142 F.5 Advisory Council for Teacher Education (ACTE) Survey 148 F.6 Reading Clinic Final Evaluation 149 F.7 Reading Case Study Assignment Rubric 153 F.8 Reading e-Portfolio Rubric 154 Appendix G: Disaggregated Data Tables 155

SHENANDOAH U – TEACHER EDUCATION iii

List of Tables and Figures List of Tables Page Table i.1 Educator Preparation Council (EPC) Faculty & Administrative Staff vi Table 1.1 Demographic Profiles of Program Completers (2008-‐2011) 9 Table 1.2 Program Completers by Endorsement (2008-‐2011) 9 Table 1.3 Rates of Program Completion by Program Unit 10 Table 1.4 Rates of Course Completion Per Year by Program Unit 11 Table 1.5 Demographic Profile of Program Faculty 11 Table 4.1 Means and Ranges of Student Scores: Assessments that support Claims for

Quality Principle I and Cross-‐Cutting Themes 22

Table 4.2 Correlations: Undergraduate Major GPA and Praxis II (2007-‐10) 23 Table A.1 Distribution of Files Selected from Program Units for Internal Audit 37 Table A.2 Faculty Processes and Findings During the Quality Control System Internal

Audit Activities 40

Table B.1 Capacity for Quality: A Comparison of Program and Institutional Statistics 47 Table B.2 References to Institutional Documents for Each Requirement 47 Table B.3 Number and Percentage at Each Rank of Full-‐Time Faculty (May 2011) 51 Table B.4 FTE Students per Administrative Assistant 51 Table B.5 Student Enrollment Data from October 2010 Census 55 Table B.6 Fund for Excellence in Teaching Arts & Sciences SEHD Faculty Funded 57 Table B.7 Budgetary Comparison Data (FY 10) 57 Table B.8 Revenue Generated per Organizational Unit (for FY10) 58 Table B.9 Use of Career Services by Undergraduates and Graduates 61 Table B.10 Comparison of Graduate to Total Use of Health Services 62 Table B.11 Numbers of Students in Education Programs Receiving Financial Aid 62 Table C.1 List of Full-‐Time Faculty in Educator Preparation Program – SEHD 66 Table C.2 List of Part-‐Time Faculty in Education Preparation, Full-‐Time in SEHD 67 Table C.3 Adjunct Faculty Teaching EPP Licensure Courses -‐ SEHD 68 Table C.4 List of Full-‐Time Faculty in Educator Preparation Program – Conservatory 71 Table C.5 List of Part-‐Time Faculty in EPP, Full-‐Time in Conservatory 72 Table C.6 Adjunct Faculty Teaching EPP Courses in Shenandoah Conservatory 75 Table C.7 List of Part-‐Time Faculty in EPP, Full-‐Time in College of Arts & Sciences 80 Table C.8 Part-‐Time Faculty in CAS teaching courses in EPP 86 Table D.1 Program Option: Graduate PSC in Elementary Ed PK-‐6 Requirements that

address Quality Principle I and VDOE Program Matrix Competencies 92

Table D.2 Program Option: Graduate PSC in Middle Ed 6-‐8 Requirements that address Quality Principle I and VDOE Program Matrix Competencies

93

Table D.3 Program Option: Graduate PSC in Secondary Ed 6-‐12, Content in Biology, Business, Chemistry, English, History/Social Sciences or Mathematics Requirements that address Quality Principle I and VDOE Program Matrix Competencies

94

Table D.4 Program Option: Graduate PSC in Foreign Language – Spanish PK-‐12 Requirements that address Quality Principle I and VDOE Program Matrix Competencies

96

SHENANDOAH U – TEACHER EDUCATION iv

Table D.5 Program Option: Graduate PSC in Special Education, General Curriculum Requirements that address Quality Principle I and VDOE Program Matrix Competencies

97

Table D.6 Program Option: Graduate PSC, MSED in Reading Specialist Requirements that address Quality Principle I and VDOE Program Matrix Competencies

99

Table D.7 Program Option: Undergraduate Dance Education PK-‐12 Requirements that address Quality Principle I and VDOE Program Matrix Competencies

100

Table D.8 Program Option: Undergraduate Elementary Ed PK-‐6 / Middle Ed 6-‐8 Requirements that address Quality Principle I and VDOE Program Matrix Competencies

101

Table D.9 Program Option: Undergraduate Foreign Language – Spanish PK-‐12 Requirements that address Quality Principle I and VDOE Program Matrix Competencies

103

Table D.10 Program Option: Undergraduate Health and Physical Ed PK-‐12 Requirements that address Quality Principle I and VDOE Program Matrix Competencies

104

Table D.11 Program Option: Undergraduate Music Ed – Instrumental PK-‐12 Requirements that address Quality Principle I and VDOE Program Matrix Competencies

106

Table D.12 Program Option: Undergraduate Music Ed – Choral/Vocal PK-‐12 Requirements that address Quality Principle I and VDOE Program Matrix Competencies

107

Table D.13 Program Option: Undergraduate PSC in Secondary Ed 6-‐12, Content in Biology, Business, Chemistry, English, History/Social Sciences or Mathematics Requirements that address Quality Principle I and VDOE Program Matrix Competencies

109

Table E.1 Inventory of Evidence 111 Table G.1 Content Knowledge GPA / Grade Analysis, 2007-‐11 Years Combined 155 Table G.2 Praxis II Pass Rates for Initial Licensure Students by Subject and Year 156 Table G.3 Pedagogy Knowledge Course Grade Analysis Fall 2007-‐Spring 2011 157 Table G.4 Sum of Means per Guidelines Category on Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final

Evaluation (Spring 2011) for Elementary, Secondary and HPE Units 158

Table G.5 Sum of Means per Guidelines Category on Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation (Spring 2011) for Music Education Units

159

Table G.6 Sums, Means, Standard Deviations for Claims & Cross-‐cutting Themes on Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation (Sp. 2011) for Elementary, Secondary and HPE Units

159

Table G.7 Sums, Means, Standard Deviations for Claims & Cross-‐cutting Themes on Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation (Sp. 2011) for Music Education Units

160

Table G.8 Sums & Means of TWS Criteria Organized by TWS Category per Evaluation 161 Table G.9 Sums, Means of TWS Criteria Organized by Claims & Cross-‐cutting Themes 162 Table G.10 E-‐Portfolio Rubric Ratings by Claims, Cross-‐cutting Themes and Evidence 163 Table G.11 Teacher Education ACTE General Perceptions Survey of Employers 164

SHENANDOAH U – TEACHER EDUCATION v

List of Figures Page

Figure 1.1 Administrative Organization of Shenandoah University 2

Figure 1.2 Administrative Structure of the School of Education and Human Development

2

Figure 1.3 Administrative Organization of the College of Arts and Sciences 3 Figure 1.4 Administrative Structure of the Shenandoah Conservatory 3 Figure A.1 Quality Control System Graphic 38 Figure A.2 Internal Audit Trail 39

SHENANDOAH U – TEACHER EDUCATION vi

Table i.1 Educator Preparation Council (EPC) Faculty & Administrative Staff EPC -‐ SEHD EPC -‐ Conservatory EPC – CAS / SEHD Peter Edwards Jeffrey Marlatt Mary Bowser, DPL Dale Foreman (retired) Erica Helm Karen Huff Brenda Murphy Cynthia Schendel Diane Painter Pamela Stockinger (retired) Sarah Daniel (8/15/11) Karrin Lukacs (8/15/11) Admin -‐ SEHD Admin -‐ Conservatory Admin -‐ CAS Director Steven Humphries Dean Michael Stepniak Dean & AVP Calvin Allen AD Aime Sposato (U) AD Beverly Schulke AA-‐OPL Stephanie Scriva The members of the Educator Preparation Council (EPC) were responsible for the preparation of the Inquiry Brief, based on Shenandoah University information compiled by EPC members and with data regularly collected and analyzed by program heads, faculty, administrators and staff in the School of Education and Human Development, Shenandoah Conservatory, the College of Arts and Sciences, the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, the Academic Affairs Office, the Student Affairs Office, and the Office of Administration and Finance. Faculty Approvals: At a meeting on September 12, 2011, the Faculty of the School of Education & Human Development voted unanimously to approve this document. At its regular meeting on September 19, 2011, the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences voted unanimously to approve this document. On September 19, 2011, at its regular meeting, the Music and Dance Faculty of the Shenandoah Conservatory voted unanimously to approve this document.

1

Section 1: Program Overview

Institutional Background Shenandoah University was founded by private interests at Dayton, Virginia, in 1875. The first charter was granted in 1884. At that time the school had ties to the Church of the United Brethren in Christ, which in 1946 joined with the Evangelical Church to become the Evangelical United Brethren Church. In 1968, the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church merged to form the United Methodist Church. Originally known as Shenandoah Seminary and concentrating on secondary education, the school later added post-‐secondary courses and changed its name to Shenandoah Collegiate Institute and School of Music. In 1924, the name was changed to Shenandoah College, with the provision that the music department be known as the Conservatory of Music at Shenandoah College. The college was still a junior college but the Conservatory granted a four-‐year degree. In the mid-‐1940s Shenandoah College became a full member in the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools and the Conservatory was granted full membership in the National Association of Schools of Music in 1944. Shortly thereafter, however, student enrollment fell and interest from regional students in a private junior college and a Conservatory of Music declined. President Troy Brady contacted U.S. Senator Harry F. Byrd, Jr. for assistance. In 1960, with support from the business community leaders, Shenandoah was moved from Dayton to a new campus in Winchester, Virginia, where it once again thrived. In 1974 the college became a four-‐year degree-‐granting school and the two separate corporations (Shenandoah College, Shenandoah Conservatory of Music) were merged under one charter as Shenandoah College and Conservatory of Music. In 1991, the name of the institution was changed to Shenandoah University. Shenandoah is incorporated as a non-‐profit institution, with the corporation electing the Board of Trustees, which is the ruling body. Shenandoah University is fully accredited by the Commission on Colleges, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award associate, baccalaureate, master and doctoral degrees. Shenandoah University is certified by the Virginia State Board of Education to offer teacher licensure programs. Additionally, there are 17 additional specialized accreditations (2010) for schools and programs by specific agencies such as the National Association of Schools of Music. The School of Education and Human Development (SEHD) was established in January of 2007, and is Shenandoah University’s newest school organization. Institutional Organization The Educator Preparation Program (EPP) is integrated among the programs within SEHD, Shenandoah Conservatory, and the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS). The undergraduate components in the Conservatory and in CAS; the graduate components are in SEHD. Figures 1.1-‐1.4 show the structures of Shenandoah University, the School of Education and Human Development, the College of Arts and Sciences, and Shenandoah Conservatory, respectively.

SHENANDOAH U – TEACHER EDUCATION 2

Figure 1.1 Shenandoah University Organizational Chart

Figure 1.2 School of Education and Human Development Organizational Chart


Figure 1.3 College of Arts and Sciences Organizational Chart

Figure 1.4 Shenandoah Conservatory Organizational Chart


The Mission Statements (abridged to focus on Educator Preparation connections) Shenandoah University educates and inspires individuals to be critical, reflective thinkers; lifelong learners; and ethical, compassionate citizens who are committed to making responsible contributions within a community, a nation and the world. The following are Shenandoah University’s Core Values: development of an enduring passion for learning; commitment to self-‐reflection and personal development; respect for diverse cultures, experiences and perspectives; celebration of creative performance, expression, teaching and discovery; cultivation of leadership to advance positive change and growth; and dedication to citizenship, professional service and global outreach. A Shenandoah education incorporates scholarship, experiential learning and sophisticated technologies, as well as practical wisdom. The Mission of the School of Education and Human Development is to prepare exemplary professionals in education and human development within a student-‐centered, inquiry-‐driven environment that places high value on the diverse cultures, experiences, and perspectives that are the strengths of the university. Our mission is to educate current and aspiring professionals for success in their chosen vocations; integrate theory, research and practice; promote academic rigor; and nurture reflection, a caring approach to the professions, and collaboration across and within the communities served by the university. The Mission of College of Arts and Sciences is to support the University’s Mission. The College blends equally both the liberal arts and pre-‐professional coursework to prepare students for careers in the natural sciences, the social sciences and the humanities in an ever-‐changing economy. Through academic experiences, students demonstrate their abilities to write, speak, think and use technology to solve problems, think critically and make informed decisions. The Mission of Shenandoah Conservatory is to unite aspiring artists and scholars with distinguished and caring faculty in a community that prepares individuals for meaningful, satisfying careers in the arts.

Institutional Profile The following data provide a general overview of Shenandoah University, based on figures collected from the Office of Research and Assessment, Financial Aid, the Office Financial Affairs, and the Office of Academic Affairs for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011.

Faculty: 235 Full-‐time, 209 Part-‐time; 444 total (Fall 2010 Census)

181 Full-‐time and 58 Part-‐time with terminal degrees

Students: 1,882 Undergraduates; 1,797 Graduates; 3679 total enrolled College of Arts & Sciences: 778 undergraduates SEHD (including OEO) 484 graduates Conservatory: 524 undergraduates 182 graduates Gender: Males = 1,346; Females = 2,333


Student-‐Faculty Ratio: 9:1

(IPEDS report FA10: 1882 FT Undergraduates/218 FT Faculty) Student Origins: 3,507 students from U.S. (44 states, 1 from DC.)

172 international students (75 countries, including Puerto Rico) Financial Profile: Market value of endowment: $54,803,838 (Feb. 28, 2011) Operating Budget (FY 2010): $68,833,392; (FY2011): $70,590,273 Scholarships & Financial Aid: (Based on FY 2009-‐2010 data) Merit-‐based scholarships benefit a total of 1555 students: $7,387,222. Entitlements of $1,720,878 were given to 456 students. Endowment scholarships of $607,800 supported 350 students. $9,283,259 was given in need-‐based financial aid (grants, loans, work study) benefitting 1808 students. $27,265,705 in total financial aid (all types: need, merit, and other; and all sources: federal, state, institutional, agency) to 2550 unduplicated students. History of Educator Preparation at Shenandoah University Educator Preparation at Shenandoah University dates back to the late 19th Century when the classical and music studies programs were expanded to include education in arts, sciences, music, medical arts, and business management. Throughout the early and middle years of the 20th Century, these programs continued to grow within the existing higher education framework to meet the needs of the times. In 1940, the Conservatory was accredited by the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) and to date has been continuously re-‐affirmed. When the college moved to Winchester in 1960, the music teacher education programs were well-‐established within the Conservatory. In 1975, the Music 8-‐12 and Music NK-‐12 programs received formal state approval. By the late 1970s, the elementary and secondary undergraduate programs were developed. In 1983, the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) granted approval for Early Education NK-‐4 and Middle Education 4-‐8. In 1986 the Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences received initial approval for secondary (8-‐12) programs in biology, chemistry, English, English/theatre arts, history, and history/social studies, mathematics, and physical education. In 1989, we received full approval to offer elementary endorsements NK-‐4 and 4-‐8; and secondary endorsements 8-‐12 in biology, chemistry, English, history, history/social studies, and mathematics; and comprehensive (K-‐12) endorsements in choral music, instrumental music, and physical education. In the early 1990s, physical education was expanded by state mandate to include health education; the dance education endorsement was added at the same time. The Graduate Programs in Educator Preparation began with recertification courses offered in the 1980s through the Continuing Education Department as requested by area teachers and


schools. In the mid-‐1990s Shenandoah University began offering Master of Science in Education degrees with licensure components in the concentrations of Reading, Initial Teacher Licensure, and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), and in 1996 they were added to our approved programs. In 2001 the state initiated the competency matrices for each unit, and all SU units received approval. In 2007 the Office of Professional Licensure (OPL) was established including an Administrative Assistant hired to maintain the records, conduct data collection and recording, and assist in the production of mandated reports such as Title II and VDOE reports. OPL pulled all of the licensure programs to one entity for review. Currently that office is housed in the School of Education & Human Development. In 2008, VDOE approved adding Spanish K-‐12 initial licensure (undergraduate and graduate) and Special Education, General Licensure, K-‐12 (graduate) to the teacher licensure offerings. The former “add-‐on endorsement” in the Master of Science, Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (MS-‐TESOL) was upgraded to initial licensure as the Professional Studies Certificate in English as a Second Language (PSC-‐ESL) K-‐12. In the Shenandoah Conservatory, the faculty and Dean’s review of program viability resulted in several program changes. The Master of Fine Arts in Dance Education was closed to admissions in 2010, by vote of the faculty. In 2011 the dance faculty voted to close admission to the Bachelor of Arts in Dance Education licensure program and degree in the 2011 recruiting cycle, because it had served only a few students in the past 10 years; however, suspension of the program is pending because of students in pipeline. In 2010, 28 Shenandoah Teacher Education programs were granted Approved Status. The EPP submitted an application for New Program Approval for the Gifted Add-‐on Endorsement in May 2011, with the decision to be announced in October 2011. Thus, all program options have been approved in either or both undergraduate and graduate formats. Educator Preparation Program The Educator Preparation Program at Shenandoah University has units at both graduate and undergraduate levels, and in three schools, SEHD, CAS and Shenandoah Conservatory. There is a newly developed link to the Byrd School of Business that allows their students to choose the secondary education certificate program to fulfill their elective requirements within the SEHD parameters.

• The approved undergraduate and graduate programs for initial licensure in elementary, middle, and secondary education lead to collegiate professional licenses in elementary and/or middle education, or secondary biology, chemistry, English, history and social science, or mathematics (SEHD, CAS).

• The approved undergraduate comprehensive K-‐12 programs for initial licensure in health and physical education, music, dance, and Spanish lead to collegiate professional licenses in health and physical education, choral music, instrumental music, dance, or foreign language -‐ Spanish (CAS, Shenandoah Conservatory).

• The approved graduate comprehensive K-‐12 programs for initial licensure in Special Education – General Curriculum, and English as a Second Language lead to collegiate


professional licenses in Special Education – General Curriculum, and English as a Second Language (SEHD).

• The approved graduate programs for support personnel endorsement in reading leads to a postgraduate professional license for Reading Specialists (SEHD).

While there are programmatic nuances and some unique procedural elements among the teacher licensure units, the Educator Preparation Program Faculty recognized that strength and efficiency result from collaboration. Consequently, we joined together in 2006 to embrace common elements of mission, conceptual framework, quality control system, categories of evidence, instruments, and data analysis. Through this collaborative effort, we have developed integrated research instruments, and shared data collection and analysis procedures. Thus, we are presenting a “bundled” Educator Preparation Program Inquiry Brief for accreditation purposes. Common Elements: Meeting the Criteria for “Bundling” We have met the three TEAC criteria for “bundling” the Educator Preparation program units in SEHD, CAS, and Conservatory into one brief. (1) In a campus context of leadership restructuring, over the course of several work sessions in 2006-‐2007, SEHD became the point of educational leadership for the program units and the Educator Preparation Program faculty reached consensus on five Program Features shared by all units: alignment with external standards; outcomes assessment of unit objectives; reflective practices; integration of theory and practice; and a capstone experience (See Appendix F, Figure F.1). This initial tool was then expanded so that each unit identified evidence of subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and caring teaching skills that could be measured to demonstrate quality and competencies. (2) All of the units share the same Quality Control System (See Appendix A, Figure A.1)

• The Educator Preparation Program at Shenandoah University has continually aligned its units with their respective external Virginia and national standards in order to maintain state approval for its licensure programs, as well as to prepare its graduates according to guidelines endorsed by the professions (NASM, 1940; Virginia Department of Education, 1975, 1983, 1989, 1996, 2001, 2007).

• The Educator Preparation Program at Shenandoah University measures program objectives by

outcomes assessments as required by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Through the utilization of the WEAVE online® Assessment Management System instituted in 2007-2008, all Shenandoah University degree programs have objectives tied to measures and findings which they have analyzed for an annual report, and have developed action plans to improve the findings for the next measurement cycle.

• The Educator Preparation Program at Shenandoah University teaches its students to be

reflective practitioners. Through the use of course journals, papers, online discussion boards, teacher work samples and electronic portfolio submissions, professors require students to be


thoughtful in their considerations of environments, children’s behavior, lesson implementation and outcomes, teacher interactions, school processes, assessments, so that with reflection and analysis (self, peer, or instructor feedback) they can improve the action or situation or response the next time (Schon, 1996; Seldin, 2004; Syrjala, 1996; Uzat, 1998; Weiss & Weiss, 1998).

• The Educator Preparation Program at Shenandoah University is thoroughly involved in the

integration of theory and practice with the involvement of faculty in distributed loads of research, teaching, and service. Program objectives have been designed to implement research-based best practices. Members of the SEHD and CAS faculty were instrumental in the Faculty Senate Task Force to broaden the definition of scholarship at SU (See Appendix C). This integration of theory and practice into teaching is carried throughout the educator preparation experience (Boyer, 1990; Glassick, Hubert & Maeroff, 1997).

• The Educator Preparation Program at Shenandoah University has a capstone experience with

performance assessments in each of its units. The capstone varies from student teaching to internship, and from e-portfolios to self-evaluation and reflection, with each unit’s individual objectives evident in the results (Lund & Kirk, 2010; Ring & Foti, 2006; Rosselli, Girod & Brodsky, 2011).

• The Educator Preparation Program at Shenandoah University embraces the liberal arts cross-

cutting themes of learning how to learn (Field, 2006), multicultural perspectives (Nieto, 1992; Sleeter, 1992), and technology (Cradler, et.al, 2002) in each of its units in order for our graduates to be fully prepared to continue their education in their careers as they work with diverse populations and ever-changing technologies.

(3) We are presenting evidence of common elements through aggregated data in Section Four.

• Evidence of content knowledge at the undergraduate level: scores were determined by the GPA in the major; achievement gauged by scores on Praxis II, VRA, Mid/Final Evaluation of Student Teacher/Intern, Teacher Work Sample rubric and e-‐portfolio rubric.

• Evidence of pedagogical knowledge at the undergraduate level: scores were determined by grades in two methods courses for elementary, secondary, health and physical education, and music instrumental; for music choral three pedagogy courses’ grades were combined in the analysis as program scores; achievement gauged by scores on Mid/Final Evaluation of Student Teacher/Intern, Teacher Work Sample rubric, and e-‐portfolio rubric.

• Evidence of content knowledge at the graduate level: scores were determined by grades in two content knowledge courses; achievement gauged by scores on Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation or Reading Clinic Final Evaluation, Praxis II, VRA, VCLA, Teacher Work Sample rubric or the Reading Case Study Rubric, e-‐Portfolio rubric and ACTE Survey.

• Evidence of pedagogical knowledge at the graduate level: scores were determined by grades in two pedagogical knowledge courses, Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation or Reading Clinic Final Evaluation, Teacher Work Sample rubric or the Reading Case Study Rubric, e-‐Portfolio rubric and ACTE Survey.


• Evidence of multicultural perspectives, learning to learn and technology integration: achievement gauged by scores on Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation or Reading Clinic Final Evaluation, Teacher Work Sample rubric or the Reading Case Study Rubric, e-‐Portfolio rubric and ACTE Survey.

• Evidence of caring teaching skills; achievement gauged by scores on Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation or Reading Clinic Final Evaluation, Teacher Work Sample rubric or the Reading Case Study Rubric, e-‐Portfolio rubric and ACTE Survey.

Demographic Data for the Educator Preparation Program Table 1.1 shows the demographic profile of all program completers for the 2008-‐2011 years. Table 1.1 Numbers of Program Completers in Each Demographic Category Used by the Institution (2008-‐2011)

Year

Male

Female

American Indian/

Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander

Black (not of Hispanic Origin)

Hispanic

White (not of Hispanic Origin)

Unknown

Total

2007-‐2008 5 24 0 0 1 0 7 21 29 2008-‐2009 7 34 0 0 0 0 19 22 41 2009-‐2010 11 50 0 0 2 3 42 14 61 2010-‐2011 7 37 0 2 1 0 35 6 44 Totals 30 145 0 2 4 3 103 63 175

Table 1.2 shows the official Title II data for the last four years of program completers by endorsement and by year of completion. New endorsement fields are listed, even though they have no completers at this time. The endorsement fields that were closed are also listed to show that students in the pipeline were assisted to completion by the program. Table 1.2 Numbers of Program Completers by Endorsement Area (2008-‐2011) Endorsement 2007-‐

2008 2008-‐2009

2009-‐2010

2010-‐2011

Totals

Initial Endorsements Early Elementary PK-‐3 (closed 08) 1 0 0 0 1 Elementary PK-‐6 8 14 16 12 50 Middle 6-‐8 English 0 0 0 1 1 Middle 6-‐8 History/Social Studies 0 0 0 1 1 Middle 6-‐8 Mathematics 0 0 0 1 1 Middle 6-‐8 Science 0 0 1 0 1 Secondary 6-‐12 Career & Tech Ed: Business Ed. 0 0 2 0 2 English 1 2 1 1 5 History and Social Science 1 2 2 1 6 Mathematics 3 0 1 0 4 Science: Biology 1 0 2 2 5


Science: Chemistry 0 0 0 1 1 Comprehensive PK-‐12 Dance 1 1 0 1 3 English as Second Language 0 0 0 0 0 Foreign Language: Spanish 0 0 0 0 0 Health & Physical Education 3 3 2 2 10 Music: Vocal/Choral* 1 5 7 7 20 Music: Instrumental* 1 5 6 6 18 Special Education-‐General

Curriculum 0 0 0 0 0

Reading Specialist (Grad)** 7 8 21 8 44 TESOL – Adult (Grad) (closed 08)***

1 1 1 1 4

Total ALL Completers 29 41 62 44 176 *One student in Music achieved a dual endorsement in Vocal/Choral and Instrumental, so the endorsement totals are greater than the demographic totals. **The MSED in Reading has 2 tracks: licensure and non-‐licensure. The numbers reported here are only those who completed the licensure requirements. ***Even though the TESOL Add-‐on Endorsement was closed in 2008, qualified students in the pipeline were allowed to finish and apply for licensure. Students average four years (6-‐8 terms) to complete undergraduate teacher licensure within their degree programs. Graduate students average 4.9 to 6.0 terms to complete programs, with coursework available during summer terms, and choices available for supervised classroom experience. It does work out to approximately two academic years when the summer terms are used. Table 1.3 shows the rates of program completion for the teacher education program units. Differences in undergraduate program completion rates are affected by the greater number of transfer students coming into the elementary program from community college, and by the admission of first-‐year students directly into music education or health and physical education majors where they can start their education courses in their first year. Table 1.3 Rates of Program Completion by Program Units* Unit UG: HPE UG: Music UG: Elementary UG: Sec Grad: ITL Grad:

Reading Average Terms to complete

7.88 8.18 6.84** 7 4.9 6

*UG programs are offered 2 terms per year; Grad programs run 3 terms per year. **UG Elementary is lower because over half of the students transfer into the program from community college. Table 1.4 shows the rate of course completion of the sample courses in one term by program units and years. Each unit’s sample courses were the ones selected for grades to show content knowledge and pedagogy (see Tables G.1 and G.3 in Appendix G). The length of term can vary by number of weeks, although each term conforms to the SCHEV standard of 45 contact hours per three-‐credit course. Course completion was determined by the awarding of a letter grade of A-‐D for undergraduate students, and a letter grade of A-‐C for graduate students.


Table 1.4 Rates of Course Completion Per Year by Program Unit Semester/Yr UG: HPE* UG: Music

Vocal & Instrumental

UG: Elementary

UG: Secondary

Grad: ITL Elementary, Middle, Sec.

Grad: Reading

Grad: ESL

2007-‐2008 89% 93% 100% 96% 100% 100% 88% 2008-‐2009 n/a 95% 83% 88% 100% 97% 90% 2009-‐2010 n/a 98% 96% 93% 100% 100% 93% 2010-‐2011 92% 97% 89% 90% 95% 100% 93% *The four courses selected for this sample were not offered during two years of the IB data inquiry as faculty issues were being addressed. It is not surprising that the two graduate licensure units, Initial Teacher Licensure (ITL) and Reading, had the highest course completion rates. All ITL and Reading students are adult learners taking the program to gain teacher licensure to obtain a teaching position, to complete coursework required by provisional licensure requirements, or to gain a salary increase with the added licensure endorsement and a master’s degree. The ESL courses include a broader demographic with both international and domestic students with different goals and timelines. The ESL unit is also the only one that is totally delivered by distance format, which can pose challenges for students without good time management. These two issues could explain the difference in completion rates for the ESL unit when compared to the other two graduate units. Table 1.5 shows the demographic profile of the Education Preparation Program Faculty for the last four years. Table 1.5 Total Numbers of Full-‐ and Part-‐Time Institutional Faculty in Each Demographic Category and Participating in Each Program Option from 2007-‐2011 Descriptors 2007-‐

2008 2008-‐2009

2009-‐2010

2010-‐2011

Full-‐Time Education Licensure 5 7 7 7 Full-‐Time, but only Part-‐time in Education – Licensure*

Conservatory 33 34 36 36

Arts & Sciences 35 36 42 45

School of Ed & HD 7 7 7 7

Part-‐Time Faculty (Adjuncts who have taught classes which licensure students may have taken)

Conservatory

41 53 62 67

Arts & Sciences

60 60 60 60

School of Ed & HD

19 20 26 38

Men 103 109 121 127 Women 97 108 119 133 Black (not of Hispanic origin) 7 8 8 9


White (not of Hispanic origin) 182 194 213 230 Hispanic 1 3 4 4 American Indian/Alaskan Native 0 0 0 0 Asian/Pacific Islander 3 5 5 6 Other/International 0 0 1 1 Not Specified/Unknown 7 7 9 10

Total Education Faculty 200 217 240 260 *Conservatory, College of Arts and Sciences, School of Education & Human Development Full-‐Time Faculty members who teach at least one course required for licensure, and may have taught program students in that course.


Section 2: Claims and Rationale

In this Inquiry Brief, the Educator Preparation Program faculty have described our findings that we prepare educators who are competent, caring and qualified. We sought the data to show our educator candidates are effective, professional educators who are well prepared for their responsibilities (SEHD Mission Statement, 2007; Academic Affairs 2011 Strategic Plan, School of Education & Human Development, 2011; Shenandoah Conservatory Mission Statement, 2011; College of Arts and Sciences Strategic Plan, 2011). Shenandoah University examined three claims about the candidates who have successfully completed the educator preparation program.

• Claim 1. Knowledge of Content – Shenandoah University licensure candidates possess a thorough understanding of the subject matter (Quality Principle 1.1 – Evidence of students’ subject matter knowledge).

• Claim 2. Knowledge of Pedagogy – Shenandoah University licensure candidates perform their instruction based on current research, best educational practice and the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) to promote the learning of all students (Quality Principle 1.2 – Evidence of students’ pedagogical knowledge).

• Claim 3. Caring/Teaching Skill – Shenandoah University licensure candidates demonstrate high levels of caring and teaching skills in their professional interactions with students and their families, as well as colleagues in the school (Quality Principle 1.3 – Evidence of students’ caring / teaching skill).

Rationale for the Assessments Claim 1. Knowledge of Content – Shenandoah University licensure candidates possess a thorough understanding of the subject matter (Quality Principle 1.1 – Evidence of students’ subject matter knowledge). Standardized Tests

• Praxis II – Undergraduate and graduate initial teacher education candidates must take and pass Praxis II in their subject area of endorsement at or above the score set by the state of Virginia. Praxis II assessments measure content knowledge in the subject area of the endorsement. Candidates passing this test demonstrate competence in their chosen field and are compared with others in state or national comparison groups. It is noted that there are no Praxis II tests for dance education or ESL at this time.

• VCLA -‐ Undergraduate and graduate initial teacher education candidates must pass VCLA as a requirement before program completion. VCLA


demonstrates the candidate’s level of communication literacy in both reading and writing, regardless of their endorsement, as all teachers are teachers of basic literacy.

• VRA – Elementary (PK-‐6), Special Education – General Curriculum, and Reading Specialist licensure candidates must take the VRA test to demonstrate their knowledge of the field of reading, and to apply for licensure. The results of this test assure that our program prepares teachers according to the state reading standards for teachers of reading. (This test was replaced by the RVE on July 1, 2011.)

Outcomes Assessments of Program Objectives

• Grades/GPA in subject matter courses in major field of study demonstrate subject matter knowledge.

• The capstone experience is interpreted with consistent program data collection via specific items in capstone course rubrics such as the Mid/Final Student Teacher/Intern Evaluation or Reading Clinic Final Evaluation, the Teacher Work Sample or the Reading Case Study Rubric, the e-Portfolio Rubric, and the ACTE Survey (see Appendix F for rubrics and items noted for Content Knowledge Assessments).

Claim 2. Knowledge of Pedagogy – Shenandoah University licensure candidates perform their instruction based on current research, best educational practice, and the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL), to promote the learning of all students (Quality Principle 1.2 – Evidence of students’ pedagogical knowledge). Outcomes Assessments of Program Objectives

• Capstone experience: The capstone experience is interpreted with consistent program data collection via specific items in course rubrics such as the Mid/Final Student Teacher/Intern Evaluation or Reading Clinic Final Evaluation, the Teacher Work Sample or the Reading Case Study Rubric, the e-Portfolio Rubric, and the ACTE Survey (see Appendix F for rubrics and items noted for Pedagogy Assessments).

• GPA / Course Grades /Scores in the education program: Grades in methods courses demonstrate pedagogy knowledge.

• Reflective Practices: The Teacher Work Sample and e-Portfolio Rubrics

developed and piloted 2010-2011 by the Educator Preparation Faculty demonstrate the quality of graduates and their pedagogical knowledge evident in the written reflections from their experiences. (Music education unit will pilot the e-Portfolio Rubric 2011-2012; Reading unit piloted the e-Portfolio rubric in August 2011. In place of TWS, Reading unit’s Case Study Rubric pilot was in August 2011.)


• Advisory Council for Teacher Education (ACTE) Survey: The Advisory Council representatives of partnership K-12 schools’ perception surveys served as data sources to confirm completers’ pedagogical knowledge.

Claim 3. Caring/Teaching Skill –Shenandoah University licensure candidates demonstrate high levels of caring and teaching skills in their professional interactions with students and colleagues in the school (Quality Principle 1.3 – Caring / teaching skill). Outcomes Assessments of Program Objectives

• Capstone Experience: Student teaching (undergraduate level) or Internship or Clinic (graduate level) demonstrates our students’ caring and teaching skills. By using the Teacher Work Sample Rubric (or Reading’s Case Study Assignment Rubric) and the Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation (or Reading’s Clinic Final Evaluation) data, the Program Faculty are able to examine student and program strengths and improve weaknesses in a comprehensive and integrated system.

• e-Portfolios (both levels), as they are integrated and then interpreted through consistent program data collection and analysis, demonstrate our students’ caring/ teaching skills. By using the e-Portfolio Rubrics, the Program Faculty are able to examine student and program strengths and improve weaknesses in a comprehensive and integrated system.

• Reflective Practices: The Teacher Work Sample (or Reading’s Case Study

Rubric) and e-Portfolio Rubrics developed by the Educator Preparation Faculty allow faculty to assess the performance levels of students as reflective practitioners, to demonstrate the quality of graduates and their caring and teaching skills as evident in the written reflections from their experiences.

• Advisory Council for Teacher Education (ACTE) Survey: The Advisory Council

representatives of partnership K-12 schools’ perception surveys served as data sources to confirm completers’ caring / teaching skills through external perceptions of performance.

Assessing Cross-‐Cutting Themes Shenandoah University’s Educator Preparation Program also incorporates and integrates the cross-‐cutting liberal arts themes of Quality Principle I: learning how to learn, multicultural perspectives, and technology. Candidates exhibit these themes by various means across the units through all three components of subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and caring/teaching skills. The pilot versions of the new rubrics assess student skills in learning to learn, multicultural perspectives, and technology so that we have multiple measures of these cross-‐cutting themes in the program culmination.


Section 3: Method of Assessment

Procurement of Evidence Educator Preparation Program Heads have followed the advice of Research Faculty Dr. Dale Foreman and constructed detailed spreadsheets containing data necessary for the continued analysis of their individual units. For the Internal Audit, twenty percent of the completers in each unit were selected for the audit trail investigation. Dr. Foreman has advised each unit individually in the process of data collection and analysis. He was also a key reviewer of the instruments as they were developed by the EPP subcommittees. SEHD Administrative Assistant dedicated to the Office of Professional Licensure, Stephanie Scriva, manages the data flow from the Educational Testing Service (ETS) and National Evaluation Series (NES) reports to the program advisors through a Standardized test spreadsheet that is updated each month and distributed in a timely manner. Because of her expertise in Title II data collection and reporting, and her understanding of SU’s Datatel and WebAdvisor systems, she was instrumental in providing access to necessary data files and organizing reports. New Assessments Implemented for Data Gathering and Analysis The Educator Preparation Council of Faculty has met every month August to June for the past four years to hear, discuss, revise, and approve the work of instrument-‐developing subcommittees. Agendas and Minutes of the monthly EPC meetings were recorded by Ms. Scriva and distributed to EPC members in a timely manner. Items resulting from these efforts are itemized below. All new instruments assess the EPP’s TEAC Claims and Cross-‐cutting Themes, and are included in Appendix F. Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation – All Claims and Cross-‐cutting Themes

• Dr. Diane Painter chaired the EPC subcommittee that reviewed the student teacher evaluation form that SEHD used from 2000-2008 (based on the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Administrators, and Superintendents, approved by the Virginia Board of Education {January 2000} in response to the Virginia General Assembly-approved Education Accountability and Quality Enhancement Act of 1999). They discussed the required content of the form and decided to re-design the form to add detailed descriptors, a way for evaluators to indicate if the intern demonstrated the criterion, and added a text field to capture comments.

• Even though the EPP had used a Midterm/Final Evaluation for student teachers/interns in past years, the re-design of this instrument made the record-keeping very different. Also, while the main categories were the same as the previous instrument, the number of items expanded to include the cross-cutting themes as well as caring/teaching skills. This instrument is 13 pages long, with 32 items grouped in categories of teacher performance (Appendix F, Figure F.2).


• During the student teaching/internship experience, the evaluation is conducted at midterm and final with one or more cooperating teacher(s)/clinical faculty and the university supervisor completing the written evaluation at both times, and the student teacher/intern completing the form as a self-evaluation at the final. The student teacher also has the opportunity to write a response to any of the comments from the clinical faculty or the university supervisor.

• This instrument was piloted in Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 in both initial licensure (student teaching/internship) and provisional licensure (mentorship) field experiences.

• Music Education Unit faculty revised the instrument in the fall of 2010 to incorporate changes of language to facilitate better face validity. Feedback from student teachers, cooperating teachers and supervisors facilitated the revision process. Participants expressed concern during the pilot phase of the instrument regarding the lack of clarity in language, grammatical errors and phrasing. The coding system, however, was not revised for the spring pilot term.

Reading Clinic Final Evaluation – All Claims and Cross-‐cutting Themes

• Dr. Peter Edwards designed the Reading Clinic Final Evaluation to evaluate reading students during their term working with students in the Claude Moore Reading Center’s Reading Clinic. The rating allows for a five-point scale, areas for comment, and overall comments on student performance.(Appendix F, Figure F.6)

• The items are based on the student teacher evaluation form that SEHD used from 2000-2008 (based on the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Administrators, and Superintendents, approved by the Virginia Board of Education {January 2000} in response to the Virginia General Assembly-approved Education Accountability and Quality Enhancement Act of 1999).

• The rubric was implemented in the Reading Clinic in Summer 2011, with Supervisor perspective only.

Teacher Work Sample Rubric– All Claims and Cross-‐cutting Themes

• The Teacher Work Sample is a reflection of work ethic and the professional skills, attitudes and knowledge obtained during the pre-service career. To develop a Teacher Work Sample that reflected the mission of the EPP, Dr. Pamela Stockinger chaired the EPC subcommittee that modified and summarized information from The Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality Project (http://uni.edu/itq, a Title II federally funded project, with permissions to use with reference citation.

• The SU version of the TWS instrument is six pages long with 34 items grouped in categories of teacher performance. Each criterion had two functions: one was as a detailed descriptor of a facet of the larger category; a second was as a detailed descriptor of one of the claims or cross-cutting themes. Students were not aware of the second layer of attributes for each criterion, and each item could


relate to one or more Claims or Cross-Cutting Themes (See Appendix F, Figure F.3).

• This instrument was piloted in Fall 2010 and Spring 2011.

Reading Case Study Assignment Rubric – All Claims and Cross-‐cutting Themes

• Dr. Peter Edwards designed the Reading Unit Case Study Rubric to examine reading students’ achievement of course objectives in their capstone project, the Case Study Assignment. The rating follows a tri-level discrimination between target, acceptable, and unacceptable scores, with a total score that can be translated into a percentage and then a letter grade (Appendix F, Figure F.7).

• Several items in the Case Study Rubric demonstrate the student’s achievement of the course outcomes for content and pedagogy knowledge, such as instructional materials and teaching techniques, case study methodology, assessments and data tables. Other items focus on the program claims and cross-cutting themes.

• The rubric was implemented in the Reading Clinic in Summer 2011, with faculty instructor as the single evaluator in this pilot phase.

e-‐Portfolio Rubric– All Claims and Cross-‐cutting Themes

• Dr. Cynthia Schendel chaired the EPC subcommittee for the e-Portfolio. They used as a guide a portfolio from a NCATE-accredited institution in Illinois (Aurora University - AU) which one of the committee members helped to create prior to coming to SU. The committee used the AU assessments for formatting but changed the key measures to match the themes and claims of the SU faculty.

• The goals of the portfolio are for the teacher candidates to demonstrate understanding of the SU Claims and Cross Cutting Themes. The portfolio follows the teacher candidate’s journey toward achieving an understanding of these goals. It demonstrates how various courses, assignments, field experiences, and vast references are woven together into a living document that authentically assesses their knowledge. The teacher candidates continue to learn as they “engage in this process of completing a variety of learning and assessment tasks across time, selecting those that are the most representative of their effort and achievement” (Lund & Kirk, 2010, p. 111). Portfolios combine what the teacher candidates are learning with how they are being assessed over time. According to the Melograno (1999), a portfolio is “not just a scrapbook of teaching memorabilia; it is an authentic representation of teaching performance” (p. 2).

• The e-Portfolio Rubric is five pages long and contains two sections: one to examine students’ professional data (resume and educational philosophy); and a second to examine their reflective statements and rationale supported by two pieces of evidence to demonstrate their awareness and achievement of the program’s claims and cross-cutting themes (see Appendix F, Figure F.4)

• Although their e-Portfolio was integrated in their unit and implemented in 2010-11, Music education will pilot the rubric in Fall 2011. The other initial licensure units piloted the instrument in the Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 semesters.


Reading e-‐Portfolio Rubric – All Claims and Cross-‐cutting Themes

• Dr. Peter Edwards designed the Reading e-Portfolio Rubric to examine reading students’ achievement of program objectives in their e-Portfolio. The rating follows a tri-level discrimination between target, acceptable, and unacceptable scores, with a total score that can be translated into a percentage and then a letter grade (Appendix F, F.8).

• The criteria in the Reading e-Portfolio Rubric collectively demonstrate the student’s achievement of the program outcomes for content and pedagogy knowledge, caring/teaching skills, and cross-cutting themes, as well as their philosophy of teaching reading.

• The rubric was implemented in the Reading Clinic in Summer 2011, with faculty advisor as the single evaluator for this pilot phase.

Survey of Advisory Council for Teacher Education members

• The Advisory Council for Teacher Education (ACTE) consists of representatives of 20 regional K-12 schools and meets with Shenandoah University Educator Preparation and Administration and Supervision Faculty twice each year to share new developments, mutual concerns, problematic issues and possible solutions. Since these school systems have signed Partnership Agreements with Shenandoah University to collaborate in professional development, and since most of them have hired our graduates, they were considered to be a viable source for reliable responses in this stage of instrument development.

• A one-page, Likert-type scale survey of seven statements was designed to solicit a general perception of the teacher education program graduates from regional employers. Each statement was keyed to one of the teacher education program’s claims or cross-cutting themes (Appendix F, Figure F.5). Twenty surveys were handed out to those representatives attending the April meeting, or mailed to the representatives not in attendance. Email reminders were sent one month later.

Validity and Reliability of the Assessments GPA and Course Grades

• Validity and Reliability. We accept the controversies surrounding the use of course grades and GPA as valid and reliable assessments; however, both have historically been used in higher education as standard measures of course and degree completion, as well as indicators of levels of success within those assessments. We are using these standard measures as one part of our multiple assessments because we trust that our faculty evaluated those courses with professional objectivity and reasonable fairness.

• Units of our program have entering GPA minimum variations, but that is not their sole criterion for acceptance. Program Faculty also monitor student grades within


their units to ensure that students maintain the requirements for the cumulative GPA for student teaching/internship, and /or graduation. Graduate students must maintain a 3.0 average, with no more than two C grades allowed (SU policy); all education program undergraduates need a 2.5 overall average; elementary, middle, and secondary education need a 2.9 in their major, which brings them in line with other such units in the state.

Praxis II

• Validity. Virginia’s Board of Education adopted Praxis II as a measure of competence in content knowledge in a student’s primary subject area.

• Reliability. The Educational Testing Services (ETS) reports the internal consistency of the Specialty Tests as greater than .90.

VRA • Validity & Reliability. The 2008-2009 Registration Bulletin for the Virginia

Communication and Literacy Assessment Virginia Reading Assessment states that the VRA was designed as a criterion-referenced assessment to aligned with the English Standards of Learning for Virginia Public Schools and the National Reading Panel’s five components of reading instruction; phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency. Specific information concerning content validity or test reliability was not included in the test bulletin.

• The plan was to develop a reading assessment aligned with the English Standards of Learning for Virginia Public Schools (SOL) and the National Reading Panel’s five key components of effective reading instruction—phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency. The VRA will satisfy for elementary teachers the reading component of the teaching skills requirement mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind Act. The test will help identify those teaching candidates who have the knowledge and skills that are important for performing the job of an elementary (preK–3 or preK–6) teacher, a special education teacher, or a reading specialist in Virginia public schools (p.5).

• The VCLA and VRA are criterion-referenced, objective-based, and are designed to measure a candidate’s knowledge and skills in relation to an established standard rather than in relation to the performance of other candidates. Tests may include test items that are being evaluated for future administrations and that do not affect a candidate’s test results (p.6).

Methods of Validity and Reliability for New Assessments Since validity of the instruments developed for purposes of program evaluation relies on the appropriateness, meaningfulness and usefulness of the specific inferences made from the scores, it is judged on the actions taken based on those scores. New instruments were piloted in the 2010-‐2011 year, so the resulting data that are reported herein are instructive to the EPP faculty developers in diverse


ways. While some clusters of scores may indicate student or program strength, they can equally show items that need to be revised or eliminated. Data is displayed in Section Four, and discussed in Section Five. Interrater Reliability – This method will be used to compute the reliability of outcome measures that are scored using rubrics that contain some degree of subjectivity. The reliability is determined by asking two independent scorers to score the same group of tests so that each group of students gets two scores. Then, calculate the correlation coefficient between the two sets of scores. The correlation coefficient is the interrater reliability coefficient. The Renaissance Partnership Teacher Work Sample (RTWS) was modified by Dr. Pamela Stockinger and the Educator Preparation Faculty in 2010, by using the same categories which are linked to the INTASC standards, and using slightly modified descriptors. According to Denner, Norman, Salzman, Pankratz, and Evans (2004) in their study of the RTWS examining the “evidence supporting the score generalizability, validity, and quality of student learning assessment,” they found the results of the rubric to be very high if three or more trained and experienced raters were used. They obtained validity evidence using “frequency, criticality, necessity, and representativeness of the targeted teaching behaviors to actual teaching practice.” They found that higher scores meant that student teachers could show students’ learning evidence better than those with lower scores. Finally, “the findings demonstrate teacher work sample performance provides a credible means for teacher education programs to verify teacher candidate performance levels” (p.1). With this strength in the RTWS instrument, the EPP will build confidence in its version through repeated applications, analysis of data, rater training and interrater reliability.


Section Four: Data The data in this section are displayed in tabular and statistical formats according to assessment type. Discussion of the data analyzed is presented in Section Five according to assessments and program claims. Table 4.1 is a summation of the data across six categories of evidence to show means and score ranges on the three claims and three cross-‐cutting themes. Disaggregated data tables are presented in Appendix G to clarify these data shown in Table 4.1. The number of students (N) in the data table varies because of the numbers of completers in the program units and their variations of items within each measurement category. Table 4.1 Means and Ranges of Student Scores: Assessments that Support Claims for Quality Principle I, and Cross-‐Cutting Themes

Teacher Education Program Outcome Claims and Cross-‐cutting Themes

Categories of Evidence and Range of Scores Grades

Means

Standardized Tests

Pass Rates

Mid/Final Student Teacher/Intern Evaluation / Reading Clinic Final Evaluation (Supervisor) Score Means (Range)

Teacher Work Sample / Reading CaseStudy Score Means (Range)

e-‐Portfolio Rubric Score Means (Range)

ACTE school Survey Means (Range)

UG Grad Praxis II

VRA VCLA

Univ. Super-‐ visor

CoopT/Clin Fac

StTch/ Int/ Self-‐ Eval

Univ Superv / Fac Eval (1-‐2 per TWS)

Univ Superv/ Fac Eval (1-‐2 per portfolio)

School system reps.

Ele RS

(N = ) 64 104 95 48 35 90 22 22 22 21 13 8 Content Knowledge

3.46 3.98 100 100 100 100 5.63 (0-‐6)

5.85 (0-‐6)

5.88 (0-‐6)

37.19 (0-‐42)

12.22 (0-‐16)

2.86 (0-‐4)

Pedagogy Knowledge

3.68 3.95 20.00 (0-‐25)

20.51 (0-‐25)

21.15 (0-‐25)

61.69 (0-‐72)

12.22 (0-‐16)

3.00 (0-‐4)

Caring / Teaching Skills

34.32 (0-‐36)

34.90 (0-‐36)

35.07 (0-‐36)

23.03 (0-‐27)

10.48 (0-‐16)

3.29 (0-‐4)

Multi-‐cultural Persp.

17.85 (0-‐23)

18.88 (0-‐23)

19.00 (0-‐23)

24.47 (0-‐30)

11.00 (0-‐16)

2.29 (0-‐4)

Learn to Learn

18.76 (0-‐21)

19.73 (0-‐21)

19.93 (0-‐21)

25.88 (0-‐30)

11.09 (0-‐16)

2.86 (0-‐4)

Technology 15.71 (0-‐20)

17.66 (0-‐20)

17.66 (0-‐20)

7.72 (0-‐9)

11.61 (0-‐16)

2.86 (0-‐4)

Note: N of students varies. Correlation between VRA scores and VRA Takers’ Four-‐Course GPAs In calculating the Pearson Product Moment correlation for the VRA scores and course grades, we used 31 VRA Takers (2007-‐2011) who had also completed the four reading courses selected by the program head as indicators for content knowledge and pedagogy knowledge competencies, and computed a four-‐course GPA for each student. The correlation between the VRA scores and the VRA Takers’ four-‐course GPAs is as follows: r = 0.34, p < 0.03. This correlation is statistically


significant at an alpha of 0.05. A one-‐tailed test was used because we were looking for positive significance. Correlation between Praxis II and Content Knowledge Grades for Undergraduate Initial Licensure Students Using a sample of 40 undergraduate completers (from 2007-‐2010) from the units in initial licensure that took Praxis II content specialty tests, we computed the Pearson Product Moment correlations between their major GPAs and their Praxis II scores within their teacher education units. Table 4.2 shows the findings. Three of the four units have highly significant results. Secondary mathematics and English units each had only two completers so their correlations could not be computed. Table 4.2 Correlations Between Undergraduate Major GPA and Praxis II for Completers in Each Undergraduate Program Option (2007-‐10) Major # Completers r p Elementary Education PK-‐6 19 .64 p<.005 Music Education Vocal & Instrumental PK-‐12 10 .63 p<.025 Secondary History/Social Studies 6-‐12 3 .99 p<0.001 Health & Physical Education PK-‐12* 8* .18* p>0.10* Alpha level = .05 *Data show poor correlation; faculty member was dismissed; new faculty was hired, and curriculum redesigned 2009, 2010. Data from Reading Unit 0-‐p The Reading Clinic Portfolio, Reading Case Study Assignment, and the Reading e-‐Portfolio Rubrics are being piloted in Summer 2011 classes. Data will be obtained and analyzed in August/September. While not available for this version of the Inquiry Brief, this data will be available for the Site Audit visit in October. For that reason, and because they were a part of the 2008 IB Proposed Instrumentation, those instruments have been included in Appendix F (Figures F.6, F.7, F.8).


Section Five – Discussion of Data and Plans Current Data and Instrument Discussion Overall, the EPP faculty has made great strides since the IB Proposal of 2008 in creating instruments to collect valid and reliable data to support the program’s claims, after the pilot phase has completed. Additionally, the faculty found that many of the issues confronted in the 2008 Internal Audit and subsequent TEAC Site Visit had been rectified through improved systems, increased faculty / staff learning, heightened awareness, and better record-‐keeping. That said, the 2011 Internal Audit still showed some areas that need attention to become more efficient or accurate, and those are noted in Appendices A and B. More specifically, each Claim is discussed below, as is each of the assessments. Claim 1: Knowledge of Content – Shenandoah University licensure candidates possess a thorough understanding of the subject matter (Quality Principle 1.1 – Evidence of students’ subject matter knowledge). Grades and GPA

• The data show undergraduate GPAs that are in the range of B to B+ for their major courses. The data show graduate course means that are in the range of B- to A (2.7 to 4.0), with three of five course grade means over 3.3 (B+). These grades indicate good quality of instruction and student performance.

Standardized Test Scores

• The Praxis II scores shown in Appendix G, Table G.2 are from the Title II reporting and verification system. The report does not show the score analysis for numbers of takers less than 10. Shenandoah University’s pass rate for completers 2007-2010 is 100%, which is over the state-required 80% for approved programs.

• VRA Scores. Our analysis of scores for Reading Specialist licensure track completers who took the VRA test between 2007 and May 2011 shows a 100% pass rate, with all passing on the first attempt. Mean score was 270.3, with a standard deviation of 12.5, the highest score of 293, and lowest score of 253.

• While the VRA pass rate is very good, the Reading Specialist unit is making changes in its program to increase the number taking the VRA (to become the RVE on July 1, 2011). Currently 44% of the total MSED Reading degree candidates are in the non-licensure track. Several program and course revisions, which have been scheduled for implementation in 2011-12, will encourage more students in the program to take and pass the test, and apply for licensure. These revisions will increase the numbers taking the test as well as improve the perception of the program. This change comes as a result of the unit head examining the spreadsheet of his program’s graduates, and the correlation of VRA Takers’ scores and their four-course GPAs in preparation for this IB.


VRA Scores and VRA Takers’ Four-‐course GPAs Correlation • Given an alpha level of .05, the data show the relationships between the VRA

scores and the VRA Takers’ four-course GPAs to be statistically significant, using a one-tailed test looking for positive significance. This finding confirms that the grades given in the program are fine, even though there is little variation demonstrated with high means and very small standard deviations as shown in Appendix G, Tables G.1 and G.3. The unit has program revisions scheduled for 2011-2012 that will examine the issue of low variance in grades, the four courses selected for the profile, and implementation of analytical performance assessments.

Praxis II and GPA Correlation

• Given an alpha level of .05, the data show all relationships between undergraduate initial licensure students’ Praxis II scores and the students’ major GPAs are highly significant for elementary education, music education, and secondary history/social studies. (There were not enough completers in any of the other secondary disciplines to calculate the statistic.)

• The very weak correlation for health & physical education illustrates an issue of faculty quality and consistency that was remedied by replacing that faculty member with a highly qualified and dedicated faculty member. She requested and received a two-month extension on her contract so that she could use the summer before she began teaching to conduct a thorough curricular review and initiate the subsequent revision according NASPE standards as well as insure VDOE matrix compliance. Individual advisory meetings were held with pipeline students so that they became aware of the changes in protocol and expectations, along with those in curriculum. Students were given options for degree completion depending on their choices and goals. Individual meetings were also conducted with key field cooperating teachers and supervisors so that increased practicum expectations would be supported and students would be held to higher standards of performance. We expect that Praxis II correlations should improve in two years because of the change in unit faculty and curricular adjustments.

Overall, the grades, GPAs, standardized scores and correlations support the EPP claim for quality of content knowledge of its graduates. General Discussion of New Assessments Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation

• While the Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation instrument underwent many changes to be its present form, it is evident that it has several more to go. With the sum of means (Appendix G, Tables G.4, G.5, G.6, G.7) for these student teacher evaluations, there are some considerations. Because of the nature of the instrument, the most logical way to do the analysis of data was to achieve a multi-phased gathering and calculating of means for the claims and cross-cutting themes. This action resulted in a sum of means for each category for each student. Using pilot data that has resulted from this cycle of data collection, the


analysis process will be fully converted from averages to totals so that final scores can be accurately compared using raw score means.

• Data show the weaker overall performances of some students quite accurately in that those same students were weak on other measures as well.

• Data analysis showed the need for change in this instrument. Several items in two categories of this instrument (Communication/Community Relations and Professionalism) (Appendix G, Table G.4) received zeroes for scores because performance was not possible for elementary, secondary and HPE student teachers within their normal routines. However, when these problematic items were removed, the scores were less skewed. Thus, the two categories need revision to become a better fit with the student teaching experience parameters for these units.

• Music Education Unit Faculty reported that many of their cooperating teachers thought that it was inappropriate to penalize student teachers for “something they could not do during student teaching.” It is thought that they took liberties based on their interpretation of the validity of the items in question. Data displayed in the Communication and Professionalism categories of Appendix G, a comparison of Tables G.4 and G.5 show the effects of this issue, with perfect scores showing in Table G.5. Again, it was another indicator that the instrument needed revision to be more accurate; interrater reliability would be increased when all evaluators agree on validity and item description. These data were not used for claims and cross-cutting themes analyses because of questions of confidence in the scores resulting from a flawed instrument.

• When the data from the elementary, secondary and HPE Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation were examined from the Claims and Cross-cutting Themes categories (Appendix G, Table G.6) it was evident that the Pedagogy and Multicultural Perspectives categories’ means were more than three standard deviations lower than the total score possible. The group of students, however, scored similarly in each category, which suggests that the instrument was seeking performance that the student teachers either were not able to perform or that they were not expecting to demonstrate. This disconnect surfaced also in the other configuration of these observed items as noted in the previous paragraphs, and this second notation serves as confirmation of issues with the instrument that need resolution by the faculty.

• The Reading unit piloted their Clinic Final Evaluation in the Summer 2011 session. Since the supervising faculty member was the only one to complete the evaluation, the data has a singular perspective, rather than the triangular perspective found in the student teacher evaluation data. These data were collected for student and program purposes this time; however, program faculty are revising the process for the next implementation.

Teacher Work Sample (TWS)

• It is evident that there was an issue with interrater reliability (See Appendix G, Table G.8). For the TWS with two raters, wide scoring variations were noted (Records 1+2, 9+10, 21+22) and revised training procedures will address those issues. For instances where both ratings were low, further examination revealed


that the student’s TWS was weak; where both ratings were high, the student’s TWS was exemplary. Curricular and course revisions will address that issue.

• The data showed that the raters who had attended the all-day training, working through the materials and practicing together, were more aligned in their scoring; whereas the raters who were able to stay only for part of the training or did not attend at all had very dissimilar ratings. Thus, more training is needed for consistency and to improve the interrater reliability. The strength of the instrument is its ability to show connections between teaching and learning.

• The second issue comes with the EPP faculty’s, supervisors’, and clinical faculty/cooperating teachers’ understanding of the nature of the assignment and the how to teach and support good reflective practices for candidates and teachers, and shows in the low pedagogical mean and high SD on Table G.9. The embedding of the TWS in the whole curriculum is the key so that students are well aware of the importance of the study as well as know how to conduct the research necessary to demonstrate effective teaching and learning (Records 2, 10, 22). Future student teachers and interns will have been introduced to the TWS in methods classes, and they will have examined plenty of SU examples to use as models for their own work. The TWS will also be given more emphasis in the new Clinical Faculty Trainings held twice each year, and in the orientation sessions held in August and January.

• Finally, because of the cumbersome nature of the GoogleDocs process tested for data collection and reporting on this rubric, we discontinued its use after one semester where some of the data was lost or irretrievable. We will be seeking more streamlined and effective means for using the rubric.

• The Reading unit piloted their Case Study Rubric in Summer 2011, however there were only single scorings of the case studies. Reading program faculty are revising the process as well as the rubric for the next implementation.

E-‐Portfolio Rubric

• The e-Portfolio rating system seemed to work better with the e-Portfolios shared on GoogleSites and then rated on paper, since the digital formatted responses were lost.

• However, the data show (Appendix G, Table G.10) that some of the students did not understand the process of the portfolio development, nor its potential for career-building (12 of 23 total scores below 80).

• The data also show that students were able to describe their rationale for the claims and cross-cutting themes, but were less inclined to provide adequate evidence or justification for the inclusion of that particular evidence.

• Like the TWS, this process will become more ingrained in the EPP units’ curricula as the students are introduced to the e-portfolio system in their first professional studies class. Then, as they matriculate, they are routinely adding, editing and sculpting it to display their abilities and accomplishments to their best appeal.

• The Music and Special Education units implemented the e-portfolios, but did not use the rubric to score them in 2010-2011. They will begin scoring with the rubric in the 2011-2012 year. The Reading unit implemented the e-Portfolio and piloted


their rubric in Summer 2011 with the program head as the primary reviewer. The instrument will be refined in the coming year, and the review process will include at least two evaluators for each portfolio.

ACTE Teacher Education Survey

• While being generally supportive with the majority of responses being either “agree” or “strongly agree,” (Appendix G, Table G.11) the anonymous responses indicated that there were some issues that we needed to address, either to improve the education of the school officials about the nature of our preparation program claims (several 0’s were recorded), or to correct a possible misunderstanding that the survey was for employed teachers rather than for student teachers (as noted in a written additional comment from one system).

Discussion of Claims Two and Three based on New Assessment Data Claim 2. Knowledge of Pedagogy – Shenandoah University licensure candidates perform their instruction based on current research, best educational practice, and the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL), to promote the learning of all students (Quality Principle 1.2 – Evidence of students’ pedagogical knowledge).

• The elementary, secondary and HPE Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation showed that for Pedagogy Knowledge that the students’ scores were over three standard deviations below the top score, which could indicate insufficient performance (Table G.6). However, because the student scores were grouped there, it was an indication that the instrument contained a number of inappropriate descriptors for student teacher/interns’ range of responsibilities or activities, and that half of those descriptors were in the pedagogy category.

• The Teacher Work Sample pilot top scores organized by TWS categories (Table G.8) fall within one standard deviation above the mean, which demonstrates good evidence for candidates’ effective pedagogy knowledge. However, when the pilot scores are organized by Claims, the Pedagogical knowledge mean is 61.69 with a standard deviation of 10.89, where the total score is 78. This mean is more than one standard deviation below the top score. When the three lowest scores (records 2,10,22) are removed because of rater training issues, the mean becomes 64.41 with a standard deviation of 6.52. While the mean of scores improved, it did not fall within one standard deviation of the top score. This finding indicates that there are alignment issues between the instrument and the course instruction as well as the rater training problem noted above.

• The e-Portfolio pilot top scores were within a standard deviation above the mean, but some low scores pulled down the mean and expanded the standard deviation. The overall standard deviation of 24 points shows the weakness of the instrument, due to either rater, curriculum or student issues as noted above (Table G.10).

• The ACTE Survey (Appendix G, Table G.11) revealed that two 3.00 means with 0.58 standard deviation on a 0-4-point scale supported the pedagogical quality of program alumni with a mean response of “agree” for effective teaching skills and the variety of assessment for learning feedback and reflection.


In summary, the new assessments provided mixed findings for the pedagogy claim, confirming the need for instrument revision. Claim 3. Caring/Teaching Skill –Shenandoah University licensure candidates demonstrate high levels of caring and teaching skills in their professional interactions with students and their families, as well as colleagues in the school (Quality Principle 1.3 – Caring/Teaching Skill).

• The elementary, secondary and HPE Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation pilot showed that for the Caring/Teaching Skill category all mean scores were within five points of the total score of 36, but fell outside of one standard deviation from the top score (Table G.6).

• The Teacher Work Sample pilot top scores (Appendix G, Table G.8) fall within one standard deviation above the mean, which demonstrates good evidence for quality student learning; however, when the TWS criteria were organized by the claims (Appendix G, Table G.9), the Caring/Teaching Skill scores had a 24.47 mean with a 4.67 standard deviation, which places the mean more than one standard deviation below the top score. When the three lowest scores (records 2,10,22) are removed because of rater training issues, the mean becomes 24.07 with a standard deviation of 2.48. While the mean of scores improved slightly, it did not fall within one standard deviation of the top score. This finding indicates that there are alignment issues between the instrument and the course instruction, as well as the rater-training problem noted above.

• The e-Portfolio pilot top scores were within a standard deviation above the mean, but some low scores pulled down the mean and expanded the standard deviation. The evidence category for Caring/Teaching Skills (Appendix G, Table G.10) had the lowest mean of any category, showing that students did not produce the evidence necessary to support their rationales. The overall standard deviation of 24 points shows the weakness of the instrument, due to either rater or student issues as noted above.

• The ACTE Survey (Appendix G, Table G.11) findings showed the strongest mean (3.29 with 0.49 SD) for the statement that SU-prepared teachers demonstrate caring teaching skills. That result demonstrated employer perceptions of the caring qualities of SU-prepared teachers.

In summary, the new assessments provided mixed findings for the Caring/Teaching Skills claim, confirming the need for instrument revision and improvements in communicating program expectations to candidates. Discussion of Cross-‐Cutting Themes Based on New Assessment Data Multicultural Perspectives

• The elementary, secondary and HPE Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation showed that for Multicultural Perspectives that the students’ scores were over three standard deviations below the top score, which could indicate insufficient performance (Appendix G, Table G.6). However, because the student scores were grouped there, it was an indication that the instrument contained a number of


inappropriate descriptors for student teacher/interns’ range of responsibilities or activities, and many of those were in the multicultural perspectives category.

• The Teacher Work Sample pilot top scores organized by TWS categories (Table G.8) fall within one standard deviation above the mean, which demonstrates good evidence for candidates’ effective teaching. However, when the pilot scores are organized by Cross-cutting Themes (Table G.9), the Multicultural Perspectives mean is 23.03 with a standard deviation of 4.13, where the total score is 30. This mean is more than one standard deviation below the top score. When the three lowest scores (records 2,10,22) are removed because of rater training issues, the mean becomes 25.52 with a standard deviation of 3.44. While the mean of scores improved, it did not fall within one standard deviation of the top score. This finding indicates that there are alignment issues between the instrument and the course instruction as well as the rater training problem noted above.

• The e-Portfolio pilot top score for Multicultural Perspectives (Table G.10) was within a standard deviation above the mean, which demonstrates candidates’ effective multicultural perspectives in their teaching, although their production of evidence to support their statements was weak. The overall standard deviation of 24 points shows the weakness of the instrument, due to either rater, curriculum or student issues as noted above.

• The ACTE Survey (Table G.11) revealed that the weakest response was on the Multicultural Perspectives statement, with a mean of 2.29 and a standard deviation of 1.60. This was the lowest mean on the survey, but the largest standard deviation, which shows the disparity of responses. This issue could be resolved with better communication of program outcomes as well as continued educational focus and outreach to increase knowledge of best practices.

In summary, the new assessments provided mixed findings for the Multicultural Perspectives Theme, confirming the need for instrument and curriculum revision, as well as better communication with students and community. Learning to Learn

• The elementary, secondary and HPE Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation showed that for the Cross-cutting Theme Learning to Learn that the majority of students’ scores were between 1-2 standard deviations below the top score, which, although consistent was not strong (Table G.6). However, because the student scores were grouped there, it was an indication that the instrument contained a number of inappropriate descriptors for student teacher/interns’ range of responsibilities or activities.

• The Teacher Work Sample pilot top scores organized by TWS categories (Table G.8) fall within one standard deviation above the mean, which demonstrates good evidence for candidates’ effective learning abilities. However, when the pilot scores are organized by Cross-cutting Themes (Table G.9), the Learning to Learn mean is 25.88 with a standard deviation of 4.32, where the total score is 30. This mean is less than one standard deviation below the top score. When the three lowest scores (records 2,10,22) are removed because of rater training issues, the mean becomes 27.0 with a standard deviation of 2.48. While the mean of scores improves, it does not fall within one standard deviation of the top score. This


finding indicates that there are alignment issues between the instrument and the course instruction, as well as the rater training problem noted above.

• The e-Portfolio pilot top score for the Cross-cutting Theme Learning to Learn was within a standard deviation above the mean (Table G.10), which demonstrates candidates’ effective learning to learn strategies when faced with unfamiliar content or situations, although candidates’ production of evidence to support their statements was weak. The overall standard deviation of 24 points shows the weakness of the instrument, due to either rater, curriculum or student issues as noted above.

• The ACTE Survey (Table G.11) revealed a 2.86 mean response with a 1.35 standard deviation on a 4-point scale, so the top score falls within one standard deviation of the mean to show school administrators perceive that SU-prepared teachers do use learning from previous experiences to inform learning in new situations. However, the size of the standard deviation indicates variation that could be improved by better communication with the community, as well as improvements in curriculum and instrument.

In summary, the new assessments provided mixed findings for the Cross-‐cutting Theme of Learning to Learn, confirming the need for instrument and curricular revision. Technology

• The elementary, secondary and HPE Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation showed that for Technology all but one mean fell beyond one standard deviation below the top score, which indicates an issue is present (Table G.6). Further, the standard deviation for this category is the largest one for the instrument, which at 2.14 on a 4-point scale shows a wide variation of responses across half of the scale. Thus, revision is necessary to improve the findings and performance.

• The Teacher Work Sample pilot scores organized by Cross-cutting Themes, the Technology category top score (Table G.9) falls within one standard deviation above the mean, which demonstrates good evidence for candidates’ technology skills. However, this is the category with the fewest criteria, and with the increase in technology use in the schools this category will receive revision to insure examination of best practice.

• The e-Portfolio pilot top scores were within a standard deviation above the mean, but some low scores pulled down the mean and expanded the standard deviation (Table G.10). The overall standard deviation of 24 points shows the weakness of the instrument, due to either rater, curriculum or student issues as noted above.

• The ACTE Survey (Table G.11) revealed a 2.86 mean response with a 1.35 standard deviation on a 4-point scale, so the top score falls within one standard deviation of the mean to show school administrators perceive that SU-prepared teachers do use technology in their work. However, the size of the standard deviation indicates variation that could be improved by better communication with the community, as well as improvements in curriculum and instrument.

In summary, the new assessments provided mixed findings for the Technology Cross-‐cutting Theme, confirming the need for instrument revisions.


Other Findings At the end of academic years, EPP unit heads are now required to update and maintain an electronic Program Data Spreadsheet that the SEHD Administrative Assistant set up in Fall 2010 for consistency and efficiency in data gathering and reporting. During this update, the Reading Unit Head noticed some peculiarities in his data. The Master of Science in Education-Reading Specialist Concentration Program Evaluation and Follow-up Survey asked the students to evaluate each course on its Practical Value (5-point scale) and its Overall Quality (5-point scale). One of the courses in the program had 45% of the students in the program transferring a course into the program to replace the SU course. When compared with other courses in the unit, this was the only course with such a high transfer rate. To evaluate the effect of these transfer decisions, the Unit Head and the Research Advisor conducted the following statistical analysis. The students who transferred a course into the program were marked with an A on the Program Data Spreadsheet, which was changed as described for the two groups below. The students who remained in the course to take it from the assigned professor gave it a mean Practical Value = 3.0 and a mean Overall Value = 3.02, total score = 6.02. Group 1: For Practical Value, B= recorded scores plus A = 3, total all students For Overall Value, B= recorded scores plus A = 3.02, total for all students Group 2: For Practical Value, A = actual score for transferred course, plus B actual scores For Overall Value, A = actual score for transferred course, plus B actual scores The students’ Practical Value and Overall Value Scores for the transferred courses were obtained and placed in the table so a mean score could be obtained under the assumption that those students were rating the class shown. [For Group 1, Practical Value scores for remaining (B) students plus the assumption of the mean score of 3.0 for the transferring (A) students (assumption being that their mean would have equaled that of the remaining students); Overall Value scores for remaining students plus the assumption of the mean score of 3.02 for the transferring students. Mean =Practical Value + Overall Value / N.][For Group 2, Practical Value scores for remaining (B) students plus the Practical Value (A) actual scores for transferred course; Overall Value scores for remaining (B) students plus the Overall Value (A) actual scores for transferred course. Mean = Practical Value + Overall Value / N.] Each student gave 2 ratings on 5-point scales, so scores within the 0-10 point range were possible for the combined rating. The following comparison was made using a two-sample t test to determine whether the transfers had a significant impact on the class. N = 28 Mean of group 1 = 5.69 (based on all 28 scores in group 1 after A scores added) Mean of group 2 = 8.14 (based on all 28 scores in group 2 after A scores added) Standard Error of differences = 0.88 t = 2.78 p < 0.005


The data show evidence that the course quality was driving students from this course. This issue is likely to have caused problems in the functioning of the cohort-based reading program. The Reading Program Head is working on a solution with the Department Chair.

Educator Preparation Program Faculty Council Plans The EPP faculty has met regularly in both large and small workgroups since the 2008 IB Proposal to make our system of data collection both meaningful and efficient, while at the same time maintaining the standards and anticipating changes and updates. We have found that our investigations and data analyses have yielded changes, and thus have been fairly productive in these early stages.

• We have achieved 10.5 of our 12 strategies listed in the IB Proposal in 2008 (p. 34). One item was eliminated by VDOE when the state’s VITAL data collection program was sidelined.

• We have started on the renewed process of gathering specific employer feedback with the ACTE survey (.5 of our 2008 IB Proposal strategies), and will expand that process to include the alumni themselves.

• We will continue to examine the data by term, course, instrument, and year, to discuss the results of analyses and make appropriate changes to improve the future findings.

• We held a focus meeting in June 2011 with one of the school systems that expressed specific concerns about our field placement process. We will continue in 2011 to seek more specific school feedback in future focus groups with our other partnership school systems, utilizing our ACTE meetings as guiding mechanisms for issues to be resolved, and seeking means to strengthen the partnerships in the process of working more closely together to improve teacher education and preparation.

• In the meantime, we are also examining ways to collect feedback more efficiently and accurately, as well as increase the response rate through the use of digital surveys sent via email, using such as Survey Monkey formats, to both employers and alumni.

• We will make the adjustments in the Reading Specialist curriculum and instruments as noted in the discussion section, continue to work through the curricular improvements in Health & Physical Education, and bring ESL and Special Education units into the assessment-analysis process as their new students matriculate to completion.

• All instrument revisions will also incorporate the changes necessitated by the Virginia Board of Education’s recent release of two documents: (1) the guidance document, Virginia Standards for the Professional Practice of Teachers (May, 2008) which was in response to a recommendation from the Committee to Enhance the K-12 Teaching Profession in Virginia, established by the Board of Education and the State Council of Higher Education in Virginia; and (2) the 2011 Revised Edition of the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, with six performance standards closely parallel to those of the Interstate New Teachers Assessment and Support Consortium


(INTASC) and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), and a seventh standard for measurable student academic progress.

• The Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation, TWS and e-Portfolio Rubrics’ revision, implementation and curricular integration will continue, but more importantly, the training of raters will be standardized and mandatory for all raters. The interrater reliability will be improved.

• After these instruments have been validated, the EPP faculty plan to examine data outcomes per student via the claims and cross-cutting themes of the program, using the three perspectives of quality demonstrated by scores on the three types of assessments (TWS or Case Study, e-Portfolio, and Student Teacher/Intern Mid/Final Evaluation or Clinic Final Evaluation).


Section Six: References Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco:

Jossey-‐Bass, Inc. Curts, J., Yanes, J., & McWright, B. (2003). Assessment of preservice teachers web-‐based

electronic portfolios. Retrieved from http://assets.pearsonschool.com/asset_mgr/legacy/200727/2003_11Curts_520_1.pdf

Cradler, J, McNabb, M, Freeman, M., & Burchett, R. (2002). How does technology influence

student learning? Learning & Leading with Technology. 29, 8, 46-‐49, 56. Denner, P. R., Norman, A. D., Salzman, S. A., Pankratz, R.S., & Evans, C. S. (2004). The

Renaissance Partnership Teacher Work Sample: Evidence supporting score generalizability, validity, and quality of student learning assessment. In E. M. Guyton & J. R. Dangel (Eds.), Research linking teacher preparation and student performance (pp. 23-‐48). New York: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Field, J. (2006). Lifelong learning and the new educational order. Stoke on Trent: Trentham

Books. Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., & Maeroff, G.I. (1997). Scholarship assessed; Evaluation of the

professoriate. San Francisco; Josey-‐bass, Inc. Lund, J. L. & Kirk, M. F. (2010). Performance-‐based assessment for middle and high school physical education (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Melograno, V. J. (1999). Preservice professional portfolio system. Reston, VA: NASPE.

Nieto, S. (1992). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education.

New York: Longman. Ring, G.L., & Foti, S.L. (2003). Addressing standards at the program level with electronic

portfolios. TechTrends,47 (2), 28-‐32. Ring, G. & Foti, S. (2006). Using ePortfolios to facilitate professional development among

pre-‐service teachers. In Jafari, A. & Kaufman, C., Eds., Handbook of research on ePortfolios (pp. 340-‐357). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference.

Rosselli, H., Girod, M., & Brodsky, M. (Eds.) (2011). Connecting teaching and learning:

History, evolution, and case studies of teacher work sample methodology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Schon, D.A. (1996). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching

and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-‐Bass, Inc.


Seldin, P. (2004). The teaching portfolio (2nd Ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Inc. Sleeter, C.E. (1992). Restructuring schools for multicultural education. Journal of Teacher

Education. 43, 141-‐48.

Syrjala, L. (1996). The teacher as a researcher. In Childhood education: International perspectives. Ed. Eeva Hujala. Finland: Association for Childhood Education International, Oulu University. ED 403 069

Uzat, S.L. (1998). Cognitive coaching and self-‐reflection: Looking in the mirror while looking through the window. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-‐South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. ED 427 064

Weiss, E.M. & Weiss, S.G. (1998). New directions in teacher evaluation. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education; AACTE.

Appendix A: Internal Audit of Quality Control System


Appendix A: Internal Audit of Quality Control System The Educator Preparation Council conducted an audit of the quality control systems at Shenandoah University according to the Capacity Elements 3.1-‐3.7 of the TEAC guidelines. All full-‐time EPC faculty Program Heads conducted the Audit Trail search of the files with assistance from the administrative staff in the various offices wherein the necessary files are housed. Data were provided upon request. Some of the findings were discovered during the subcommittees’ inquiries to collect the information for the Appendix B Summary of the Capacity Elements. The findings were compiled and discussed by the EPC faculty in a findings review session on May 23, 2011. Description / Graphic of the Quality Control System The graphic in Figure A.1 shows the Quality Control System at Shenandoah University as it pertains to the Educator Preparation Program. Description of the Internal Audit The Internal Audit Trail is shown in Figure A.2. The EPC faculty auditors entered the audit trail with files from a sample of program completers from 2008-‐2011 (Special education, Spanish and ESL units had no completers in these years.) For this Internal Audit, all EPC Unit Heads conducted the searches of files of 20% of their program completers for each year, as shown in Table A.1. They used a stratified sample for gender and minorities; large programs had every fifth name pulled within the two strata to assure representation of the numbers in each stratum, for a total of 41 student names. Table A.1 Distribution of Files Selected from Program Units for Internal Audit SEHD CAS Conservatory Totals Undergraduate

6 elementary 2 secondary

4 HPE

2 music vocal, 1 dual,

3 music instrumental

18

Graduate

12 Reading 11 PSC-‐ITL-‐E, -‐M, -‐S

23

Totals 23 12 6 41 For each student file selected, the faculty chose 4 courses at random from the student’s transcripts and searched for all information noted on Figure A.2, which included student, instructor, curriculum and facility information. The findings are reported in more detail in Appendix B for each component and are summarized in Table A.2. Internal Audit Checklists were completed and submitted for the Office of Professional Licensure files for review.



Quality Control System Graphic

Figure A.1 The Quality Control System Graphic shows the main steps (read top-‐down in each column) in the teacher education program quality process. These blocks represent key data collection points.

Program Quality

State Approval 3.1

Compliance with State Standards 3.1

Course Syllabi Review and Approval 3.1, 3.2

Ongoing Review using Formal Student Feedback (EOP), &

Anecdotal Evidence 3.2, 3.5, 3.7

Coordination with Local School Division Personnel and Clinical

Faculty; 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 3.7

SACS and TEAC review processes; 3.1. 3.2

Department meetings; 3.1, 3.2

Clinical Faculty Training session feedback; 3.1, 3.2

Student employment data; 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 3.7

Quality of Students

Admissions Policies : application information, transcripts and SAT

scores for undergraduates; Conservatory students have

Auditions also; Graduate students have applications, transcripts, GPAs, letters of

recommendation, and writing sample; 3.4, 3.6

Recruitment via Open House, Faculty Efforts, Student Referrals;

3.3, 3.4, 3.6

Admission to Education Program Process; 3.6

Faculty Review of Applicant Credentials; Matriculation

reviews;3.2

Student teaching/Internship Application process; 3.1, 3.5, 3.7

Evaluation of Student Teachers / Interns OR Evaluation of

Capstone Experience; Licensure Tests; 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.7

Program Completer Evaluations; Retention evaluations 3.6, 3.7

Employer Feedback 3.1, 3.2

Faculty Quality

Faculty Hiring Process: National Search, Academic Credentials

Professional Credentials, Terminal Degree or Extensive Practitioner Experiences; 3.2

Annual Faculty Evaluation: Peer Reviews, Syllabi Reviews,

Student Course Evaluations, End-of-Program Review; 3.1, 3.2,

3.7

Career Contract Review, Promotion Review; 3.2

Faculty Support: Senate Faculty Development Funding, School Faculty Development Funding; Technology Training; Dept and

School Review Committees; 3.2, 3.3, 3.4

Faculty Development and Retention: Emphasis of the

Importance of Teaching; Professionalism; Recognition

and Awards, Grants; Mentoring of new faculty; Engagement in

professional activities and societies; 3.2, 3.3, 3.4



Teacher Education Program Internal Audit Trail

Student file

Curriculum Plan of study or degree sequence for major

Curriculum Changes, Minor(s)

SU final transcript, Grad Clearance

Transfer transcripts with Evaluation form

Select 4 courses from different semesters in major

Faculty Instructor

Assigned room/building

Syllabus on file – Dean/ Director

School CC, School, UCC approval

SU application, accept letter, transcripts, audition report (Conserv. only)

Program Course substitutions, extensions

Application/Accept for Licensure pgm if initial license

Promotion info, Professional Performance Plan, Career Contract

Evaluation Docs, Student Evaluation info

Vita on file – (Dean or VPAA)

Disciplinary actions, notices of probationary status, etc.

Licensure Test Scores, Practicum info, Licensure App, completer info, College Verification form, EOP eval, Intern/Student Teacher Eval, TWS rubric, e-‐portfolio rubric (2010-‐11)

Teaching Load

BEGIN

Quality of Students Quality of Program

Quality of Faculty

Product of School Search Committee Process (Dean)

Figure A.2 Internal Audit Trail. By drawing a student file, one can find links to examine all parts of the quality control processes with students, program and faculty.



Table A.2 Faculty Processes and Findings During the Quality Control System Internal Audit Activities Capacity Element

Faculty Activity During Internal Audit and Appendix B Inquiries for Data

Findings During Internal Audit and Appendix B Inquiries for Data

3.1 Curriculum

Reviewed Sample’s Program Proposals on file; checked dates of levels of approval; Reviewed Sample’s Program syllabi for Virginia Department of Education competencies and requirements; Reviewed Sample’s Virginia Department of Education Matrices submitted in Dec. 2008 (Approved Dec. 2009, Dec. 2010); Examined reports from Director of Teacher Licensure to VDOE, and agenda/minutes of EPC, ACTE meetings with local school leaders.

Overall, the Quality Control System is working as intended for the curriculum review; however, minor catalog errors were noted; most semesters’ hard copies of syllabi were available, and all were found in digital format; CAS curriculum files from 2004-‐09 were not found. Student evaluation data from 2009-‐10 were not available for any courses across campus: system failure. Professional studies courses contained VDOE competencies. VDOE matrices were available in hard copy and digital versions. Two degree concentrations were inactivated. Reports, Agendas and Minutes were available in hard copy and digital formats.

3.2 Faculty Examined hiring practices for Sample’s full-‐time faculty and adjuncts; Examined Sample’s Faculty for Annual Reviews by Dean; Vitae on file in Dean/Director’s office; Checked for Sample’s Faculty Files in VPAA office

Faculty hired after 2002 were hired according to the Faculty Handbook process of national search via committee; faculty hired before 2002 may or may not have been products of a national search. Deans/Directors have records of members of Search Committees and the Chairs in School Minutes. Annual reviews for SEHD were conducted by the Arts & Sciences Dean until 2011. Annual Review process in the Conservatory is under review, since no formal reviews have been conducted in past five years. Career Contract/ Promotion is a function of the university and is detailed in the Faculty Handbook. This system is working as intended. In the last five years, faculty have



been promoted according to the rules. Three of the Unit faculty sit on the evaluation committees of schools and the university and attested to this fact.

3.3 Facilities

Surveyed physical plant records; surveyed faculty; surveyed media and institutional computing staff; interviewed Librarian and collected data on holdings and usage.

All faculty have equal access to university classroom space; however proximity and school dictates most assignments of classrooms. Library holdings and online journals are sufficient to support the program. All classrooms meet minimal standards for furnishings and technology; faculty can request more technology from Media Center to be delivered, but adjunct laptops must be furnished by department. The IMLearning Program began in May 2009. MacBooks and training were given to faculty in 2009-‐10. By 2012 all undergraduate students will be in the program with MacBooks and iTouch or iPhones. Ten MacBooks were purchased via grant for Claude Moore Center for Literacy, making them also available for use by SEHD faculty.

3.4 Fiscal & Admin Capacity

Examined teaching loads of Faculty sample to check compliance with SU requirements; Surveyed department chairs/deans/directors on budget matters; Reviewed Faculty Senate for Faculty Development policies and awards; reviewed CAS Funds for Excellence in Teaching in Arts and Sciences list of awardees for SEHD faculty inclusion.

Full-‐time Educator Preparation Faculty members have similar responsibilities, workload requirements, and salaries when compared to those of equivalent level, full-‐time faculty members in other units in the SEHD, Conservatory, and the CAS. Budget allocations differ according to school. As of FY2011 all Educator Preparation programs have separate budgets. The Office of Professional Licensure has a dedicated budget for licensure and accreditation expenses. All faculty can apply for the “Faculty $400” and Faculty Senate Development Grants to assist with professional development or research



expenses. CAS and SEHD faculty have access to Funds for Excellence Grant. Conservatory faculty have some funds dispensed at the Dean’s discretion; none have been dispensed in 2007-‐2011 time span.

3.5 Student Support Services

Interviewed personnel in various offices for student services; Interviewed Vice President for Student Affairs; Examined usage data; Reviewed data reported in SU Fact Book online.

Faculty found that part-‐time graduate students are taking advantage of federal financial aid because of the change to recognize trimesters. Students are using the Writing Center Services in the NV Center. Sun-‐e, career services and NVC newsletters are sent daily on email and weekly or monthly on email. The new Brandt Student Center has alleviated many of the undergraduate student issues with student activities. Most of the student services have been moved there for ease of access. Flu Clinic is offered at NVC and SU Wellness Director is available on campus until 6:30pm daily (by appt. after 5pm).

3.6 Admissions

Reviewed student files in Registrar’s Office, CAS Dean’s Office, Conservatory Dean’s Office, SEHD Director’s Office for Admissions data; Reviewed student files in Registrar’s Office, Office of Professional Licensure for SEHD files; Reviewed student files in Registrar’s Office and Conservatory Director of Music Education Office for Music Education files; Files showed admission, matriculation, transfer evaluations, graduation clearance, and testing results. Licensure applications and College Verification Forms are kept in Office of Professional Licensure.

The SU Admissions process is working for undergraduate majors and graduate health professions students, and has improved for SEHD graduate education students. SEHD faculty play a major role in the advertisement for and recruiting of students. Conservatory recruiting is coordinated by the Conservatory Admissions Counselors. The duality of a semester and a trimester system operating in one school’s programs does cause problems. The mismatch of the Academic Year and the Fiscal Year does cause students to make adjustments. The establishment (in 2007) of the Office of Teacher Licensure with a Director has helped to unify the application, admission to program,



admission to student teaching, licensure tests, and licensure audit procedures among the three schools; however variations do exist between undergraduate and graduate processes. Faculty maintain compliance with Virginia Department of Education standards.

3.7 Student Feedback

Reviewed End of Program documents in Program Directors’ Offices showing student evaluations of program; Checked to find student evaluations; Checked VPAA, Registrar and Dean’s Offices for Dean’s List Letters, Honor Court proceedings and student appeals about grades.

Students evaluate faculty, clinical faculty, mentors, their programs, and their courses regularly in writing and/or online. Faculty and Unit Heads review those evaluations. The SU course evaluation system failed in 2009-‐10, is temporarily operating in hard copy format, and is being revised. Deans/Directors’ files showed that the few student complaints received were handled by those offices and did not escalate to higher levels. There were no formal grievances filed by Educator Preparation Program students during 2008-‐2011.

Discussion The Quality Control System Internal Audit findings confirm the capacity of the university and the Educator Preparation Program to provide a quality program designed by quality faculty to produce quality educators. However, this university and program have continued to be involved in major transitions for the past five years. Progress has been made to resolve some of the problems noted in 2008; but several issues remain, and others have surfaced. 3.1 and 3.4 The Office of Teacher Licensure has been recently established and the Director for Professional Licensure has a separate part-‐time contract to cover the administrative responsibilities. The Director of Education Outreach now has separate responsibilities. There is one administrative assistant assigned to each office. This change assisted in the resolution of several previous issues concerning 3.6 student files and 3.7 meeting schedules. In the Conservatory, even though the Director of Music Education position was established in spring of 2009, support in the form of an administrative assistant does not exist, and current staffing does not reflect a change in this status in the near future. 3.1 The review of curricula, Virginia Department of Education approvals, matrix compliance information, and syllabi revealed administrative issues. SEHD syllabi from



2007 to spring 2011 were found in hard copy form in SEHD Director’s office, but previous to 2007 the syllabi were inconsistently filed or inconsistently available through an old website. Conservatory syllabi from 2009 – 2011 are stored electronically in Dean’s Office. Prior to 2009, syllabi were collected as paper copies. Paper copies are kept in Conservatory storage located in Dean’s Office. 3.1 Through a series of miscommunications, our PSC in Initial Teacher Licensure programs for Elementary, Middle and Secondary and the Gifted Add-‐on Endorsement were not included in the list of SU Approved programs in December 2009, when the VDOE Matrix Reviews were completed, even though they were submitted on time. The PSC in Initial Teacher Licensure programs received approval in December 2010; the Gifted endorsement approval is in process for review in May 2011 for State Board of Education approval in the fall 2011. 3.1 The Master of Science with Initial Teacher Licensure in Music and the Master of Fine Arts in Dance Education programs were inactivated in 2008. This action removed teacher licensure programs at the graduate level in the Conservatory. In spring 2011 during the Academic Program Prioritization, the dance faculty voted to close admission to the Bachelor of Fine Arts in Dance Education program for the 2011 recruiting cycle, with program suspension likely if no students remain in the pipeline. The decision will be made in February 2012. 3.1 In February 2008 the PSC in Special Education was approved by the VPAA and was officially added to the 2009-‐10 catalog for recruiting purposes. Dr. Diane Painter was hired as the Unit Head for the program. Students in the OEO special education classes were given the opportunity to apply to the new SEHD official program, and then transfer OEO credit into the program. Recruitment is the first challenge; ensuring program completion for enrollees is the second because of the economic situation for teachers. 3.1 In 2008 the TESOL add-‐on endorsement was converted to an initial licensure certificate program, the PSC in ESL PK-‐12, and the new program appeared in the catalog for 2010-‐11. In spring 2011, Brenda Murphy was named the Unit Head. Students in the MS in TESOL program were advised of the change in the spring 2011 semester, and completers of the MS program are given counseling during the completion of their catalog requirements so that they can choose to be eligible for the new licensure competencies. 3.1 Since 2008, SEHD has had accurate communication of University Curriculum Committee approvals from the VPAA Office Administrative Assistant, and on the Faculty Senate UCC Blackboard Organization. However, after a reorganizational shift of office and storage space in Arts & Sciences, the CAS School Curriculum Committee records and UCC approvals from 2004-‐2009 in hard copy form were not found. 3.1 EPC faculty found many discrepancies in files regarding practica documents: either evaluations or logs were missing, or records were incomplete. Faculty discussed issues of (1) collecting documents from adjuncts or cooperating teachers, (2) of hard copy vs. digital record keeping and (3) purposes for practicum documents (8-‐12 documents). One solution



to the concern is a revision of the Practicum Evaluation document, which the EPC faculty will undertake in 2011-‐12. 3.4 Faculty load issues are currently under review by the Faculty Senate for university-‐wide application of a common system. In 2006, the Graduate Education Faculty (now the SEHD Faculty) conducted a study to be used to inform the Faculty Senate decisions. The SEHD is currently operating under those rules for faculty load, and Faculty Professional Performance Plans (FPPP); however, there are issues when the whole system is translated to fit the Conservatory and Health Professions faculty definitions and practices. This system is still in transition and is not resolved for the university as a whole; however within schools, the rules are being applied consistently. 3.4 The Music Education Program is housed in the Conservatory Academics Division of Shenandoah Conservatory and as of FY2011 has an independent operating budget. The Music Education Program is allocated 4% of the Conservatory budget. The program consists of two degrees: Bachelor of Music in Music Education (BME) and Masters of Music in Music Education (MME). Budgetary requests for the BME are processed through the Director of Music Education. Prior to FY2011, budgetary requests were processed through the Conservatory Academics Division operating budget and the Dean's discretionary fund. 3.4 After the 2009-‐10 Academic Program Prioritization Study, SEHD is conducting data analyses to calculate the financial and enrollment impacts of moving all but five Special Education program courses and two ITL methods courses out of OEO and into SEHD regular programming. 3.4 Further budget examination revealed that SEHD Curriculum and Instruction and Conservatory Music Education budgets were not sufficient to cover the additions of program requirements for cooperating teachers. For FY2011, 21% was budgeted for contract services, but over 39% was spent to cover field supervision contract. The EPC faculty recommends the issue of personnel contracts and stipends being processed through individual program operating budgets be addressed for FY2013. 3.4 EPC faculty review found that the Administrative Services of Financial Aid Counseling, Registrar, Admissions, Business Office, Auxiliary Services are designed for a traditional residential student with regular business hour schedules. Graduate students and distance students need more flexible hours or more online services. In 2010-‐11 the Admissions Counselor assigned to SEHD did arrange and staff four Open House recruiting events, and did conduct some cohort recruiting events with partner school districts. 3.5 In searching updates to our 2008 concern that graduate students were not aware of student services, EPC faculty found that the Director of the Northern Virginia Campus was more proactive about sending monthly newsletters for information to graduate students. Sun-‐e is the daily electronic newsletter sent to all faculty and students on campus email. Career Services sends weekly emails announcing their schedules of speakers, workshops, and individual services for students.



3.6 EPC faculty found that as of 2008, licensure requirements were embedded in 25 of 26 Educator Preparation programs. In 2011-‐12 the Reading Unit will close the non-‐licensure track and integrate the RVE test within the program to increase the number of candidates who take the test and apply for the added endorsement. 3.6 The Educator Preparation Program has students in both the semester and trimester calendars, which requires all parties to make adjustments. Problems occur with begin/end dates, add/drop deadlines, and grade reporting windows. The various Blackboard, WebAdvisor, Datatel and publication systems are still in the process of attaining and maintaining accuracy with these calendars. SU hired a new Registrar in 2010, and she is implementing changes to improve coordination, consolidation and consistency. SEHD is moving all programs to the semester format beginning January 2012. 3.6 In 2010, the Financial Aid office recognized the three-‐term system; thus, the graduate students taking only one 3-‐credit class could get financial aid as part-‐time students. As a result of this improvement, more graduate students are getting financial aid. 3.6 This review of data files found improvements in location, maintenance and access to student files from the situation in 2008. However, EPC faculty still encountered some missing files (previous to 2009) in all programs, and several found that some hard copies of syllabi were missing. Most programs reported using digital means for syllabi storage for 2010-‐11. 3.6 The Shenandoah University website redesign is complete. All curricular changes and catalog corrections for the 2011-‐12 Catalog had to be passed by the individual schools and to the University Curriculum Committee by October 15, 2010. EPC faculty noted greater consistencies among published materials and the website, however issues with navigation still remain. 3.7 The redesigned Institutional Research and Assessment unit now manages the university’s assessment procedures with student evaluations and the WEAVE system, and regional and specialized accreditation processes. This new consolidation is to focus and strengthen assessment, research and data management on campus while supporting the multiple accreditation efforts, of which TEAC is but one. In future Inquiry Briefs, the efforts of staff in this office should facilitate access to data in the Quality Control System at Shenandoah University, but that goal has yet to be realized. The data from student evaluations collected online by this office in 2009-‐2010 were insufficient for a valid evaluation. The fall data from 2010-‐2011 were released in mid-‐February; spring data will be released in mid-‐June. Timeliness will allow for more effective analyses of the data. 3.7 EPC faculty found that the catalog and Student Handbook are clear on the process to appeal a grade or file a grievance, but no formal documents exist. Only one Honor Court proceeding was located in the Internal Audit. Associate Deans in the Conservatory noted less formal complaints about an advisor, remedied with a reassignment of the advisor.

Appendix B: Evidence of Capacity


Appendix B: Evidence of Capacity Parameters

Evidence that the QCS monitors and promotes the quality of 3.1-‐3.7 Evidence that the program is supported on a par with others at SU. Evidence that the program’s capacity is sufficient and adequate to satisfy 3.1-‐3.7 Table B.1 Capacity for Quality: A Comparison of Program and Institutional Statistics Capacity Dimension Program

Statistics Institution Statistics

Difference Analysis

3.1.1 Curriculum (number of credits)

cert bach mast cert bach mast Program curricula are within Institutional ranges 15-‐

36 120-‐130

30-‐36

9-‐36 120-‐130

30-‐70

3.1.2 Faculty (number, percentages at ranks; workload)

Full Prof

35 = 39% 52 = 23% Fewer new hires in program; EPP has stable faculty. Workload: rank equivalence

Assoc Prof

31 = 34% 78 = 35%

Asst Prof

24 = 27% 94 = 42%

3.1.3 Facilities (space & equipment provided)

Equal access to all academic spaces; similar equipment provided

Equal access to all academic spaces; similar equipment provided

No difference

3.1.4 Fiscal and Administrative (support dollars/ faculty member)

$714,235/90 = $7936 per faculty member

$2,075,388/224= $9365.13 per faculty member

Higher Base Budgets in Health Professions and Pharmacy – labs, clinicals

3.1.5 Student support services (equal access to services)

Equal access for daytime students; online, evening, NVC limited access

Equal access for daytime students; online, evening, NVC limited access

No difference between EPP and SU; difference noted for type of student

3.1.6 Student Feedback (course evaluation means, numbers of complaints)

Course Evaluation system issues – no comparable data; No formal student complaints

Course Evaluation system issues – no comparable data; No formal student complaints

No difference

Table B.2 References to Institutional Documents for each Requirement TEAC Requirements for Quality Control of Capacity (3.2)

Program’s References to Documentation for Each Requirement

3.2.1 Curriculum Document showing credit hours required in the subject matter are tantamount to an academic major. Document showing credit hours

Undergraduate Catalog 2011-‐12 (pp. 135, 164, 167, 171, 174, 209, 212, 246, 251); Graduate Catalog 2011-‐12 (pp. 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 86) Undergraduate Catalog 2011-‐12 (pp. 98, 173, 174);



required in pedagogical subjects are tantamount to an academic minor.

CAS Faculty Meeting Minutes for 2009-‐10 year documenting Core Studies Discussions and Vote

3.2.2 Faculty Majority of the faculty have a terminal degree (major or minor) in the areas of course subjects they teach.

See Appendix C.

3.2.3 Facilities Documents showing appropriate and adequate resources.

Institutional Computing Report; Library Database and other Listings (https://learn.su.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp? tab_tab_group_id=_19_1); Physical Plant Inventory

3.2.4 Fiscal and Administrative Documents attesting to the financial health of the institution. Documents showing program administrators are qualified for their positions. Documents showing resources are adequate to administer the program.

SU Annual Report to the Board of Trustees – VP Finance Office VPAA Administrator Review Evaluations and Vitae SU Budget Reports; SEHD, CAS and Conservatory Budget Reports

3.2.5 Student Support Documents showing adequate student support services. Documents showing the drop-‐out and program completion rates.

VP Student Affairs’ Departmental Reports Institutional Research and Assessment Reports on Retention and Graduation rates

3.2.6 Policies Documents showing an academic calendar is published. Documents showing a grading policy is published and is accurate. Documents showing there is a procedure for students’ complaints to be evaluated. Documents showing that the transfer of credit policy is published and accurate. If appropriate, documents showing that the program has the capacity to

SU Website, VPAA Office website, Registrar website (http://www.su.edu/student_life/academic-‐calendar.asp) Undergraduate Catalog (pp. 47-‐49) and Graduate Catalog (pp. 26-‐28) Undergraduate Catalog (pp. 58-‐80), Graduate Catalog (pp. 37-‐59), Student Handbook, Faculty Handbook (Section 5, p. 13) Undergraduate Catalog (pp. 29-‐34), Graduate Catalog (pp. 23-‐26) All courses have a BlackBoard online presence; SEHD online courses have set enrollment caps to limit expansion and maintain quality – SEHD Faculty meeting minutes, 2010 – no large growth expected



ensure the timely delivery of distance education and support services and to accommodate current student numbers and expected near-‐term growth in enrollment. Documents showing that a process to verify the identity of students taking distance education courses is used by faculty teaching the distance education courses.

for ESL; Library Database of Resources (https://learn.su.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp? tab_tab_group_id=_19_1) Admissions application; ESL unit faculty requires Honor pledge and ID verification for each submission of student product or test (see electronic exhibit); TESOL faculty require physical presence for capstone presentation.

Detailed Information by Category to Support Tables B.1 and B.2 3.1 Curriculum

3.1.1 QP I: Major and Minor, Credits and Credit Hour Requirements

• Candidates completing undergraduate teacher licensure programs are required to complete an undergraduate major and the professional studies certification for elementary, middle, secondary, or comprehensive K-‐12.

• Candidates completing graduate licensure programs are required to comply with the degree or certificate requirements as stated in the catalog.

• Candidates at the undergraduate level complete the professional studies courses and earn between 18 and 24 credit hours in education.

• Candidates at the graduate level complete the certificate or licensure requirements that range from 18 to 36 credit hours, and the masters degree requirements range between 30-‐ 33 credit hours.

3.1.2 Professional License

• Shenandoah University has maintained state approval for the various units in the educator preparation program since they were originally approved at various stages of our development, as noted in the History of the Educator Preparation Program in Section I of this document.

• The Educator Preparation Program meets the competency requirements detailed in the Virginia Department of Education “Licensure Regulations for School Personnel.”

3.1.3 Parity

• Candidates in the Educator Preparation Program at the undergraduate level must meet the same degree requirements as other students in their same major.

• Candidates in the Educator Preparation Program at the graduate level must have earned a Bachelor’s degree prior to enrollment. Graduate candidates in the Reading



Specialist unit must have achieved initial licensure at the elementary, secondary, or comprehensive level before enrolling in the program.

3.2 Program Faculty 3.2.1 IB & TEAC goals endorsed

• The faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences, Shenandoah Conservatory and the School of Education and Human Development unanimously approved this Inquiry Brief. We accept the preparation of competent, caring, and qualified educators as the goal for our unified program.

3.2.2 Accurate understanding of field

• The education faculty advisors for undergraduate students in the secondary education unit serve as co-‐advisors with the academic advisors in the major fields in the College of Arts and Sciences.

• The education faculty advisors for undergraduate students in elementary and/or middle education, health and physical education, music education (choral and/or instrumental), and dance education serve as academic advisors and are knowledgeable about the requirements for academic majors

• Graduate faculty members serve as academic advisors to students in their units and are knowledgeable about the requirements for their programs.

3.2.3 Qualified majority with doctorate

• The Educator Preparation Faculty all hold doctorates and bring their expertise in teacher education and or practical experience in K-‐12 education to their programs (Appendix C).

• The faculty regularly attend professional conferences and meetings, present or publish in the professional or research arena, and perform professional services for local educational institutions or groups.

3.2.4 Parity

• Full-‐time Educator Preparation Faculty members have similar responsibilities, workload requirements, and salaries when compared to those of equivalent level, full-‐time faculty members in other units in the School of Education and Human Development, Shenandoah Conservatory, and the College of Arts and Sciences.

• SEHD employs four full-‐time faculty members in teacher education and five full-‐time (but part-‐time in teacher education) faculty members (Appendix C, Table C.1 & C.2).

• The College of Arts and Sciences shares the services of two of the SEHD full time faculty in teacher education for undergraduate units, and employs 45 full-‐time (but part-‐time in teacher education) faculty members (Appendix C, Table C.1 & C.7).

• Shenandoah Conservatory employs three full-‐time faculty members in teacher education and 36 full-‐time (but part-‐time in teacher education) faculty members (Appendix C, Table C.4 & C.5).

• Fifty-‐six percent of the SEHD full and part-‐time teacher education faculty members are full professors (Table B.3).



Table B.3 Number and Percentage at Each Rank of Full-‐time Faculty (5-‐2011) Position University Arts and Sciences SEHD Conservatory Full Professor 52 (23%) 13 (29%) 5 (56%) 17 (44%) Associate Professor 78 (35%) 14 (31%) 4 (44%) 13 (33%) Assistant Professor 94 (42%) 15 (33%) 0 9 (23%) Instructor Not reported 3 (7%) 0 Not Reported Totals 224 45 9 39

• That percentage is consistent with that of Shenandoah Conservatory; however in

July 2011 SEHD faculty attrition/retirements will see two associate professors replaced with new faculty at assistant professor rank, and one full professor moved to Administration and Supervision licensure program. These adjustments will make the SEHD teacher education units have four full professors, two associate professors and two assistant professors. While the total will be eight rather than nine, one of the assistant professors will be full-‐time in teacher licensure, replacing an associate professor who was teaching only part-‐time in teacher licensure; thus, the full-‐time in teacher licensure will increase to five, and full-‐time but part-‐time in licensure will decrease to three for 2011-‐2012.

• As shown in Table B.4, the number of administrative assistants serving the SEHD is assigned at a higher rate per FTE student than either the Conservatory or within Arts and Sciences.

Table B.4 FTE Students per Administrative Assistant University Arts and Sciences SEHD Conservatory 4,075.21/42 954.63/4 229.67/3 811.61/4*

*Two of these Administrative Assistants are dedicated to the Conservatory Admissions process, and are not available for other responsibilities.

• Graduate students in the SEHD programs are part-‐time and off campus, so the support needed for follow up or directing of services is greater because of the numbers of students taking just one class and the distance from the actual services. The difference in staffing is further justified by the job responsibilities of one administrative assistant assigned primarily to licensure issues of record keeping, student data collection, federal and state licensure program reporting, K-‐12 partner correspondence, and centralized communication for the three schools and faculty.

• Data do show that the Conservatory has a unique need for additional administrative support since two of their assistants have been dedicated solely to the admissions/audition/recruiting process to maintain adequate student numbers in specific instrumental areas. This additional support would bring them to the comparable level of support as found in the College of Arts and Sciences.

3.3 Facilities, Supplies and Equipment



3.3.1: Adequate Resources.

• All academic units have equal opportunity to secure the rooms of their choice. SU has approximately 88 classrooms on campus, 6 rooms at the Northern Virginia Campus, 6 rooms at the Bowman Building in downtown Winchester, and 10 classrooms at various schools in the surrounding area.

• The scheduling of all courses at Shenandoah University (SU) and the allocation of classroom space are organized by the Registrar’s Office. Requests are made by the heads of the academic units, and requests for special room space such as computer labs, seminar rooms, and clinic rooms are forwarded to the Registrar.

• Graduate Education students have priority access to the School of Education & Human Development (SEHD) facilities available at the Bowman Building in downtown Winchester. The Bowman Building has two seminar rooms and four ‘smart’ classrooms each containing an LCD projector with full audio-‐visual integration that includes a computer, VCR/DVD capability, and a shared smart board. In addition, there is a computer training lab (Room 210) with 13 Mac Media computers, a laser jet printer, an LCD projector with a computer on a cart, and a Mac computer with a multiple DVD burner. The newly outfitted Claude Moore Literacy Center with 15 laptop computers on a cart, and a smart board, completes the facilities at the Bowman Building. The Teaching with Today’s Technology grant added a Smartboard in the Bowman lab and 10 digital video cameras to be used in teacher preparation programs.

• Undergraduate College of Arts and Sciences students have classes and advisors in any one of six buildings on campus: Gregory (built in 1960), Shingleton (built in 1963), Goodson (basement of the Chapel), Henkel (former business school), Cooley (former dormitory), and Halpin-‐Harrison (finished in 2008). Most classrooms contain LCD projectors and computer towers, white boards, and media presentation technologies.

• Conservatory Education students have dedicated music and dance areas available: o Armstrong Hall contains one large instructional space, Room 39, and a

performance hall. Armstrong 39 contains a LCD projector and media tower – there is not a shared computer. Faculty members bring individual laptops if they desire to use technology to enhance instruction.

o Ruebush Hall, built in 1998, contains three instructional classrooms, three rehearsal rooms, a computer lab, a music education seminar room, and music education faculty offices. Each instructional space is equipped with a LCD projector, shared computer terminal, and a media tower.

o The Dance Education Program utilizes instructional space that is assigned through the Office of the Registrar, but also uses dance studio spaces that are controlled and scheduled through the Dance Division.

o The Ewing Dance Studio, built in 1988, is 45 x 60 feet. The Shingleton Dance Space, retrofitted for dance in 1998, has a dance floor that is 45 x 32 feet and is outfitted with lighting equipment and seating capacity for 100 persons. Both studios are equipped with sound & video playback, resilient, “sprung” floors with specialized slip-‐free surfaces, ballet barres, mirrors and a piano for class accompaniment purposes. Percussion equipment appropriate for



the accompaniment of modern dance technique classes is shared between the two studios.

o A Pilates Studio is located in the John Kerr Building, a facility that is primarily used by the Shenandoah Arts Academy, and situated in downtown Winchester. Dance classes also take place in the Ruebush 151 Rehearsal Room and in the John Kerr 301 Dance Studio.

o Dance Ensemble performances take place in the 623-‐seat Ohrstrom Bryant Theatre, with a minimum of one-‐week technical preparation time for major productions. Additional performances are given in the Armstrong Concert Hall, Goodson Recital Hall and the Shingleton Dance Space.

• Support Facilities

o SU Technology. There are three computer labs available: one in Ruebush with specialized music software, one at the NVCampus and one at the Bowman Building. In addition, all residence halls are equipped with wireless network connections in addition to network jacks. The SU wireless network is available in all campus locations including off campus buildings, making information available all year, 24 hours a day. The Institutional Computing (IC) Department is responsible for all SU computer operations. Media Services, part of the University Libraries, provides campus-‐wide classroom AV technology support. Printing is available at the WEPA kiosks around campus.

o Each faculty member is assigned a computer upon hire. Under the University’s iMLearning Initiative, all incoming undergraduates and many of the students in graduate programs receive MacBook Pro laptops upon matriculation, as well as an iPod Touch or iPhone.

o IC also provides small group and individual training to faculty free of charge. Additional assistance is available to students and faculty by appointment. Students in First Year Seminar classes receive computer and technology training as part of the iMLearning Initiative.

• University Libraries. o The two main library facilities at Shenandoah University (SU) are the Alson

H. Smith, Jr. Library (Smith Library) on the main campus, and the Health Sciences Library located in the Health Professions building on the grounds of the Winchester Medical Center. The two libraries contain over 215,000 physical items including 114,000 books and bound journals, 20,325 physical audio recordings, 23,270 music scores, 1,600 video-‐recordings, and 57,481 units of microfilm/fiche. Physical collections are supplemented by access to 73,000 e-‐books, 50,600 virtual recordings, 302,000 ERIC virtual documents, and more than 500,000 virtual periodical back-‐files. In addition, the university has access to more than 118 Internet-‐accessible databases. These and other databases provide more than 58,000 print and electronic journals.

o The Smith Library serves undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty. Seating is provided for 340 users, or 10% of Shenandoah University’s FTE students. The Smith Library also houses the Media Center, a computer lab, the Children’s Literature Center, and offices for library staff. The Health



Sciences Library located in the Health Professions building supports nursing, pharmacy, respiratory care and physician assistant Studies.

o The Smith Library boasts a large and richly diverse music collection of more than 30,000 titles in a wide variety of formats. Among scores, we have an impressive and ever-‐growing reference set of collected works representing over 50 composers in the finest critical editions available. In addition to sets devoted to individual composers, we have 9 monuments of music and historical editions arranged by genre and country. Our circulating scores number close to 15,000, and represent a healthy balance of vocal and instrumental works of all periods in full and miniature score, as well as solo and ensemble performance editions. Many contemporary works are included.

o We have roughly 10,000 LP recordings and 4,000 CDs, nicely complementing our scores collection, and also including many 20th century works. In addition to recordings physically located in the library, we have online access to more than 50,000 CD-‐equivalents (727,732 recorded tracks) through the Naxos Music Library.

o The Special Collections department is located on the second floor of the Smith library. Special Collections include archival materials relating the University (Shenandoah Collection), theses, dissertations and yearbooks, rare or unusual books, an extensive early 20th Century sheet-‐music collection, materials relating to the Evangelical United Brethren, and a collection of hymnals. The University does not collect or retain any genealogical materials.

o Shenandoah University Masters Theses and Doctoral Dissertations include more than 600 items. Beginning in 2003, all theses and dissertations are stored in the electronically accessible Portable Document Format (PDF).

o Our Special Collections department contains a collection of hymnals, Sunday School songbooks, and other sacred music spanning two centuries. We also have hundreds of examples of sheet music from the early 20th century, though these are only partially organized at the present time.

o The Norman Heim collection consists of more than 4,000 scores for woodwinds in general and clarinet in particular.

In general, education students rely extensively on the scholarly and peer-‐reviewed journal literature found in the library collection, either in print or electronically. Books (print) and a substantial collection of current e-‐books supplement student learning and research.

3.3.2: Quality Control System

• The Director of the School of Education and Human Development, the Dean of the Conservatory, and the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences monitor the equipment used by the faculty in their departments via budget expenditure reviews after department chairs sign off on the forms. Facilities are maintained by physical plant, and are upgraded after administrative review shows compliance with budgetary parameters and strategic plan goals. Computer technologies are



monitored and maintained by Institutional Computing through a request and review process each fall. Enhancements are made when budget parameters and instructional and strategic goals are aligned.

3.3.3: Parity

• In order to ensure parity across all programs, all of SU’s special resources and equipment are available on a university-‐wide system that is based on size of classes, use of specialized equipment, and immediate need. A complete list of all classroom space, computer equipment, and media facilities at SU is available upon request. In addition, education students have priority access to the School of Education & Human Development (SEHD) facilities available at the Bowman Building in downtown Winchester. The Bowman Building has four ‘smart’ classrooms, a computer lab, a literacy center, and two seminar rooms. In the Conservatory, Ruebush 211 is a computer lab available to all music education faculty and students. In the College of Arts and Sciences, education students are mixed with other majors and have access to the same facilities and technologies.

3.4 Fiscal and Administrative

3.4.1 Sound Student Characteristics

• Programs from the School of Education and Human Development (SEHD) generated $4,509,697 in revenue in FY 10. A review of the October 2010 student census data reveals that, of the 3679 students enrolled at the university, the School of Education and Human Development served nearly 400 different full and part time learners during Term 1 of the 2010-‐2011 academic year (Table B.5). An estimated 150 of those learners were participants in our programs for continuing professional education from the Office of Education Outreach (OEO) and the remainder was in our masters and certificate programs or one of our doctoral programs. In examining our fiscal capacity to serve those students, this section of the brief examines the following variables: learner characteristics, faculty and staff levels, and dollar resources available to support the programs of the SEHD.

Table B.5 Numbers of Students and FTEs Enrolled in Each University School from October 2010 Census

College / School Undergraduate Students

(full and part time)

Graduate Students

(full and part time)

FTE Student Total*

Arts and Sciences 778 0 954.62 Business 176 69 276.83

Conservatory 524 182 811.61 Health Professions 373 564 1,065.92

Pharmacy 0 463 704.50 Special Students*** 31 127 32.06



SEHD 0 392 229.67 TOTALS 1882 1797 4,075.21

* UFTE (Total cr. hrs. of pt. ÷ 12) and GFTE (Total cr. hrs. of pt. ÷ 9) (Note: The number of Undergraduate Students (full and part time) and the number of Graduate Students (full and part-‐time) are from student counts taken from the fall 2010 census. The FTE numbers are generated by the actual credits taken in a division or school divided by either 12 for undergraduate credits or 9 for graduate credits. Since some schools provide service classes for other programs in the institution, the numbers of students in a school and FTEs generated may be different.)

• The 392 full- and part-time students in our graduate programs and professional development classes represent a student population that is almost entirely full-time employed in addition to taking classes Shenandoah University. Four years ago, SEHD full- and part-time graduate students accounted for largest number of graduate students of any school at the university. That advantage is no longer the case. While we have grown over that period of time, Health Professions and Pharmacy have experienced a more rapid growth. We appear even smaller because most SEHD students work full-time and attend class part-time, and when converted to FTE’s the number the school served in the fall of 2010 was approximately 230 students.

• The uniqueness of the part-‐time nature of our students presents our faculty with several opportunities. Slightly under 40% of the graduate students currently served in the School of Education and Human Development are served by OEO (functioning as a recruiting arm and as a provider of continuing education for professionals) and those students may be in and out of the university with one or two courses without applying for candidacy in a program.

• The trimester nature of the majority of our graduate programs and the part-‐time student status means that graduate faculty are working more semesters with students in a degree program. However, such a pattern lends itself to increased opportunity for life interferences and program extensions, and a level of clerical work that is not necessary with students who are in a more intensive, full-‐time program.

• Our graduate students are, by and large, adult, self-‐motivated learners. The roughly 60% who are in the degree or certificate programs at the university do receive, in addition to an initial orientation to the university, traditional academic advising by the full-‐time faculty. Each student is assigned an academic advisor.

• Academic advising loads vary based on the nature and demands of the various programs. Typically, each program head of the licensure programs serves as the academic advisor for the students in his or her program. Advising the members of a cohort program can be less time-‐intensive than advising students in a program that is individually focused. Thus, accommodations are made for faculty so that academic advising loads for cohort programs are heavier than those for individually focused programs.

3.4.2 Adequate resources for faculty development

• Each faculty member can write applications to receive a “Faculty $400” grant which has been available every year since 2006 through the Vice President for Academic Affairs Office to support professional development and research activities. All faculty members can apply for the Faculty Senate competitive Faculty Development Grants to support research or professional development activities each semester.



Other local funding programs may exist in the individual schools and differ in requirements and amounts. For the College of Arts and Sciences (including SEHD), former Board of Trustees member Nancy Larrick Crosby established the “Fund for Excellence in Teaching in Arts and Sciences.” Each year faculty members write competitive applications for project funding to the Dean of Arts and Sciences. Table B.6 shows the numbers and total dollar amount for SEHD faculty who have received project funding and the total number of faculty awarded. Because the amount available is stock market dependent for interest on the principle, awards vary each year accordingly.

Table B.6 Number of SEHD and CAS Faculty and Amounts Awarded Grants through the “Fund for Excellence in Teaching Arts and Sciences”

Year # SEHD Faculty Total $ Amount SEHD Faculty

# CAS & SEHD Faculty

Total $ Amount CAS & SEHD Faculty

2007-‐2008 5 7414 24 41,791 2008-‐2009 7 11516 32 43,149 2009-‐2010 8 13462 28 31,930 2010-‐2011 6 8288 21 27,779 Totals 26 40,680 105 144,649

3.4.3 Dollar Resources Available to Support the Educator Preparation Program

• Table B.7 lists a comparison of the money in each department that the budget officers of the various programs have to expend on their programs. Travel, supplies, printing, mailing costs, teaching materials are examples of the items included in the amounts above.

• Capital items, salaries, benefits, and university overhead costs are not included. The pharmacy program budget includes $46,200 for research and the business school budget includes $28,000 to support the accreditation process in which they have been participating. One would expect the higher budgets for health professions and pharmacy programs, because they are clinically based and have laboratory costs associated with them.

Table B.7 Dollar Amounts for Base Budgets per FTE Students for Institution Schools (FY 10)*

College / School FY 2010 Base Budget

FTE* Student Total

Base Budget / FTE

Arts and Sciences 175,850 954.63 184.21 Business 108,521 276.83 392.01

Conservatory 398,635 811.61 491.17 Health

Professions 715,443 1065.92 671.20

Pharmacy 537,189 704.50 762.51 SEHD 139,750 229.67 608.48



University-‐Academic budget

2,075,388 4043.16 3109.58

* FTE = Full Time Equivalent from Fall 2010

• Arts and Sciences per pupil budget is very lean compared to the other divisions. Some of the departments in Arts and Sciences receive even smaller amounts than shown above since the larger dollar amounts in Arts and Sciences, as expected, go to the lab-‐intensive biology and chemistry programs while the other programs have considerably less per FTE to spend.

• In the Conservatory, 27% of the budget is allocated to the theatre program and 1% allocated to the arts management program. Just as in Arts and Sciences, students in the Conservatory who plan on a career in teaching take classes with students who plan on careers in the performing arts and no separation of money for budget purposes is done. If a student planning on teaching is a voice and choral major, he/she has access to the same supplies, music, and materials as one not planning on teaching.

• The Music Education Program is housed in the Musical Academics Division of Shenandoah Conservatory. The Music Education Program is allocated 4% of the Conservatory budget. Budgetary needs are met through independent requests to the Dean of the Conservatory and Division Head of Musical Academics.

• The Dance Education Program is housed in the Dance Division of Shenandoah Conservatory. Budgetary needs are assessed along with needs of the Dance Performance curricula, and the Dance Division Chair oversees a combined budget of $31,445 per year.

• Each of the base budget items summarized in Table 3.4.3.1 has a portion reserved by the dean or director for general administrative costs that apply to the school or program as a whole. Reserve for SEHD is 29%.

• The remainder of the SEHD funds is allocated by department as follows: 15% to Leadership Studies Department and Research; 16% to TESOL; and 40% to Curriculum and Instruction for the basic support of their programs.

• While none of these amounts seems particularly large, they do appear to meet the very basic needs of the programs they support. For each of the last three years, Department Chairs in SEHD have been asked input in the budget building process. However, the budget for Leadership Studies has remained flat during that time. Some budget growth was seen in the Office of Professional Licensure to cover the cost of accreditation.

• The cost of a graduate credit at Shenandoah University for the 2010-‐2011 Academic Year was $723.

• The university provides discounts in the graduate tuition cost for students in graduate education programs reducing the real cost to $403 per credit. This substantial discount represents a major commitment of support for the graduate programs of the School of Education and Human Development and the Shenandoah Conservatory. Table B.8 lists the revenue generated for the FY-‐10 budget year, for the university, for the College of Arts & Sciences, for SEHD, and for the Conservatory.

Table B.8 Revenue Generated per Institutional Unit (For FY 10)*



University Arts and Sciences SEHD Conservatory 69,899,476 15,792,063 4,509,697 13,700,520 * Data provided by Beth Allen, SU Business Office

3.4.3 Quality Control System to monitor financial and administrative resources

• The Department Chairs serve as budget officers for their respective department budgets. The Director of the School of Education and Human Development, the Dean of the Conservatory, and the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences monitor the financial and administrative resources used by the faculty in their departments via budget expenditure reviews and human resource evaluations.

3.4.4 Parity

• While it can be said that it would be wonderful to have more resources to spend on programs, the reality of a private school is one of making the most of the resources available. Parity exists among similar programs within each school, whereas prioritization dictates that some courses and units demand more funds because of the nature of their content and format, such as science equipment for laboratories. Deans and Directors across the university submit budgets in the same process and the Vice President for Financial Affairs makes the final decisions.

3.5 Student Support

3.5.1 Adequate Resources

• Academic Enrichment Services. Students are offered a variety of support services, which will foster the development of skills for academic success. The goal of the Academic Support Center is to help students become more effective and successful learners. The center is located in the Howe building below the Bookstore.

• The SU Bookstore is located in the Student Center. Textbooks, school supplies, computer software, convenience store items, imprinted apparel and novelty items, and diploma frames are available. Special services include dry cleaning, UPS, Nursing and Respiratory Care pin ordering, school ring ordering, and graduation announcement ordering. Used Textbooks are purchased 4 times during the school year.

• The Winchester City Transit Line follows a regular schedule and route. The Millwood Avenue bus will provide service leaving the residence halls for downtown at ten minutes before the hour and leaving City Hall for Shenandoah on the half-‐hour. Service from other areas of the City to downtown is available according to the schedule. Shenandoah provides van service in hourly loops from dorm areas off campus to main campus buildings.

• Campus Calendar. Each week the Public Relations Office publishes SUN-‐e, an electronic newsletter which is distributed via email to faculty, staff, and students. Activities and events are usually announced in the SUN-‐e. A student newspaper, The Doah, is published in newsprint form weekly during fall and spring semesters, and



delivered to main campus buildings. To schedule an event or reserve a room, approval must be obtained through the Registrar's Office, the Athletic Facilities Coordinator, or the Associate Vice President for Student Programs, depending upon the location requested. Ask for a Campus Facility Request Form.

• The campus mail office serves many of the functions of a full service post office with the exceptions of C.O.D. deliveries, outgoing express mail and registry. Stamps can be purchased from a stamp machine located in the Student Center. Incoming mail is processed once per day and distributed to the student boxes that are assigned to all full-‐time residential students at the beginning of the fall semester. Packages may be picked up at the mail office window upon receipt of a notice in the student's mailbox.

• Campus Recreation. From formal structured leagues to informal activities, campus recreation promotes wellness and the lifelong wise use of leisure time by providing a variety of recreational, intramural and outdoor activities. Through participation students develop friendships and learn sportsmanship, team building, cooperation, and personal development.

• Fitness Room The fitness room, located in Brandt Student Center offers the equipment needed for a quality workout to help meet your fitness needs. Exercise bikes, recumbent bikes, stair climbers, treadmills, free weights dumbbells and 10 individual stations of universal weight machines are available.

• The Career Services Center offers a wide variety of services to assist students in clarifying long range career goals, gaining work related experiences, and in marketing one's skills for today's job market. The Center helps with all aspects of career exploration, experiential learning, and placement needs by offering the following: individual career counseling; workshops on resume writing, interview techniques and job search strategies; information on graduate schools and specific fields of endeavor; Career Path; internship information; full-‐time, part-‐time and summer employment opportunities through job listings, and job fairs. The Center maintains a Credentials File Service for Students and alumni. The Office is located in the Brandt Student Center.

• The Child Care facility is located on Route 7, East of Winchester at 118 Regency Lake Drive. The facility has infant through school age care Monday-‐Friday from 7:00am-‐6:00pm. The program is designed to address the childcare needs of student, faculty, and staff of Shenandoah University.

• Cafeteria style dining is provided for residential students (and commuting students at additional cost) in the air-‐conditioned Allen Dining Room. Serving hours are established to provide for leisurely dining without interfering with other activities. The Allen Dining Hall has a variety of meal plans and food selections to suit individual needs. The Brandt Student Center houses the JazzMan Snack bar for more casual dining and longer hours of operation.

• The Office of Disabilities Services is located in the Academic Enrichment Center. Shenandoah University has students with disabilities including mobility, visual, hearing, speech and learning disabilities. There are also individuals who experience other functional limitations as a result of chronic or intermittent health problems such as arthritis, diabetes, epilepsy and multiple sclerosis. Services are available to assist all students with disability-‐related needs including reasonable



accommodations and resource information, in addition to student success workshops, tutoring and developmental programs which are available to all students.

• Financial Aid. Filling out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) gives a student the opportunity to be considered for funds from federal, state, college, and private sources. This can be done on paper or through the Internet. Student needs are most often met through a combination of grants, scholarships, loans, and employment opportunities on campus.

• The Wellness Center is located on the ground floor of Racey Hall on the West Side. The Wellness Center's hours are from 8:00am to 5:00pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise posted on the Center's message board. At other times, a staff member of the Wellness Center, Student Programs, or Security Staff can be reached through a pager system to help with emergencies. The Wellness Center provides alcohol and drug education, health and wellness services, and counseling services.

• SU Technology There are three computer labs available for students and faculty on the SU campus: one in Ruebush with specialized music software, one computer lab at the NVCampus and one at the Bowman Building. In addition, all residence halls are equipped with wireless network connections in addition to network jacks. The SU wireless network is available in all campus locations including off campus buildings, making information available all year, 24 hours a day. The Institutional Computing (IC) Department is responsible for all SU computer operations.

3.5.2 QCS

• Shenandoah University is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award associate, baccalaureate, masters and doctorate degrees. Shenandoah Conservatory is accredited through the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM). Through this process of internal and external revue, faculty can monitor and provide suggestions for improvement to program facilities, supplies, and equipment.

• Upon graduation students are surveyed by career services in order to evaluate services provided as well as to ascertain graduates career goals and employment opportunities.

• Career Services reported that of the 343 graduate students served by the office this year, 101 were from SEHD. This is the first year that Career Services has identified school affiliation for graduate students. The count for 2010-‐11 will continue through August 15, the end of Summer Term, so the totals are expected to rise as new graduates seek career counseling. Table B.9 shows the numbers of undergraduates by schools that serve the education majors, and then has the graduate students in a sum for comparison purposes.

Table B.9 Number of Undergraduate and Graduate Students Using Career Services

Classification 2008-‐09 2009-‐10 2010-‐April 11 Arts and Science 330 460 411 Conservatory 176 545 373



Graduate Students 174 415 343 (101 SEHD)

• The university also monitors use of counseling and health services by graduate and undergraduate students. Counseling services were used by seven education students in the 2007-‐2010 years, but usage is not consistent enough to indicate a trend.

• Health Services reported that graduate students are consistently increasing their use of the services (Table B.10).

Table B.10 Number of Graduate Students and Total Students Using Health Services

Classification 2007-‐2008 2008-‐2009 2009-‐2010 Graduate 1161 (24.8%) 1067 (54.8%) 1274 (45.2%) Total Students 4671 1946 2817

• Financial Aid. Shenandoah University reports that 85% of students receive some

form of financial assistance. Student needs are most often met through a combination of grants, scholarships, loans, and employment opportunities on campus.

• During the past four years students in education programs received some type of financial aid, either the SU Fellowship for Graduate Students in Education Programs, or some type of aid available to undergraduates. Table B.11 shows more specific numbers who received aid and their levels of program.

Table B.11 Numbers of Students in Education Programs Receiving Financial Aid Years for IB Review Doctoral Masters Undergraduates

2007-‐2008 13 28 46 2008-‐2009 34 19 47 2009-‐2010 41 36 56 2010-‐2011 45 55 63

• Academic Support Services. During the 2009-‐2010 school year, 879 students visited the academic support center to access some form of service provided, but records do not indicate their majors.

3.5.3 Parity

• Student support services are provided for all Shenandoah University students. Graduate students in education have full access to all support services including use of the wellness center, career placement services, advising, financial aid, fitness center, health care, and media and technology support.



• Hours of operation for most such services at the university are from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Some student support services are offered at the Northern Virginia campus. Most undergraduate students in education are full-‐time students while graduate students in education complete their degree requirements with evening course offerings.

• All student support services are listed in the university student handbook, but not all services are listed in the graduate education handbook or in the graduate dance and music handbook.

• Graduate students in education utilize student support services less than undergraduate students. This lower level of utilization may be the result of undergraduate students having greater access to the use of services, by the same services being provided to graduate students by employers, by the inability of graduate students to utilize these services during hours of operation because of their employment or by a lack of communication as to the services offered. However, we are seeing improvements that could be the result of faculty advising or of SUN-‐e electronic newsletter items or of BlackBoard Community postings.

• The Academic Enrichment Center has tried several different approaches to increase the numbers of students taking advantage of its services. Sports teams have regular sessions with AEC or Writing Center Staff. General undergraduate students may need more encouragement from advisors to utilize the services available. In addition hours of operation for the academic support center are from 9:00-‐5:00 which is not convenient for graduate students in education who typically are employed during those hours. However, the Writing Center’s extension to the Northern Virginia Campus did make a difference with graduate participation.

• The number of undergraduate education students receiving financial aid is consistent with the percentage of students at the university receiving aid.

• SEHD faculty met with Financial Ad Administrators to describe the graduate programs in language that ensured students have an opportunity to meet the federal government requirements and qualify for financial aid. Thus, since we have three terms each year, our students taking one 3-‐credit class will qualify for aid as part-‐time students.

• SEHD faculty and staff regularly inform graduate education students of services that are available to them in informal meetings as well as at orientation sessions.

3.6 Practices and Policies

3.6.1 Admission practices and policies

• The SU Admissions Office actively recruits undergraduate students through the online website, regional and national college fairs, mailings, and personal contacts in response to inquiries. College of Arts and Sciences faculty can be called upon to meet parents or small groups of prospective students on an individual basis or during Open House days twice each year.

• Shenandoah Conservatory has two dedicated Admissions Counselors assigned to them because of the specific talents needed in the performance degrees. Open House and Auditions happen four times each year.



• The School of Education and Human Development’s Graduate Units have the services of two Admissions Counselors who are very familiar with SEHD degrees and certificates. SEHD faculty program heads are also active recruiters for their programs, and may meet with prospective students or prospective cohorts of students several times during the year. Some faculty have used an internet presence to guide prospective students to online applications and program descriptions.

3.6.2 Academic calendar

• The Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Registrar post the academic faculty and student calendars for the year at http://www.su.edu/student_life/academic-‐calendar.asp to show both semester and trimester dates for campus academic deadlines and major events. It can be easily downloaded and printed. Links are also provided from BlackBoard (BBD) and the university websites.

3.6.3 Accuracy of Advertising

• All printed marketing materials must conform to SU Guidelines and be submitted to the PR department for review before publication is approved. Every effort is made to assure accuracy between print and online information, although there is often a lag time between the change date and the date of web entry. SU completed a 2-‐year rebranding process in April 2011, with a new logo to reflect our history, location, and vision for the future. It will take a year or more for the new designs to be implemented because SU has pledged to follow the green guidelines; hence supplies of old letterhead and other print materials bearing the old logo will be depleted before being replaced with items bearing the new logo.

• Published materials, including catalogs, brochures and flyers describing the units’ programs of study are available in the Dean’s or Director’s Offices of the school that houses the degree sequence, online, the unit advisor’s office, and by request to admissions, the school, the program, or faculty advisor.

3.6.4 Fair grading policies

• Shenandoah University’s Grading Policy is written in the Undergraduate Catalog, pp. 51-‐54 and in the Graduate Catalog, pp 33-‐36, and online at www.su.edu/academics . Each instructor should have evaluation procedures and expectations documented on the syllabus for the course. Four years of catalogs are posted online at the website listed above.

3.7 Student Feedback

3.7.1 System for seeking feedback and resolving complaints

• Students enrolled in licensure programs within the College of Arts and Sciences, School of Education and Human Development, and Shenandoah Conservatory are given the opportunity to evaluate program content courses and express their ideas,



concerns, and grievances, although the university’s official process for end of course student evaluations has not been consistent or effective in the past three years.

• Online evaluation systems, one out-‐sourced and one in-‐house, were tried at the end of a couple of semesters in the past two years, but the procedures were flawed and data has not been complete nor reliable. The university returned to paper student evaluations for this past year.

• Deans and Directors have the opportunity to review student evaluations. Individual faculty are given student evaluation data and can use this information to assess course content and attitudinal data provided by students; however, as noted above this process has not been consistent enough to yield reliable results.

• Students who wish to express concerns about the program’s quality may meet with faculty advisors, Division Heads, or Deans and Directors.

• The University has established procedures for students who wish to file a formal grievance. The University keeps records of student feedback and complaints about the program’s quality and the program’s response on file in the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

• There have been no formal grievances from teacher education students in the College of Arts and Sciences, School of Education and Human Development, or Shenandoah Conservatory filed during the 2007-‐2011 academic years.

3.7.2 Parity

• The University systems for student feedback are fairly uniform across campus. However, there are differences noted in the graduate Health Professions programs because of health, safety, and ethics rules of the related professions.

• Within each school the feedback systems are relatively similar with minor differences according to department and major.

Appendix C: Program Faculty



Table C.1 List of Full-‐Time Faculty in Educator Preparation in School of Education and Human Development (Revised May, 2011)

Name Rank and

Years at SU Degree Year

Granting Institution

Degree Field

Scholarship*

Courses Taught

Mary Bowser**

Professor 22

Ed.D. 1989

University of Virginia

Education

1,2,3,5,7,8 EDU 301,341, 343,344, 425, 403, 510,584, 599, 635,645, RDG 425,

Peter Edwards*

Professor 5

Ed.D. 1974

University of British Columbia

Reading Educatio

n

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

RDG 533, 524, 530, 535, 680, EDUC 533

Karen Huff-‐

Stewart**

Professor 30

Ed.D. 1990


Curriculum &

Instruction:

Elementary

Education

3,5,6,7,8,9 EDU 324, 325, 345, 346, 403,

424, RDG 523

Diane Painter*

Associate Professor

3

Ph.D. 1994

George Mason

University

Special Education

Technology

1,2,3,5,6,7,8

RST 678, SED 567, 573, 571, 533, 565, 569, EDU 585

This list includes all full-‐time faculty who teach full-‐time in teacher education. The faculty marked with “*” have a graduate licensure unit within the School of Education and Human Development, and the faculty marked with “**” have an undergraduate licensure unit within the College of Arts and Sciences, but whose budgeting, curricular, and all administrative functions are housed within SEHD. On the following page is a list of full-‐time faculty in the School of Education and Human Development who teach at least one course in the Educator Preparation Program. *Over a three year period beginning in 2002, Shenandoah University faculty (including representatives from SEHD) developed a common understanding of scholarship via a dialog across campus. The efforts were to find a definition that satisfied the scholarship interests of liberal arts, professional studies, and conservatory programs on campus. The dialog centered around the works on the subject by the Carnegie Foundation (Boyer, 1990, Glassick et.al., 1997) As an outgrowth of this dialog, Shenandoah University defines scholarship as a broad range of intellectual and creative activities that normally result in the continued development of knowledge. For the purpose of promotion and evaluation, scholarly activities are divided into ten categories: 1. Publications, 2. Grants funded, 3. Work in progress, 4. Editorial activity, 5 presentations, 6. Honors and distinctions, 7. Participation in learned and professional societies, 8. Professional practice, 9. Additional professional education, 10. Performance.



Table C.2 List of Part-‐Time Faculty in Educator Preparation, Full-‐Time Faculty in School of Education and Human Development (Revised May, 2011)

Name Rank and Years at SU

Degree

Year


Degree Field Scholarship*

Courses Taught

Jurgen Combs

(moved to Leadership Dept.

Aug.2011)

Professor 14

Ed.D. 1991

Nova Southeaster

n University

Educational Leadership

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

EDU 510, 584, 585

Liz England

Professor 5

Ph.D. 1984

University of Illinois

Education 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

TSL 501,523, 533, 693

Dale Foreman (Retiring Aug.2011)

Associate Professor

11

Ph.D. 1971

University of

Minnesota

Ed. Psych. (Measureme

nt and Statistics)

1,2,3 RST 671, 799, 771, 772, 777, 776

Brenda Murphy

Associate Professor

14

Ph.D. 1993 MSED 1998

New York University Shenandoa

h University

Education and Arts Profession TESOL

1,3,5,7,8,9 RST 799, TSL502, 541, 691, EDU 599, 795

Pam Stockinger (Retiring Aug. 2011)

Associate Professor

5

Ph.D. 2003

Auburn University

Curriculum and

Instruction

1,3,4,5,7 EDU 345, 643, 635, 633, RDG

680, RST 678, 799, 679

This list includes all full-‐time faculty who have taught at least one content area course in a licensure unit within the School of Education and Human Development. There are other full-‐time faculty in the School of Education and Human Development who do not teach in the Educator Preparation Program *Over a three year period beginning in 2002, Shenandoah University faculty (SEHD representatives included) developed a common understanding of scholarship via a dialog across campus. The efforts were to find a definition that satisfied the scholarship interests of liberal arts, professional studies, and conservatory programs on campus. The dialog centered around the works on the subject by the Carnegie Foundation (Boyer, 1990, Glassick et.al., 1997) As an outgrowth of this dialog, Shenandoah University defines scholarship as a broad range of intellectual and creative activities that normally result in the continued development of knowledge. For the purpose of promotion and evaluation, scholarly activities are divided into ten categories: 1. Publications, 2. Grants funded, 3. Work in progress, 4. Editorial activity, 5 presentations, 6. Honors and distinctions, 7. Participation in learned and professional societies, 8. Professional practice, 9. Additional professional education, 10. Performance.



Table C.3 Adjunct Faculty Teaching EPP Courses in SEHD (Updated March, 2011)

Name Rank and Years at SU

Degree and Year


Degree Field

Courses Taught

Annette M. Asfaw 2010 -‐ Current

Adjunct Assistant Professor

0

Ph.D. 2001

University of Kansas

Special Ed. SED 569

Lynda Cook 2009 – Summer 2010

Adjunct Associate Professor

1

Ed.D University of Pennsylvania


SED 565

Kristin Hockensmith 2003 -‐ Current


7

Ph.D. 2004

Pennsylvania State University

School Psychology

SED 567, 565

Janet Le Bel 2009 -‐ Current


1

Ed. D Vanderbilt University

Education Administration

SED 571

Diana Moore 2007 – Fall 2010


3

Ed. D 1995

University of Kansas

Special Ed. SED 565, 571, PSYC 510

Ronald Say 2000-‐Current

Director, Education Outreach / Adjunct Professor

Ed.D. 2006

Shenandoah University

Organizational

Leadership: Education

EDU/EDUC 510,

EDU/EDUC 584

Cheryl Temple 2010 -‐ Current


.5

Ph.D. 2006

George Mason University

Educational Leadership and Policy

SED 571

Helen Neely 2005 -‐ Current


5

M.Ed. 1989

James Madison

Early Childhood Special Ed.

SED 565, 571

Paul Glass 2003 -‐ Current


7

Ph.D. 2001

VA Polytechnic Institute & State Univ

Human Development

PSYC 510

Johanna La Fiandra

Adjunct Associate

Ed. D. 1988

Hofstra University

Reading and

SED 533



2011 -‐ Current Professor .5

Cognition

Suzanne Jimenez 2006 -‐ Current


4

Ed. D. 2000

George Washington University

Educational Leadership in Special Ed.

SED 575

Crystal Balfour 2011 -‐ Current


.5

Special Education

SED/SEDC 571, PSYP/PSYC 510

Pat Nelson 2011 -‐ Current


.5

Ed.D. 2009

Walden University

Education SED/SEDC 571

Melissa Hartman 2011 – Current


0

Ed.D. 2001

George Washington University

Education and Special Education

SED 565

Frances Harris-‐Burke 2004 – Current


6

Ed.D. 1996

University of Hartford

Educ. Leadership

EDU 523, SED 533

Willie W. Gill 2010 -‐ Current

Adjunct Instructor

0

Ed.D. 2010



EDU 613/614, 661

Christina Voskamp 2005 -‐ Current


5

M.Ed. 1989

VA Tech. Educational Administration

EDU 613/14, 661, 690, 692, 441, 451, 461,

Anita Sobol 2005 -‐ Current


5

Ed.D. 1998

St. John’s University


EDU 661, 613, 614, 690, 692

Janet Soonthornchai


Ed. D. James Madison

School Psychology

EDU 221

James Angelo 2008 -‐ Current


2

Ed.D. 2005

George Mason University

Education Administration Policy Studies

EDU 584

Barbara Chilson 2010 -‐ Current


0

Ed. D. 1987

University of Nevada

Education Administration and Higher Ed.

EDU 643



Tiffany Brocious 2008-‐current


Ed.D. 2007


Leadership RDG 533, 524, 530, 535, 602

Anne Haggerty Adjunct Instructor

M. Ed. 1998

James Madison University

Reading RDG 530, 535, 602

Dianne Kinkead 1995-‐current

Adjunct Professor

Ed. D. 1984

Boston University

Reading RDG 535, 602

Nicole Ashcraft 2009 -‐ Current


2

PhD 2004

University of Georgia

Adult Education

TSL 523

Paula Garcia McAllister 2007 -‐ Current

Adjucnt Assistant Professor

4

PhD 2004

Northern Arizona University

Applied Linguistics

TSL 524

Datta Khalsa 2006 -‐ Current


5

PhD 2005

University of Maryland – Baltimore County

Language, Literacy & Culture

TSL 561

Ann Gaynor 2011 -‐ Current


.5

M.A. 1975


Reading EDU 461

Gale Rush 2011 -‐ Current


.5

M. A. 1986

Virginia Tech. Education Administration

EDU 461

Cindy Whittle 2011-‐Current

Adjunct Instructor

.5

MSED 1997


Administration & Supervision

EDU 461

Theresa Manchey 2008-‐2011

Adjunct Instructor

M.A. 1969

University of Maryland

American Studies

EDU 441, EDU 692



Table C.4 List of Full-‐Time Faculty in Educator Preparation Program, Shenandoah Conservatory (Updated May, 2011)

This list includes all full-‐time faculty who teach full-‐time in licensure units at Shenandoah Conservatory. The list of full-‐time faculty who teach part-‐time in licensure units in the Conservatory is on the following pages. *Over a three year period beginning in 2002, Shenandoah University faculty (Conservatory was represented) developed a common understanding of scholarship via a dialog across campus. The efforts were to find a definition that satisfied the scholarship interests of liberal arts, professional studies, and conservatory programs on campus. The dialog centered around the works on the subject by the Carnegie Foundation (Boyer, 1990, Glassick et.al., 1997). As an outgrowth of this dialog, Shenandoah University defines scholarship as a broad range of intellectual and creative activities that normally result in the continued development of knowledge. For the purpose of promotion and evaluation, scholarly activities are divided into ten categories: 1. Articles, 2. Books and Monographs, 3. Ongoing Research, 4. Performance, 5. Presentations, 6. Exhibitions, 7. Special Recognition, 8. Pedagogical Scholarship, 9. Grants, and 10. Consulting.

Name Rank Years at SU

Degree

Year Granted


Degree Field

Scholarship*

Courses Taught

Jeffrey Marlatt

Associate Professor

5

PhD 2004

Temple University

Music Education

1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10

MUED 130 MUED 322 MUED 323 MUED 325 MUED 423

Stephanie Standerfer

Assistant Professor

3

PhD University of Virginia

Education 1, 3, 5, 9, 10

MUED 135 MUED 235 MUED 236 MUED 321

David Zerull

Professor 20

PhD 1990

North-‐western University

Music Education

1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10

MUED 329 MUED 330 MUED 316 MUED 317 MUED 421 MUED 422



Table C.5 List of Part-‐Time Faculty in Education Preparation, Full-‐Time in Shenandoah Conservatory (May, 2011)

Name Rank

Years at SU

Degree Year

Granted


Degree Field Scholarship*

Courses Taught

Charlotte Aiosa

Professor 33 years

DMA 1987

University of

Michigan

Vocal Performance

4 Applied Voice

Alan Arnett

Assistant Professor 14 years

MFA 1986

Southern Methodist University

Dance 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ,10

DA 363 DA 471 DA 386

Frances Lapp Averitt

Professor 38 years

DM 1973

Florida State University

Flute 1, 4, 5, 7

Applied Flute Ensemble

William Averitt

Professor 38 years

DM 1973

Florida Sate University

Music Composition

1, 7, 10 MUTC 421

Donald Black

Professor 43 years

MFA 1958

Ohio University

Music Theory

1, 4, 5, 7 MUTC 203/204 MUTC 422

Elizabeth Caluda

Professor 33 years

DMA 1989

The Catholic University of America

Piano Pedagogy

1, 3, 4, 5 Applied Piano

Glen Caluda

Professor 36 years

PhD 1990

Louisiana Sate

University

Music Education

1, 3, 4, 5 Applied Guitar

Ting-‐Yu Chen

Associate Professor 14 years

MFA 1996

The Ohio State

University

Choreography

4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9,10

DA 362 DA 444 DA 241/242 DA 386

Stephen Cooksey

Professor 39 years

PhD Washington University

Organ 4, 5 Applied Organ

Andrew Flory


PhD 2007

University of

North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Musicology 1, 3, 5, 8 MULT 203 MULT 204 MULT 205

Michael Forest


MME 1986


Music Education

4 Applied Voice

Maurice Fraga

Assistant Professor

MFA 1996

University of Illinois –

Dance 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

DA 443 DA 341/342



2 years

Urbana Champaign

DA 386

Kathryn Green

Professor 12 years

DMA

University of

Cincinnati, College-‐

Conservatory

of Music

Vocal Performance

3, 4 Applied Voice

Erica Helm


MFA 1986

Southern Methodist University

Dance 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

DA 361 DA 371 DA 472 DA 386

Byron Jones


DMA 2004


Vocal Performance

4 Applied Voice

Karen Keating

Professor 21 years

DMA 2002


Performance 4, 5, 7 Ensemble MUCO 361

Robert Larson


MA 1982

University of

Oregon

Theory/Jazz Studies

1, 3, 4 MUTC 101/102 Ensemble Jazz Piano

Doris Lederer


rtist Diploma 1976

Curtis Institute of Music

Viola 1, 3, 4, 5 Applied Viola

Scott Nelson

Professor 24 years

DMA 1989

University of

Cincinnati, College-‐

Conservatory of Music

Conducting 1, 4, 5, 7 Applied Trumpet Ensemble MUCC 361 MUPP 318 MUPP 319

Janette Ogg

Professor 35 years

DMA 1975

Florida State University

Vocal Performance

3, 4, 5 Applied Voice

Michael Rohrbach

er


PhD 1993

University of

Maryland

Ethno-‐musicology

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9

MULT 361, 362 MULT 363, 364

Ryan Romine


DMA Michigan State

University

Bassoon Performance

4, 5 Applied Bassoon

Medea Ruhadze


DSS 1977

Tbilisi State

Conservatory

Vocal Performance

4 Applied Voice



Keith Salley


PhD 2007

University of Oregon

Music Theory

1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9

MUTC 100, 109, 122/123/124, MUTC 202, 206

Philip Sargent


DMA 1986

University of

Illinois

Vocal Performance

4 Applied Voice MUTC 101/102

Robert Shafer

Professor 28 years

MM The Catholic University of America

Music Composition

4, 7 Ensemble

Clyde Shaw

Professor 7 years

MM State University Of New York:

Binghamton

Cello Performance

1, 4, 9 Applied Cello

Aime Sposato

Associate Dean & Professor 17 years

DMA 1993

West Virginia University

Vocal Performance

4, 5, 7 Applied Voice

Donovan Stokes


DM Indiana University

Bass Performance

1, 3, 4, 5, 9 Applied Bass

Elizabeth Temple

Professor 48 years

MM West Virginia University

Piano Performance

4, 5 Applied Piano

Emily Threinen


DMA University of Michigan

Conducting 4, 5, 7 Ensemble, MUCO 360, MUCO 364

Jan Wagner


Diploma And

Korrepetitions Praxis 1987

Academy of Music

Hochschule

Conducting and Opera Coaching

4, 7 Ensemble

Karen Walker

Associate Dean & Associate Professor 28 years

DMA 2000

The Catholic University of America

Piano Performance

4, 5, 7 Applied Piano

Wayne Wells


DMA 2005

University of

Maryland

Trombone Performance

4, 5, 7 Applied Trombone Ensemble

Earl Associate MM Cleveland Music 4, 5, 7 Applied



Yowell

Professor 4 years

Institute of Music

Performance Percussion Ensemble

Garrick Zoeter


MM Yale University

Music Performance

4, 7 Applied Clarinet

This list includes all full-‐time faculty who teach at least one content area course within the Bachelor of Music in Music Education, or Bachelor of Fine Arts in Dance Education licensure units at Shenandoah Conservatory. *Shenandoah University defines scholarship as a broad range of intellectual and creative activities that normally result in the continued development of knowledge. For the purpose of promotion and evaluation, scholarly activities are divided into ten categories: 1. Articles, 2. Books and Monographs, 3. Ongoing Research, 4. Performance, 5. Presentations, 6. Exhibitions, 7. Special Recognition, 8. Pedagogical Scholarship, 9. Grants, and 10. Consulting.



Table C.6 Adjunct Faculty Teaching Licensure Courses in Shenandoah Conservatory

(Updated August, 2011) Name Rank and

Years at SU Degree and Year


Degree Field Courses Taught

Larry Correll

Adjunct Asst Prof of Music 1 year

MEd 1979

Southwest Texas State University

Music Education

MUED 333, MUED 334

Sue Christian-‐Correll

Adjunct Assoc Prof of Music 4 years

MME 1975


Music Education

MUED 333, MUED 421

Linda Leonard-‐Pell

Adjunct Asst Prof of Music 4

MME 2001


Music Education

MUED 334, MUED 335, MUED 442

Elizabeth Blakeslee 1996-‐2008

Adjunct Assoc Prof 12 years

M.M. Virginia Commonwealth University

Harp Performance

Applied Harp

Dudley Oakes 2001-‐2008


DMA University of Michigan-‐ Ann Arbor

Organ Performance

Applied Organ

Laurence Wyman 2005-‐2008

Adjunct Professor 3 years

Ph.D. Eastman School of Music

Music Theory MUTC 101 MUTC 102

Margaret Brooks Angermeier 2006-‐2009

Adjunct Assistant Professor 3 years

MM East Carolina University

Vocal Performance and Pedagogy

Applied Voice

Steven Ballas 2007-‐2009

Adjunct Instructor 2 years

MM Shenandoah University

Clarinet Performance

MUPP 316

Michael DeLalla 2000-‐2009

Adjunct Asst Professor 9 years

MME Shenandoah University

Music Education

Applied Guitar

Catherine Lindquist 2006-‐2009


MM Rice University

Bassoon Performance

Applied Bassoon

Joel Puckett 2004-‐2009


DMA University of Michigan

Composition MUTC 101 MUTC 102

Lisa Reagan 2002-‐2009


MM University of Maryland

Vocal Performance

Applied Voice



Margaret Sticklett 2007-‐2009


MM State of University of New York at Binghamton

Opera Performance

Applied Voice

Bridgett Stuckey 2008-‐2009

Adjunct Asst Professor 1 year

BME Ball State University

Performance and Music Education

Applied Harp

Barry C. Trent 2008-‐2009

Adjunct Assoc

Professor 1 year

Artist Diploma

Peabody Conservatory

Bassoon Performance

Applied Bassoon

Diana Fenni White 2000-‐2009


MM University of Michigan

Piano Performance

APCP 105 APCP 106

Amy Asbury 2007-‐2010



Vocal Pedagogy

Applied Voice

Carl Bly 2008-‐2010


MM George Mason University

Instrumental Conducting

MUED 324

Amy L. Call 2007-‐2010


DMA Shenandoah University

Vocal Performance

Applied Voice

Mary Carrigan 2006-‐2010


Doctoral Candidate

University of Maryland

Vocal Performance

Applied Voice

Hsin-‐Yi Chen 2004-‐2010


DMA University of Maryland

Collaborative Piano

Applied Piano

Alejandro Hernandez-‐Valdez 2007-‐2010


DMA University of Texas at Austin

Piano Performance

Applied Piano

Wayne N. Kemp 2004-‐2010

Adjunct Assoc

Professor 6 years

DMA The Catholic University of America

Vocal Pedagogy

Applied Voice

C. Bryan Kidd 2005-‐2010

Adjunct Assoc

Professor 5 years


Music Education

MUEN 304

David B. Langan 2001-‐2010

Adjunct Assoc

Professor

MM Indiana University

Vocal Performance

Applied Voice



9 years Jennifer Marlow 1995-‐2010



Flute Performance

Applied Flute

David Newman 2008-‐2010


MM Westminster Choir College


Applied Voice

Christina Romich 2008-‐2010


DMA West Virginia University

Vocal Performance

Applied Voice

Nan Volinsky 2004-‐2010

Adjunct Assoc

Professor 6 years

PhD University of Illinois

Anthropology

MULT 361

Michael Ward 2008-‐2010



Music Education

MUED 330

Margaret Brooks Angermeier 2006


MM East Carolina University


Applied Voice

Michael Bunn 1986

Adjunct Assoc

Professor 25 years

MM Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University

Performance Applied Tuba

Eunae Grace Cho 2008

Adjunct Asst Prof 3 years


Collaborative Piano

Applied Piano

Judy Connelly 1980


MM West Virginia University

Organ Performance

APCP 105 APCP 106

Jesse Crites 2009


MM Chicago College of Performing Arts

Guitar Performance

MUEN 306

Lee Ann Dransfield 1998

Auxiliary Adjunct Asst Professor 13 years

MM University of Oregon

Piano Performance and Pedagogy

Applied Piano

Craig Fraedrich 1989

Adjunct Assoicate Professor

MM Arizona State University

Instrumental Music Education

MUEN



22 years Donna Gullstrand 1977

Professor 34 years

MM University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign

Vocal Performance

Applied Voice

Lars Helgart 2008

Auxiliary Adjunct Associate Professor 3 years

Ph.D. Catholic University

Musicology MULT 203 MULT 204

Eun Hee Kim 2008

Auxiliary Adjunct Asst Professor 3 years


Voice Applied Voice

Linda Leonard 2005



Music Education

MUED 334 MUED 335 MUED 422

Michael Maher 2003

Auxiliary Adjunct Asst

Prof. 8 years

MM Oberlin Conservatory of Music

Teaching MULT 361

Jona Masiya 2008



Music Education

MULT 361

J. Thomas Mitts 2002

Auxiliary Adjunct Assoc Prof 9 years

DMA University of Iowa

Organ Performance and Pedagogy

MUTC 101 MUTC 102

Michael D. Murphy 2007

Adjunct Associate Professor 4 years


Guitar Performance

MUEN 306

Matthew Niess 1991

Auxiliary Adjunct Assoc Prof 20 years

MM University of Maryland

Performance MUEN 304

Timothy Roberts 2007


DMA The Catholic University of America

Saxophone Performance

Applied Saxophone

James Carlton Rowe 2002

Adjunct Asst Prof 9 years

MM The Catholic University of America

Trumpet Performance

Applied Trumpet



Robyn Hart Schroth 1987

Auxiliary Adjuct Asst Professor 24 years

MA The George Washington University

Dance Education

Angelina Eun-‐Young Shumway 2010

Adjunct Instructor 1 year

MS University of Maryland

Vocal Performance

Applied Voice

Robert Strain 2002

Adjunct Asst Prof. 9 years


Piano Performance

APCP 105 APCP 106

Bridgett Stuckey 2008


BME Ball State University

Performance and Music Education

Applied Harp

Edrie Means Weekly 1995

Auxiliary Assoc Prof 16 years

MM University of Houston

Vocal Performance

Applied Voice

Diana Fenni White 2000

Adjunct Asst Prof.

11 years

MM University of Michigan School of Music

Piano Performance

APCP 105 APCP 106

William Zsembery 2005

Adjunct Associate Professor 6 years

MM Manhattan School of Music

French Horn Performance

Applied French Horn

Antony Zwerdiling 2004

Adjunct Asst Prof. 7 years


Voice Applied Voice



Table C.7 List of Part-‐Time Faculty in Education Preparation, Full-‐Time in College of Arts and Sciences (May, 2011)

NAME RANK Years at SU

Degree Year

Granted

Degree Field Granting Institution

Scholarship Courses Taught

Allen, Calvin Dean, Professor, 9 years

PhD, 1978

Middle East History, University of Washington

1,3,4,5,7,8 FYS 101, REL 312

Bayless, Jennifer

Adjunct 9 years

B.A. B.S.

Arts Studies Psychology

KIN 113

Bly, Darren Assistant Professor 14 years

PhD, 1997

Applied Physics, University of Maryland

2,3,5,7,8 PHYS 111, 121, 103, 112, 122, 221, 295

Bousquet, Woodward

Professor

18 years

PhD, 1982

Science Education, Environmental Science, The Ohio State University

1,2,3,5,7,8 ES 242, 290, 340,390, 401, 419, 421,492, BIO 492

Bragdon, Rodney


PhD, 2005

Psychology, University of Mississippi

3,5,7,8 PSY 101, 330, 401D,405,412 310,411,391A

Brown, Michelle

Assistant Professor 1 year

PhD 2008

English University of

Maryland College Park

1,2,3,5,7,9 ENG 102,358, 376,361,

FYS 101

Bryant, James Associate Professor 9 years

PhD, 2001

History (American), University of Rochester

1,4,5,7,8 HIST 103,301, 111, 201, 495, 304, 305

Ca, Diep Associate Professor 6 years

PhD, 2005

Analytical Chemistry, Miami University (Ohio)

1,2,4,5,7,8 CHEM 105, 121,122, 211, 311, 317, 420, 491, 492

Canfield-‐Fuller, Sarah

Instructor 4 year

PhD can-‐didate

English, Indiana University

3,5,7 ENG 101, ENG 102

Carlson, Wendela

Associate Professor

PhD, 2006

Psychology, University of

1,3,4,5,7,8 PSY 220, 322, 325,391, PSY



5 years Missouri 340,423,440

Copenhaver, John

Professsor

26 years

PhD, 1986

Religion, The Catholic University

of America

3,5,7,8 PHIL 101,331, REL 202, 421, 101, 251,320, REL 395

Daddario, Gina

Professor 13 years

PhD, 1988

Communications, University of Massachusetts

1,3,5,7,8 MCOM 101, 310,398, MCOM 410/KIN 410, MCOM 498, 361, 395, 150, 420, WST 400

Denkler, Ann Associate Professor 9 years

PhD, 2001

American Studies, University of

Maryland-‐College Park

1,3,5,7,8 HIST 104,242, 395, 111, 301, 495, 341

Enders, William

Professor 6 years

PhD, 1995

English, University of Toledo

1,3,5,7,8 ENG 101, ENG 102,

WR 301

Fendley, Kim Associate Professor 16 years

PhD, 1990

Sociology, University of Kentucky

3,5,7,8 SOC 101, 210, 251, 295, 300, 310, 312, 313, 332, 334,350, 360,395,401, 415, 421,431, 441, 475

Fitzsimmons, Tracy

President; Professor 9 years

PhD, 1995

Political Science, Stanford University

1,3,5,7,8 PSCI 304

Gettman, Jon


PhD 2000

Public Policy George Mason University

1,2,3,8 CJ 201,295, 296,322,323, CJ 495

Haag, Richard Associate Professor 13 years

PhD, 1970

Psychology, University of Hawaii

1,3,4,5,7,8 PSY 101, 391A, 480, 312, 355, 430, 401A/B/C/E/F, PSY 480

Hamilton, Instructor ABD Kinesiology -‐ 1,2,5,7 KIN 284, 340,



Salli 2 years Exercise Science Indiana University

352,381,384, 387,395, 410, KIN 460

Hofmann, Julie


PhD, 2000

History (Ancient and Medieval), Emory University

1,2,3,5,7,8 FYS 101, HIST 101,102, 201,301, 371 391,395,445, 495, WST 400

Hofstra, Warren

Professor

34 years

PhD, 1985

History (American), University of Virginia

1,2,3,4,5,7,8 HIST 103,350, 104, HIST 303

Hubrick, Laura


PhD, 2005

Plant Physiology Penn State

3,5,7, BIO 121, 201, 312, 344,395, 409, BIO 420

Jacobs, Joanne


PhD, 1979

English, University of Notre Dame

3,5,7 ENG 101, 102, 201, 210,349, 350, 356, 382, 386, 499

Jacobs, John Professor 34 years

PhD, 1976

English, University of Notre Dame

3,5,7,8 ENG 102, 213, ENG 310/AMST 310, ENG 209, 358, 384, 499, 101,235, 325, 347, 383

Kiefer, Geraldine


PhD, 1990

Art History, Case Western

Reserve University

1,3,5,7,8,10 ART 101, ART 200, ART 216, ART 102, ART 295, ART 214

King, Scott

Assistant Professor, 1 year

PhD, 2010

Social Psychology, Loyola University

Chicago

1,3,4,5,7,8 PSY 101,324, 355,391

Laurikkala, Minna


PhD 2008

Sociology, University of Central Florida

1,3,5,7,8 SOC 101, CJ 201,305,

401,495, 499

Layne, Thomas

Professor

PhD, 1982

Mathematics Education,

5 MATH 207, MATH 208,



44 years Vanderbilt University

MATH 100

Leonard, Eric Associate Professor 8 years

PhD, 2001

Political Science, University of Delaware

1,3,4,5,7,8 PSCI 204, 207, 495, 302,304, 301, 401, 303, PSCI 495

Lesman, Ann Professor

20 years

PhD, 1980

Spanish Language and Literature, University of Maryland

1,3,5,7,8 SPAN201,301, 391/392/393440/540, 112, 330, 430, 411, SPAN 101

Orrell, Kimberly


PhD, 2001

Biology, Virginia Tech

3,4,7 BIO 122, 191, 325 351, 399

Parker, Nina Associate Professor 16 years

PhD, 1989

Biology, Immunology,Ohio

University

3,7, BIO 365\HIST 365, BIO 395A, 465, 472,491,260, 492

Pearce-‐Gonzales, Bryan


PhD, 2006

Spanish Literature, University of Kentucky

3,5,7,8 SPAN 201, 301, 303, 202, 302, 325, 102, 315, 316

Penn-‐Hollar, Barry

Professor 22 years

PhD, 1990

Religious Ethics, University of Virginia

3,5,7,8 PHIL 150,130, REL 330, 301 PHIL 225/REL 225, REL 332

Schendel, Cindy


EdD 2008

Education, Northern Illinois

University

1.4.5.7 FYS 101, KIN 190, 252, 283,322, KNS 262,305, 306, 481, 452, 453, 454

Schulke, Beverly

Associate Dean,

Associate

PhD, 1993

Sociology/Criminology, George Washington

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

CJ295, 401, 477, 495,321, 322, 343, 323,



Professor

8 years

University 401, 343, 499, SOC 101, 238, 495, 322, 431

Schweitzer, Petra


PhD, 2003

Comparative Literature, Emory

University

1,3,5,7,8 FR 101, 102, 201, 202,301, GER 101, 201, 301,102,202, GER 395

Shendow, William

Professor

27 years

PhD, 1991

Public Administration/Public Affairs, Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State

University

1,3,4,5,7,8 PSCI 101, 306, 311, 402, 102, 201, 205,308, PUAD 501, PSCI 402

Shepherd, William

Adjunct PhD 1974

Communication Sciences,

University of Connecticut

MATH 207, MATH 102

Smith, Andrea Meador

Assistant Professor, 2 years

PhD, 2009

Spanish Literature, University of Virginia

1,3,4,5,7,8 SPAN 102, 202, 301, 311,312, 316, FYS 101

Stewart, Cindia


PhD, 2002

Math Education, University of Virginia

1,2,3,5,7,8

MATH 101, 206, 102, 151, 341, 365, 399, 355

Thorsett, Edvard


PhD, 1994

American Culture Studies, University

of Maryland

3,5,7,8 MCOM 150, 201, 398, 498, 395, 379,101

Wharton, Margaret


MA, 1997

Mathematics, Appalachian State

University

1,3,8 MATH 101, MATH 099

Weibel, Jason Assistant Professor 1 year

PhD 2001

Theoretical Physical Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon

3,7 CHEM 105, 121,122, 321, 322

Wigley, Brian Associate Professor

EdD, 2000

Physical Education, Texas A&M

1,3,5,7,8 KIN 350, 365, 374,395, 498,



9 years University 168, 280, 342, 386, 103, 190

Wissman, Ken


MA 1972

Educational Research

Methodology, University of Pittsburgh

MATH 101, 102, 207, 210

Zimmermann, Laura

Professor

13 years

PhD, 1997

Developmental Psychology,

University of New Mexico

1,3,5,7,8 PSY 220, 324, 401,405, 425, 308, 360, 428

This list includes all full-‐time faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences who teach at least one content area course within the Bachelor of Arts and/or Bachelor of Science degrees that include approved teacher licensure programs: biology, chemistry, English, health and

physical education, mathematics, history/social studies, and university studies. *Over a three year period beginning in 2002, Shenandoah University faculty developed a common understanding of scholarship via a dialog across campus. The efforts were to find a definition that satisfied the scholarship interests of liberal arts, professional studies, and conservatory programs on campus. The dialog centered around the works on the subject by the Carnegie Foundation (Boyer, 1990, Glassick et.al., 1997) As an outgrowth of this dialog, Shenandoah University defines scholarship as a broad range of intellectual and creative activities that normally result in the continued development of knowledge. For the purpose of promotion and evaluation, scholarly activities are divided into ten categories: 1. Publications, 2. Grants funded, 3. Work in progress, 4. Editorial activity, 5 presentations, 6. Honors and distinctions, 7. Participation in learned and professional societies, 8. Professional practice, 9. Additional professional education, 10. Performance.



Table C.8 Part-‐Time Faculty in College of Arts and Sciences Teaching EPP Courses

NAME RANK Years at SU

Degree Year

Granted

Degree Field Granting Institution

Courses Taught

Gallagher, Greg PhD Biophysical Chem. University of

Massachusettes

BIO 192 BIO 201

Tollett, David MS Admin of Justice Virginia

Commonweath

CJ 201-‐101 Intro Criminal Justice System CJ 321-‐101 Policing & Law Enforcement

Peterson, Leslie MS Admin of Justice & Security

Univ. of Phenix

CJ 323-‐101 Corrections

Sanzenbacher, Kevin

MBA Univ. of Baltimore CJ 495-‐102 Topics: Law Enforcement Mgmt

Burks, Edward MA English Univ. of Houston

ENG 102-‐108 Intro to Lit ENG 102-‐109 Intro to Lit

Corpus, Larry PhD Evolution & Func Morphology of

Insects Kansas State

ES 101-‐103 Intro to ES ES 101-‐104 Intro to ES

Dease, Daniel MS Environmental Engineering

Drexel University

ES 319-‐101 Environmental Policy/Program

Sadowski, Karen MS Information Systems American University

GER 202, 101

Wilson, Donna

MA Spanish Univ. of Wyoming

SPAN 102-‐101 Span II SPAN 102-‐102 Span II

Curtis, Sandra MSED Curriculum & Instruction

George Mason Univ.

SPAN 201-‐101 Interm Spanish I SPAN 201-‐102 Interm Spanish I SPAN 202

Thomae-‐Forques, Maria

BA George Mason Univ.

SPAN 201-‐103 Interm SpanI SPAN 202-‐106 Interm Spanish II



Anderson, Kevin

MS Physical Education George Mason Univ.

KIN 101 KIN 477

Lawless, Desmond

MS Univ. of Wisconsin-‐Stout

KIN 101-‐104 Lifetime Fitness KIN 485

Hattenback, Karen Cert Jazzercize KIN 106-‐101 Aerobics KIN 106-‐102 Aerobics

West, Lindsey MA Curriculum & Inst. Saint Vincent College

KIN 110-‐101 Weight Training KIN 172-‐101 Coach Lacrosse/Field Hockey

Guyant-‐Holloway, Michelle

BS Broadcasting Northern Michigan

University

KIN 110, 102

Barr, Walter MA James Madison Univ. KIN 160-‐101 Coaching Football

Harris, Robert MBA Math Shenandoah Univ.

KIN 162-‐101 Coach Basketball

Pelster, Sarah MA Physical Education Eastern Kentucky

KIN 191-‐101 First Aid KIN 191-‐102 First Aid

Shea, Erin MS Clinical Exercise Physiology

James Madison U.

KIN 284-‐101 Fitness Program Admin

Lewis, Linden BS Sports Medicine Salem-‐Teikyo Univ.

KIN 99A-‐ KIN 103, KIN 399

Philp, Carly MS Health Science James Madison U.

KIN 352-‐101 Sports Nutrition

Cameron, Bruce MS Athletic Coaching Education WV Univ.

KIN 460, KIN 101, 166

McCullough, Brock MS Rehabilitative Sciences

Clarion Univ.

KIN 470-‐101 Facility Planning/Event Mgmt

Wissmann, Kenneth

PhD (in progress)

Education Research Methodology University of Pittsburgh

MATH 101-‐101 Precal I MATH 207-‐105 Intro to Stats MATH 210-‐101 Math for Health Professions



Grajdeanu, Paula PhD Applied Mathematics

Durham University

MATH 370-‐101 Numerical Analysis MATH 100

Burner, Emily MS Broadcast Journalism

Syracuse University

MCOM 150-‐103 Principles of Public Speaking MCOM 345-‐101 Sports Writing

Duvall, William MS Journalism West Virginia Univ.

MCOM 150-‐104 Principles of Public Speaking MCOM 150-‐105 Princ of Public Speaking

Kealey, Erin PhD Phil & Lit Purdue Univ.

PHIL 120-‐102 History Western Phil

Avni, Alexander PhD Government Georgetown University

PHIL 120-‐103 History Western Phil

Colby, Rhonda

Doctor of Ministry

Ministry Baptist Theological Seminary

REL 110-‐101 Global Context Christian Leadership

Lee, Hyo

PhD

Testament Studies Vanderbilt Univ.

REL 211-‐ REL 210

Kriewald, Diedre PhD Religion, Church History

Vanderbilt Univ.

REL 220-‐101 Survey Western Christianity REL 320

Garrett, Daniel Doctor of Ministry

Ministry Wesley Theological

Sem.

REL 321-‐101 Church Leadership

Foreman, Michael MA Government Univ. of Virginia

PSCI 202-‐101 State and Local Govt

Winn, John LLM/JD US Army JAG School/Campbell

University

PSCI 310-‐990 US Constitution PSCI 495

Mason, Anderea EdD, in progress

Organizational Leadership, SU

PSY 101-‐103 General PSY

Gibson, Alida MA Thanatology Hood College


Raymond, John PhD Psychology Walden Univ.




Armstrong, Stephen EdD Agency Counseling Col. of Wm & Mary

PSY 220-‐103 Child Development

Janowitz, Martin

PhD Clinical Psychology University of MD

PSY 310-‐103 Abnormal Psy PSY101

Wyne, Deborah M.Ed Higher Ed. Counseling & Dev., George Mason U

PSY 101 STSK 101 Study Skills II

Spataro,-‐Wilson, Jennifer

MA Communications Studies, WV U.

STSK 101-‐Study Skills I

Gyurisin, Jennifer PhD English Illinois State

ENG 101-‐105

Hammond, Rachael MA English James Madison U.

ENG 101-‐110 Composition

Cameron, Margaret MA.Ed English VA Tech & State U.


Rudy, Jeffrey

MFA English Writing Vermont College


Hansbarger, Julian MA Creative Writing George Mason U.


O’Neill, Golder Cert. KIN 119Tae Kwon Do

Marrocco, Andrew MS Applied Health Physiology

Salisbury Univ.

KNI 168-‐101 Coach Track/Field/Cross Country

Deuel, Barry

BS Physical Education West Virginia University

KIN 280-‐101 Care/Treat Athl Injury

Frazier, Kari EdD Org Leadership Shenandoah Univ.

KIN 374-‐101 Sprt Mkt / Sponsorship & Promo

Coyne, Timothy BA Distinction, Gov & Foreign Affairs Univ. of Virginia

KIN 450-‐101 Sport Law

Bowers, Lois MEd/ Coach

Western Maryland University

KIN 477-‐101 Prin/Phil Coach

Lore, Mark MA Economics Univ. of Wisconsin

PSCI 303-‐101 American Foreign Policy



Cameron, Bruce MS Athletic Coaching Education

West Virginia U.

STSK 101-‐102 Study Skills

Aimone, Kathryn

MEd Student Affairs Azusa Pacific

STSK 101-‐106 Study Skills

Shepherd, William

Adjunct PhD 1974

Communication Sciences,

U. of Connecticut

MATH 207, MATH 102

Wissman, Ken


MA 1972

Educational Research

Methodology, University of Pittsburgh

MATH 101, MATH 102, MATH 207, MATH 210

Bayless, Jennifer Adjunct 9 years

B.A. B.S.

Arts Studies Psychology

KIN 113