Initial Results of a Review of VermontEarly Childhood and Early Childhood Special Education Course

Syllabi1

SummaryFebruary 2018

What follows is a description of the instrumentation, methodology, results, and recommendations from this undertaking.

MethodologyThe purpose of the review was to examine a set of syllabi from programs that offer early childhood and early childhood special education courses for credit (e.g., colleges, universities, HEC, and Northern Lights). An overview of the phases of the review follows.

Liaisons IdentifiedA liaison for each program was identified, then contacted by email to explain the two components of the process. First, each liaison was asked to identify and provide the syllabi for five core courses that are essential to their program (e.g., courses that all learners are required to complete). A follow-up phone call with each liaison explained the review process and shared the rubric that would be used to review each syllabus. In this phone conversation, liaisons also learned about the second component of the review process: the incentives for participating. The incentives were: 1) a summary of the findings for each syllabus, including the assets found and opportunities that might be pursued to enhance the course; and 2) a day of individualized technical assistance to support the program in more explicitly addressing the findings. The overall purpose of the incentives was to increase the intentional emphasis on Vermont frameworks and values in the courses being offered.

Syllabi SecuredLiaisons were asked to provide all syllabus resources electronically, including any information about assignments, rubrics, or other course details. This allowed the review to include both a visual scan of the content and an electronic scan using a key word search approach. Table 1 summarizes the number of syllabi reviewed, by program.

Table 1 Syllabi Reviewed by Program

Program # of Syllabi Reviewed

Champlain College Undergraduate Program 5

1 The research summarized in this document was supported by a contract from the Vermont Agency of Education. Funding was provided through the Vermont Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grant. This summary was prepared by Camille Catlett.

Champlain College Master’s Program 5Community College of Vermont 13Springfield College – St Johnsbury Campus 5Union Institute and University 5University of Vermont – Early Childhood Education

11

University of Vermont – Early Childhood Special Education

3

Higher Education Collaborative 5Goddard College Early Childhood Education Licensure Endorsement Handbook

1

TOTAL 52

Several steps were taken to ensure a fair and equitable review. Here are some examples.

Each course offered through the Community College of Vermont is based on a common title, description, and set of essential indicators. Each instructor then builds a unique syllabus to address those components. It is often the case that multiple sections of the course are offered, each of which may have different readings, activities, and assignments. To incorporate consideration of this variability in the review, multiple syllabi from different instructors were reviewed for each course.

The program at Goddard College supports each student in constructing, in concert with faculty advisors, a program that is unique to their interests and goals. Thus Goddard College does not have traditional course syllabi. To address, the Early Childhood Education Licensure Endorsement Handbook, which includes information about required content, practica, etc. was reviewed.

Table 2 displays the titles of the courses that were submitted by each program.

Table 2 Syllabi Reviewed by Program and TopicID#

Program Course #

Course Title

1.Champlain College – Undergraduate

Program

EDU150 Reading and Language Development2. EDU 160 Math and Science3. EDU 205 Infant/Toddler Seminar and Practicum4. EDU 250 Integrated Preschool Curriculum5. EDU 255 Primary Integrated Curriculum6.

Champlain College –Masters Program

GEE 501 Early Childhood and Play: From Theory to Practice7. GEE 502 Creative Constructive Environments8. GEE 504 Supporting Children and Families9. GEE 505 Supporting Children with Special Needs10. GEE 506 Observation, Description and Documentation of the Young

Child11. Community College

of VermontEDU 1030

Introduction to Early Childhood Education

12. EDU 1030

Introduction to Early Childhood Education

13. EDU 1030

Introduction to Early Childhood Education

14. EDU 2045

Curriculum Development for Early Childhood Education

15. EDU 2045

Curriculum Development for Early Childhood Education

16. EDU 2045

Curriculum Development for Early Childhood Education

17. EDU 1270

Introduction to Early Intervention

18. EDU 1270

Introduction to Early Intervention

19. EDU 1270

Introduction to Early Intervention

20. PSY 2020 Infant and Toddler Development

21. PSY 2020 Infant and Toddler Development

22. PSY 2025 Development of the Young Child

23. PSY 2025 Development of the Young Child

24.

SpringfieldCollege

ECED 2050

Infants and Toddlers: Learning Through Relationships

25. ECED 320

Children with Special Needs

26. ECED 325

Ethical and Professional Standards in Early Childhood Education

27. ECED 340

Diversity & Multicultural Perspectives in Early Childhood Education

28. ECED 420

Basic Management Skills in Early Childhood Education

ID#

Program Course # Course Title

29.

Union Institute & University

ECS 310 Professional Ethics for Early Childhood

30. ECS 320 Exceptional Children

31. ECS 406 Curriculum Development for Early Childhood Education

32. ECS 409 Guiding & Counseling the Child

33. ECS 413 Observation, Assessment, and Evaluation of the Child

34.

University of Vermont

EDEC 63 Child Development

35. EDEC 63 Child Development

36. EDEC 122 Fundamentals of Early Childhood Education

37. EDEC 139 Practicum Syllabus

38. EDEC 156 Teaching Math for Meaning K-3 STEM

39. EDEC 156 M is for Math in STEM: Teaching Math for Meaning in Grades K-3

40. EDEC 179 Teaching and Learning within in the Context of Early Childhood in the Public School

41. EDEC 181 Investigations in K-3 Science and Social Studies

42. EDEC 182 K-3 Literacy: English Language Arts Across Content Areas

43. EDEC 182 K-3 Literacy: English Language Arts Across Content Areas

44. University of Vermont ECSP 202 Introduction to Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education

45. ECSP 210/310

Curriculum in Early Childhood Special Education

46. ECSP 211/311

Assessment in Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education

47.

Higher Education Collaborative

Advanced Child Development

48. Assessment in Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education

49. Curriculum Development in Early Childhood Education

50. Early Language and Literacy Development

51. Investigations in Pre-K to Grade 3 Science and Social Studies

52. Goddard College Early Childhood Education Licensure Endorsement Handbook

Rubric DevelopedThe rubric that was used to review each syllabus looked at eleven dimensions. These dimensions were selected for their strong alignment with both state and national frameworks and standards for early childhood and early childhood special education quality. The first four items are assessments that are increasingly being used in Vermont to learn about program quality. A draft rubric was submitted to the Agency of Education for input and approval prior to implementation. The final rubric appears below as Table 3.

Table 3 Rubric for Assessing Course Syllabi

Review Conducted Paper and electronic copies of 52 syllabi were reviewed. The rubric was used to award points for explicit mention of the eleven indicators. No points were awarded if the indicator was never mentioned, one point was awarded if the indicator was mentioned once times in a syllabus, and two points were awarded if the indicator was mentioned two or more times. The maximum score possible for a syllabus was 22. A rubric that yielded a total numeric score was selected because it will provide a way to measure change, should the syllabi be reviewed again in the future.

An individual summary was created for each syllabus reviewed. The intent of the summary was threefold: 1) to acknowledge assets in the syllabus relative to the dimensions reviewed in the rubric; 2) to identify opportunities to incorporate a stronger emphasis on the dimensions reviewed in the rubric; and 3) to highlight

specific resources that could support the aforementioned opportunities. A sample is provided below in Table 4.Table 4 Sample Syllabus Review Summary Form

Results of Review of Course Syllabi

Table 5 below summarizes the extent to which each indicator was reflected in the 52 syllabi reviewed.

Table 5 Extent to Which Each Indicator Was Reflected in the Syllabi Reviewed

Indicator

Extent to Which Each Indicator Was Reflected in the Syllabi Reviewed2

NoneSome

(mentioned once)

Significantly (mentioned 2 or

more times and in more than one section of the

syllabus)Ages and Stages Questionnaires™ (ASQ-3, ASQ:SE-2)

51 98% 1 2% 0 0

Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) 51 98% 1 2% 0 0Environment Rating Scales (ERS) 49 94% 2 4% 1 2%Teaching Strategies GOLD™ Assessment System 52 100% 0 0 0 0State Early Learning Standards (VELS) 33 64% 8 15% 11 21%Emphasis on families and family engagement 12 23% 9 17% 31 60%Emphasis on trauma-informed services and supports

48 92% 4 8% 0 0

Emphasis on early childhood mental health practice/supports

48 92% 4 8% 0 0

Emphasis on equity and diversity 9 17% 11 21% 32 62%Emphasis on linguistic diversity (e.g., children who are dual language learners)

31 60% 16 30% 5 10%

Emphasis on children with disabilities/inclusion 5 10% 12 23% 35 67%

Overall impressions from the review include the following: The four assessment tools (ASQ, CLASS, ERS, and TS GOLD) were rarely

mentioned in any of the syllabi reviewed. One syllabus explicitly incorporated the ASQ, one incorporated the CLASS, two incorporated one of the Environment Rating Scales, and none incorporated TS GOLD. A number of these tools are somewhat newer and therefore may not yet be familiar to many instructors.

2 The first number in each cell is the number of syllabi that reflected that indicator of the 52 reviewed. The second number in each cell is the percentage of all syllabi reviewed that featured that alignment.

Fewer than half of the syllabi reviewed (36%) explicitly incorporated the VELS in any aspect of the syllabus.

Many syllabi (77%) featured explicit emphasis on families, while few (8%) addressed trauma-informed services and supports or mental health practices and supports.

The majority of syllabi reviewed (90%) had at least one mention of children with disabilities and/or inclusion.

Some emphasis on equity and diversity was fairly consistent (83% of syllabi reviewed); emphasis on children who are dual language learners was lower (40% of syllabi reviewed).

Another way of looking at the findings is where emphasis was found in the syllabi reviewed. The components of a course can be organized by whether they promote knowledge acquisition, knowledge application, or both. The course description, outcomes, and readings are static examples of resources that support knowledge acquisition. Instructional experiences, like watching and discussing a video or participating in an activity, often incorporate both knowledge acquisition and knowledge application. Assignments are the component in which it is most likely that learners will be expected to demonstrate that they can apply what they have learned. Table 6 summarizes where the emphasis was found for each indicator across the 52 syllabi reviewed.

Table 6 Where in the Syllabus Was the Emphasis Found by Indicator?

Indicator

Where in the Syllabus was this Indicator Found3

Course Descripti

on

Outcomes/Competenc

ies

Texts, Readings

, Resource

s

Assignments

Instructional

Experiences

Ages and Stages Questionnaires™ (ASQ-3, ASQ:SE-2)

0 0 0 2% 0

Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) 0 0 0 2% 2%Environment Rating Scales (ERS) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%Teaching Strategies GOLD™ Assessment System 0 0 0 0 0State Early Learning Standards (VELS) 6% 12% 19% 13% 17%Emphasis on families and family engagement 38% 54% 52% 42% 42%Emphasis on trauma-informed services and supports 2% 4% 0 0 2%Emphasis on early childhood mental health practice/supports 0 4% 4% 0 2%Emphasis on equity and diversity 29% 38% 67% 27% 50%Emphasis on linguistic diversity (e.g., children who are DLLs) 6% 6% 35% 4% 8%Emphasis on children with disabilities/inclusion 52% 48% 69% 37% 44%

3 The number in each cell indicates the percentage of syllabi in which the indicate was addressed in that component of the syllabus. For example, 38% of the syllabi reviewed (20 out of 52) explicitly mentioned families or family engagement in the course description.

Looking at the example of equity and diversity, this chart reveals that while 67% of the syllabi reviewed had some emphasis on this content in the readings, only 27%, roughly a fourth of the syllabi, required students to apply that content in the course assignments.

Based on the review of these 52 syllabi, the content addressed in early childhood and early childhood courses reviewed is inconsistently aligned with the state’s tools, quality frameworks, and values.

It is important to be mindful of several variables that may have deflated rubric scores and thus an underestimate of the extent to which there is alignment. First, some syllabi did not include information about student assignments or a course calendar (i.e., the content offered in each session of a course). Because details about course assignments and instructional experiences were not available, the ratings for some courses may underestimate the emphasis on the indicators. Second, the syllabi reviewed may not have been the most current versions available. Faculty members often update syllabi each semester and versions with greater emphasis on the quality frameworks may have evolved during the time in which this assessment was underway. Third, as mentioned above, a number of the tools are new and may not yet be familiar enough to instructors to incorporate in the courses they are teaching. Fourth, instructors often address content that is not listed explicitly on the syllabus.

Addressing the FindingsA summary of the findings (Table 4) for each syllabus reviewed was provided to the program liaison. Individual calls or meetings were held to discuss the findings and begin the conversation about program-specific technical assistance to address the findings. Liaisons then shared the individual reviews with the instructors for those courses.

Some statewide steps were taken to address the findings. These include distributing the sections of the Vermont toolkit and materials from the 2017 Master Classes to all instructors. This step has placed current, free, and evidence-based resources in the hands of each instructor.

Conversations are underway about the specific steps to be taken to support each program. Because the programs are very different, the technical assistance will be, too. For example, one program has already held a webinar for instructors to share resources related to cultural, linguistic, and individual diversity and inclusion. A second webinar will be held in March to discuss how to incorporate new content within an existing course, with emphasis on approaches that support knowledge application.

Another program is using a series of instructor retreats to examine and significantly re-design their program. The January retreat yielded a new design for courses, practica, and student teaching, including a new course on social and emotional development across the birth to Grade 3 continuum that will help future educators to be less challenged by the behavior of children with and without disabilities. The May retreat will examine each course for opportunities to be more

explicit and intentional about how culture, language, ability, and other indicators are featured.

The sequence at other programs is evolving and will be completed by November 30, 2018, at which time a full accounting will be provided.

Recommendations and Future DirectionsFindings from the review suggest several strategies for strengthening the emphasis on and alignment with Vermont’s quality frameworks in early childhood programs in higher education institutions. Specific recommendations are to:1. Emphasize to the programs providing course work and ongoing professional

development of the importance of using Vermont’s quality frameworks to prepare and support future early childhood and early childhood special education professionals. Recognize programs that proactively work to enhance their programs in ways that address the findings of this review.

2. Provide faculty members with information and resources that can assist them in including new frameworks and perspectives in their courses. For example, consider offering a future Master Class that focuses on newer assessments like the Ages and Stages Questionnaires™ (ASQ-3, ASQ:SE-2), the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), the Environment Rating Scales (ERS), and the Teaching Strategies GOLD™ Assessment System. Beyond familiarity with these tools and how they are being used to promote quality in Vermont, instructors will benefit from ideas about how to incorporate these tools in existing courses and how to construct assignments that appropriately build the familiarity of future educators with these tools.

3. Continue to address areas that are not prominently featured in courses as part of the Master Class series. Consider a Master Class that specifically addresses the construction and delivery of a quality syllabus that features alignment between course objectives and assignments and explicitly addresses knowledge application in both assignments and rubrics.

4. Share the results of this review with other agencies and entities that provide professional development. Encourage them to use a tool like the rubric to examine the extent to which they are integrating Vermont’s quality frameworks and addressing core values.

5. Share free resources like the Toolkit sections (http://fpg.unc.edu/presentations/vermont-resource-collections) for addressing the indicators with early childhood colleagues. Take copies of The Right Stuff to meetings and distribute them to encourage colleagues to sign up for free resources that can enhance their work.