Proposed - Central Washington · Web viewUniversity departments are groupings of teaching and research personnel, organized around traditional academic disciplines. As such, departments

Program Review Self Study ContentsYear 2008-2009

Department of Education

I. Introduction to Department/Program(s)

A Department/unit mission statement

Faculty and staff are committed to ensuring graduates are prepared to be outstanding educational leaders and facilitators of learning who demonstrate the knowledge and skill necessary to educate and work within a diverse school population.

B Brief description of department and program contexts including date of last review

The faculty are organized into programs, which represent traditional areas of expertise within the field of education. Generally, most of a faculty member’s teaching load will be conducted in one program. Program faculty are responsible for the programs which are offered by those faculty.

Programs representing significant and coherent courses of study are established by the faculty to assist in the management of the Department’s teaching activities.

This is the first five-year self-study conducted by the Department of Education.

C Describe departmental governance system and provide organizational chart for department.

Page 14/4/08

ProgramsBilingual/TESL/Linguistic DiversityEarly Childhood EducationElementary EducationLibrary MediaMaster TeacherMiddle-Level (education course component)Curriculum and InstructionReadingSchool Administration/Instructional LeadershipSpecial EducationField Supervision

AdministrationUniversity departments are groupings of teaching and research personnel, organized around traditional academic disciplines. As such, departments have as their primary responsibilities the instruction of students and the development and supervision of programs to facilitate and to improve instruction. Research and/or creative work by faculty members is also a matter of importance to the departments as is service to the University, community, and the state. Each department has its own budget, used in support of such items as travel, supplies, student help, telephone, and equipment.

The Department of Education functions under a system of shared decision-making and strong executive leadership. The establishment of basic policy is the responsibility of the faculty as provided under the University’s Faculty Code and is developed through a system of interrelated committees established by the Department. All policies are subject to the continued review by the faculty at regularly scheduled and/or special meetings of the Department. Scheduled department meetings typically occur once a month on a schedule provided by the chair.

Department chair.The University administration expects department chairs to be leaders in developing strong teaching, research, public service, and academic programs within their departments. They are responsible to the department for staff selection, retention, tenure, and promotion of department personnel and the preparation and administration of departmental budgets. They are subject to the University Faculty Code and policies and procedures established by the faculty of the department. They are also subject to the authority of their dean. The chair of the department is the executive head of the faculty and is expected to keep the faculty regularly informed with respect to personnel, budget, staffing and related program matters through regular faculty meetings and other means as appropriate.

Department assistant chair.The Assistant Department Chair is appointed by the Chair, and performs duties as assigned by the Chair.

ProgramsThe faculty are organized into programs, which represent traditional areas of expertise within the field of education. Generally, most of a faculty member’s teaching load will be conducted in one program. Program faculty are responsible for the programs which are offered by those faculty.

Programs representing significant and coherent courses of study are established by the faculty to assist in the management of the Department’s teaching activities.

Program coordinators.Program coordinators are elected annually in the spring by the active faculties of the designated programs, and provide leadership for their programs. The Department Chair and program faculty should look to their program coordinators for guidance, counsel, and leadership in matters related to their program.

Specific responsibilities may be assigned to program coordinators by the department chair and may include, but are not restricted to the following:

1. Coordinate curriculum and program development in the program and with other programs.

Page 24/4/08

2. Develop annual class schedules including summer programs, and cooperate in the hiring of faculty. 3. Disseminate information about the program.4. Assist in student advisement.5. Plan and coordinate special efforts and activities related to the particular interests of the program.

Center coordinators.Center Coordinators are not officially assigned by the Department of Education, rather the College of Education and Professional Studies. Yet, they coordinate with the Department Chair and Program Coordinators to ensure that programs being offered at university centers function as part of the Department of Education. The assist coordinators in staffing program courses and recruiting students to the centers.

D Department/Programs

1. List department/program goals

See Table 1: CWU Department/Program Assessment Plan Preparation

2. Describe the relationship of each department/program(s) goal to relevant college and University strategic goals. Explain how each relevant strategic goal(s) for the University and college are being met within the department.


3. Identify what data was used to measure (assess) goal attainment


4. Describe the criterion of achievement (standard of mastery) for each goal.


5. Describe the major activities that enabled goal attainment.

Goal 1: All students who are preparing to become teachers must take certificate specific and endorsement specific courses. Each of these courses is standards-based, meaning that university state and professional standards are embedded in the content and assessment. All students are required to demonstrate their ability to develop lesson plans in EDCS 311. Consequently, this is the course that we use to evaluate students meeting this goal.

Goal 2: All future teachers need to successfully complete the field placement portion of their training. An evaluation form is used to document their success. This is the data used for Goal 2.Goals 3 & 4: Each faculty member submits a report of their previous year’s activities in an “Activity Report.” These reports have only been in service for two years. Previously the data required to document faculty meeting Goals 3 & 4 were gathered through reviews or not at all.

Page 34/4/08

Department of Education Organization ChartCollege Dean

Administrative Staff

Department Chair

Department Assistant Chair

Bilingual Education/

TESL Program Coordinator

Curriculum & Instruction Program

Coordinator

Early Childhood Education Program

Coordinator

Education Administration

Program Coordinator

Elementary Education Program

Coordinator

Field Placement Program

Coordinator

Library Media Program

Coordinator

Reading Program

Coordinator

Special Education Program

Coordinator

Program Faculty

Program Faculty

Program Faculty

Program Faculty Program Faculty

Program Faculty Program Faculty

Program Faculty

Program Faculty

Department of Education Center Organization ChartDepartment Chair

Program Coordinator for Center Program(s) Center CoordinatorCenter Faculty

Page 44/4/08

Table 1 CWU Department/Program Assessment Plan Preparation Form

Department: ___EDUCATION______________Program: ___________All Programs__________________

Department/Program Goals Related College Goals

Related University

Goals

Method(s) of Assessment (What is the assessment?)

Who/What Assessed (population, item)

When Assessed (term, dates)

Criterion of Achievement (Expectation of how good

things should be?)1. Graduates will be prepared to be outstanding educational leaders and facilitators of learning

Goals 1 “outstanding academic and professional growth experience” & 2 “participate in an increasingly diverse and environment”

Goals I & II: “outstanding academic life”

Students will be evaluated by professors and instructors using program approved electronic rubrics.

All students will prepare formal lesson plans.

Fall, Winter, Spring terms

All student learning outcomes that use direct measures meet established criterion levels

2. Graduates will demonstrate the knowledge and skill necessary to educate and work within a diverse school population.

Goals 1 “outstanding academic and professional growth experience” & 2 “participate in an increasingly diverse and environment”

Goals I & II: “…outstanding academic life…”

Goal VI: “Build inclusive and diverse campus communities that promote intellectual inquiry and encourage civility, mutual respect, and cooperation.”

Students will be evaluated by trained observers using the Department of Education “Student Teacher Final Evaluation.”

All students will be assessed during student teaching.

Fall, Winter, Spring terms.

At least 90% of all completing students will earn a rating “3” or above in all learner outcome areas students will pass all sections of the Student Teacher Final Evaluation.

Page 54/4/08

3. Faculty members will demonstrate professional development.

Goal 3 “Recruit and retain a diverse and highly qualified faculty”

Goal V: “Achieve regional and national prominence for the university.”

Faculty participation in local, state, regional, national and international professional conferences and/or publication of original works as determined by annual Activities Report.

Faculty participation in conferences; faculty publication records.

Fall (deadline for Activities Report)

At least 85% of Tenure/Tenure Track faculty will present at a conference or have at least one publication each year. At least 50% of Non-Tenure Track Full Time faculty will present at a conference each year.

4. Faculty members will demonstrate service.

Goal 4 “Build mutually beneficial partnerships”

Goal IV: Build mutually beneficial partnerships with the public sector, industry, professional groups, institutions, and the communities surrounding our campuses.

Faculty participation in university, community and/or professional organizations as determined by annual Activities Report.

Tenure/Tenure Track faculty and their service.

Fall (deadline for Activities Report)

100% of Tenure/tenure Track faculty will document service in university, community, and/or professional organizations.

Page 64/4/08

E List results for each department/program goal.

1. Provide results in specific quantitative or qualitative terms for each department/program(s).

The Department of Education’s goals are recent. They were developed during the Fall Quarter of the 2007-08 academic year. Consequently, the analysis of Due to the nature of the data collected for the NCATE accreditation review, certain of the department goals can be analyzed.

Goal 1: Graduates will be prepared to be outstanding educational leaders and facilitators of learning.

This department goal was measured using approved electronic portfolio scoring rubrics. The rubrics were aligned to the standards developed by professional organizations and state legislation. These rubrics assessed lessons plans developed by teacher candidates. The lesson plans were developed as a requirement for both their teacher certification and their endorsements. Although different assessment tools were used by the various programs, the scale on all of them was the same and they could be aggregated into the general terms of "meeting or exceeding standards" and "not meeting standards."

Table 2

Lesson Plan Achievement

Lesson Plan Development

Meets or Exceeds Standards

Does Not Meet Standards Total

Completed 2215 110 2325

Percentage 95.3% 4.7% 100%

Chart 1

Successful Lesson Plan Development

95.27%

4.73%

Lesson Plan Development

Meets or Exceeds StandardsDoes not Meet Standards

Page 74/4/08

As can be seen in Table 2, over 95% of the teacher candidates successfully complete the lesson plan development requirement.

Goal 2: Graduates will demonstrate the knowledge and skill necessary to educate and work within a diverse school population.

This goal was measured through the use of an approved evaluation rubric used during the Student Teaching portion of the teacher candidates’ program. Each Teacher Candidate is placed in a setting recognized as being diverse by State of Washington definitions. During the 10 week time each teacher candidates must successfully demonstrate their ability to teach students within their specific area.

Table 3

Student Teaching Completion

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 TotalEnrolled 532 522 501 414 516 2485Withdrew 3 5 3 16 15 42Average Completors 99% 99% 99% 96% 97% 98%

Chart 2

Student Teaching Completion Trends

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

532 522 501

414

516

3 5 3 16 15

Enrolled Withdrew

Goal 3: Faculty members will demonstrate professional development.

This goes established based on the concept of everyone being involved in Life Long Learning. Consequently, it is expected that all faculty members will be actively engaged in furthering the professional development. This can be accomplished through a variety of avenues, including the development and publication/presentation of research (see faculty vita).

Table 9a and Table 9b document the publication and presentation portions of the professional development goals.

Page 84/4/08

Goal 4: Faculty members will demonstrate service.

The Department of Education firmly believes in the importance of professional and community service. Service can take place at multiple levels including serving on university/college/department committees, taking leadership roles in local/state/national/international organizations, advising and student organizations, and/or participating with local community and/or school groups. Table 9a documents this service.

Goal 5: Accreditation and Certification

An additional goal that was not presented above was for the successful completion of a National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) accreditation visit, as well as recertification by the State of Washington Professional Education Standards Board (PESB). In May of 2007 a review team from NCATE and PESB conducted the on-site visit. On October 31, 2007 NCATE announced that the education programs at Central Washington University have been awarded "accreditation with conditions." The follow-up visit will be conducted during the fall quarter of 2009 focusing on concerns located in programs outside the programs being considered for the self-study. (See Appendices A and B)

2 Compare results to standards of mastery listed above.


See Table 2 above.


See Table 3 and Chart 2 above.


See Table 9a and Table 9b.


See Table 9a.

3 Provide documentation of continuing program(s) need including reference to the statewide & regional needs assessment


As can be seen in Table 2, over 95% of the teacher candidates successfully complete the lesson plan development requirement. This is a strong indication that the programs located in the Department of Education are meeting the required standards.


The goal was for a 90% successful completion rate. This can be seen in Table 3, the lowest completion rate of any single year was 96%. The average completion rate was 98%. This demonstrates that the

Page 94/4/08

Department of Education was successful in meeting their goal in regards to preparing teacher candidates.


The goal for tenure-track faculty was that 85% of them would present at a state or national conference or publish in a refereed source. All the data submitted in Table 9a does not provide the detail needed to accurately document the results for Goal 3, the combined efforts are encouraging. The percentage of faculty members presenting at conferences ranged from a low of 57% to a high of 75%. In addition to this, 25% or more of faculty members are published each year. Combining these two areas would indicate that the department as ordinary as reached its goal.


Goal four of the Department of Education is that all tenure-track faculty members will provide service to the university, communities, and/or professional organizations. As can be seen in Table 9a, the Department of Education has met that goal.

F Based on the results for each department/program(s) listed above describe:

1. Specific changes to your department as they affect program(s) (e.g., curriculum, teaching methods).

2. Specific changes related to the assessment process.

Specific changes to programs within the Department Of Education have been impacted the most by accreditation and recertification procedures. The Department of Education, as well as the other programs coordinated by the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) reevaluated how students progress through the programs were assessed and how the data were used for program change and improvement. A new system of electronic data collection was implemented based on the professional and state standards. Program faculty members meet on a regular basis to review the data collected through this new system, with curriculum changes being made as needed.

3. Provide documentation of continuing program(s) need including reference to the statewide & regional needs assessment

The State of Washington’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction conducts biennial surveys to document the needs for teachers in the different endorsement areas. Table 4 documents the needs obtained in the 2006 survey. It contains endorsement there is serviced by the Department of Education. It should be noted that two of the endorsement areas, Middle Level - Humanities and Middle Level - Math/Science, are officially housed in other departments, but a significant portion of their course work is provided by the Department of Education.

As can be seen in Table 4, the six of the ten endorsement areas provided by the Department of Education are documented as being "Considerable Shortage" or "Some Shortage." Three of the remaining four are documented as "Balance." Elementary Education is the one endorsement area that is considered "Some Surplus."

Table 4: Perceived Shortage Areas by Educational Service DistrictTeaching Endorsements ESD 101 105 112 113 114 121 123 171 189 Statewide

Page 104/4/08

Bilingual Education 4 4.86 3.2 4.1 3.25 4 4.71 4 3.7 4.03Early Childhood Education 3.14 3.4 3.2 3.5 2.5 3 3 2.71 3.17 3.21Early Childhood Special Ed. 4.11 4.71 3.8 4 3.67 4.17 4.5 3.67 4.22 4.11Elementary Education 2.57 2.5 2.29 2.38 1.9 2.14 2.64 2.54 2 2.37English as a Second Language 3.57 4.27 3.86 4.07 3.75 4 4.4 3.8 3.93 4.02Library Media 3.62 3.5 3.45 3.07 3.6 3.87 3.33 3.17 3.36 3.47Middle Level–Humanities 3 3.6 2.75 3 3.13 2.92 3.67 3.2 3.18 3.08Middle Level–Math/Science 3.62 4.31 3.69 4.33 3.8 4.5 4.67 4 4.4 4.19Reading 3.23 3.17 3.25 2.93 3.17 3.6 3.67 3.29 3.5 3.3Special Education 4.12 4.77 4.27 4.59 4.64 4.7 4.5 4.18 4.6 4.52

5.00-4.21 = Considerable Shortage; 4.20-3.41 = Some Shortage; 3.40-2.61 = Balance; 2.60-1.81 = Some Surplus; 1.80-1.00 = Considerable Surplus (ESD 101 Spokane, ESD 105 Yakima, ESD 112 Vancouver, ESD 113 Olympia, ESD 114 Bremerton, ESD 121 Renton, ESD 123 Pasco, ESD 171 Wenatchee, ESD 189 Anacortes)From Educator Supply and Demand in Washington State: 2006 Report Tables 5 & 13 http://www.k12.wa.us/certification/pubdocs/SupplyDemand2006.pdf

Table 4 documents how the needs are different and distinct parts of the state. The three shaded ESDs are those most directly served by Central Washington University. While there are areas of variance between the three districts, certain trends are consistent. Special Education, Bilingual Education, Middle Level - Math/Science, Early Childhood Special Education, and English as a Second Language endorsement areas are high demand areas. Elementary Education, on the other hand, has the lowest need.

The Department of Education has begun conversations as to how we can better facilitate teacher candidates moving from Elementary Education into one of the high need areas.

Page 114/4/08

II. Description of degree programs and curricula

A. List each degree program (undergraduate and graduate) offered in department by location, regardless of state or self support. Include minor and undergraduate certificate program(s). (See Table 5)

Table 4

Degree Program and Professional Standards

Degree Program Organization Supplying Standards

Early Childhood Education Washington State Endorsement Competencies

National Association for the Education of Young Children

Elementary Education Washington State Endorsement Competencies

Special Education Washington State Endorsement Competencies

Bilingual Education Washington State Endorsement Competencies

National Association for Bilingual Education

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

Reading Washington State Endorsement Competencies

International Reading Association

Teaching ESL Washington State Endorsement Competencies

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

Master Teacher

Library Media Endorsement Washington State Library Media Competencies

B. Provide a table that lists courses, location, and faculty and student number for the following:

1. General Education contributions (see Table 5)

The Department of Education does not offer coursework as part of the General Education program.

Page 124/4/08

Table 5(Section II, A.)Programs Offered in Department

Degree Program Delivery Location(s) Instructional Staff # Students in Major # Degrees AwardedFaculty

FTEGrad

Assist.FTE

Yr1

Yr2

Yr3

Yr4

Yr5

Yr1

Yr2

Yr3

Yr4

Yr5

Elementary Education Ellensburg, Des Moines, Lynnwood, Yakima, Pierce County, Wenatchee

N/A N/A 673 688 694 755 757 333

288 290

270 349

Early Childhood Education

Ellensburg, Des Moines

N/A N/A 154 148 166 159 132 72 60 63 90 53

Special Education Ellensburg N/A N/A 42 73 74 72 68 19 23 27 27 20* Professional Education Ellensburg, Des

Moines, Green River, Lynnwood, Yakima, Pierce County, Wenatchee

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A 559

527 466

482

Minor Programs Delivery Location(s) Instructional Staff # Students in Minor #Minors CompletedFaculty

FTEGrad AssistFTE

Yr1

Yr2

Yr3

Yr4

Yr5

Yr1

Yr2

Yr3

Yr4

Yr5

Bilingual Education/TESL

Ellensburg, Yakima, Lynnwood

N/A N/A 90 91 109 148 164 51 29 36 50 91


Ellensburg N/A N/A 149 158 110 100 95 65 79 64 27 40

Reading Ellensburg, Pierce, Wenatchee

N/A N/A 103 127 136 116 149 52 41 78 38 71

Special Education Ellensburg, Wenatchee N/A N/A 35 41 34 55 50 16 20 12 11 27

Page 134/4/08

Graduate and/or Certificate Programs

Delivery Location(s) Instructional Staff # Students in Program # Cert. Completed

Faculty FTE

Grad AssistFTE

Yr1

Yr2

Yr3

Yr4

Yr5

Yr1

Yr2

Yr3

Yr4

Yr5

Master Teacher Ellensburg, Des Moines, Yakima, Wenatchee

N/A N/A 77 69 62 54 56 40 38 31 23 31

Reading Ellensburg, Yakima N/A N/A 19 17 16 9 3 9 7 12 9 1Special Education Ellensburg, Lynnwood N/A N/A 11 5 2 3 2 7 5 3 1 1

Page 144/4/08

2. Professional Educators contributions (See Table 6)

a. courses deliveredb. locationc. instructional staff (information related to instruction staff was not available at the time the report was completed.)d. number of students (breakout of students by center was not available)

Table 6 (Section II, B.)Courses, Contributions, Locations

Contributing area

Delivery Location

Instructional Staff # Students

Professional Education Courses

Location(s) Faculty FTE

Grad FTE Yr 1

Yr 2

Yr 3

Yr 4

Yr 5

Elementary Education

n/a n/a

EDEL 423 Ellensburg, Des Moines, Lynnwood, Pierce, Yakima

288

335 339 373

360

EDEL 420 Ellensburg, Des Moines, Lynnwood, Pierce, Wenatchee, Yakima

345

377 329 341

339

EDRD 308 Ellensburg, Des Moines, Lynnwood, Pierce, Wenatchee, Yakima

368

365 368 441

323


339

339 299 397

323


87 49 141 171

186

EDRD 421 Ellensburg, 72 59 21 63 115

Page 154/4/08

Contributing area

Delivery Location


Des Moines, Lynnwood, Pierce, Wenatchee, Yakima


n/a n/a

EDEC 492 Ellensburg,Des Moines

49 80 49 75 59


28 48 36 65 53


132

89 110 83 76


69 68 86 80 75


30 22 13 14 12


25 49 44 40 52


102

99 98 59 69


1 0 2 4 3


182

155 153 124

126


36 40 45 86 10


0 16 15 35 15

Special Education n/a n/aEDSE 310 Ellensburg,

Lynnwood, Wenatchee

89 99 59 105

63

EDSE 311 Ellensburg, Lynnwood, Wenatchee

63 55 46 80 47

EDSE410 Ellensburg, Lynnwood, Wenatchee

57 63 43 77 51


56 60 45 62 52

EDSE 422 Ellensburg, Lynnwood,

53 58 42 56 40

Page 164/4/08

Contributing area

Delivery Location


WenatcheeEDSE 426 Ellensburg,

Lynnwood, Wenatchee

0 19 37 28 45


52 57 42 51 37

ESDE 432 Ellensburg, Lynnwood, Wenatchee

50 59 38 57 39


12 49 43 55 43


58 48 46 43 52


42 47 29 21 44


37 24 98 25 25

Reading n/a n/aEDRD 410 Ellensburg,

Lynnwood, Pierce

59 80 53 84 73

EDRD 411 Ellensburg, Lynnwood, Pierce

73 105 69 84 75


55 55 74 51 77


58 50 83 48 70

EDRD 414 Ellensburg 15 7 15 21 0EDRD 415 Ellensburg 11 0 0 0 0EDRD 417 Ellensburg,

Pierce12 49 17 43 49

EDRD 419 Ellensburg 36 35 34 30 19EDRD 421 Ellensburg,

Lynnwood, Pierce

81 59 169 63 117

EDRD 493 Ellensburg, 53 48 75 45 69

Page 174/4/08

Contributing area

Delivery Location


Lynnwood, Pierce

Bilingual Education/

Teaching ESL

n/a n/a

EDBL 312 Ellensburg, Lynnwood, Yakima, Continuing Ed

68 52 56 75 57


82 105 54 79 89


22 58 97 47


85 70 46 69 67


7 10 22 27 25


57 111 76 104

76


113

27 80 73 85


109

138 111 91 82


163

93 80 71 86

Professional Education Program

n/a n/a

EDCS 300 Ellensburg, 55 467 481 44 464Page 184/4/08

Contributing area

Delivery Location


Des Moines, Lynnwood, Moses Lake, Pierce, Wenatchee, Yakima

5 4

EDCS 301 Ellensburg, Des Moines, Lynnwood, Moses Lake, Pierce, Wenatchee, Yakima

522

522 520 386

264

EDCS 301 a Ellensburg, Des Moines, Lynnwood, Moses Lake, Pierce, Wenatchee, Yakima

23 158 160 286

205


226

217 389 546

470

EDF 302 Ellensburg, Des Moines, Lynnwood, Moses Lake, Pierce, Wenatchee, Yakima

599

611 597 606

458


226

217 389 546

470

EDCS 444 Ellensburg, Des Moines, Lynnwood, Pierce,

551

569 581 520

500

Page 194/4/08

Contributing area

Delivery Location


Wenatchee, Yakima

EDCS 316 Ellensburg, Des Moines, Lynnwood, Pierce, Wenatchee, Yakima

558

520 511 574

457


551

547 518 588

499


287

280 247 269

260


581

517 485 455

516

C. Required measures of efficiency for each department for the last five years

1. SFR (FTES/FTEF) disaggregate data (See Table 7)

2. Average class size; disaggregate upper and lower division and graduate courses

Average class sizes were not available.

Page 204/4/08

Table 7 (Section II, C.)Department FTES

All Locations

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Total Lower Division 4.8 7.6 5.2 7.4 7.3Upper Division 760.5 770.6 764.0 790.3 730.7Undergraduate Subtotal 765.3 778.2 769.2 797.7 738.0Graduate 116.4 83.6 79.8 64.1 60.1Grand Total 881.7 861.8 848.9 861.9 798.1

Administration Graduate 41.6 23.9 26.9 27.2 25.8Bilingual Upper Division 24.9 26.9 30.2 36.9 33.3

Graduate 9.4 10.7 10.4 0.9 0.3Total 34.3 37.5 40.6 37.8 33.6

Curriculum & Supervision Upper Division 383.5 368.9 372.3 378.6 375.0Graduate 19.4 16.5 12.6 11.2 13.0Total 402.9 385.4 384.9 389.8 388.0

Early Childhood Lower Division 4.8 7.0 4.4 7.2 6.4Upper Division 77.0 69.2 71.4 67.1 59.9Total 81.8 76.2 75.8 74.3 66.3

Elementary Lower Division 0.5Upper Division 34.6 41.4 39.8 41.4 41.2Undergraduate Subtotal 34.6 41.4 39.8 41.4 41.8Graduate 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1Total 34.6 41.7 40.4 41.5 41.9

Foundations Lower Division 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.3Upper Division 82.8 87.8 86.6 83.3 59.0Undergraduate Subtotal 82.8 88.4 87.3 83.5 59.3Graduate 30.1 23.1 17.0 18.3 16.5Total 112.9 111.6 104.3 101.9 75.8

Reading Upper Division 108.9 123.8 117.6 132.4 117.3Graduate 6.8 3.2 4.9 1.6 1.1Total 115.8 127.1 122.5 134.0 118.4

Page 214/4/08

All Locations

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Special Education Upper Division 48.8 52.6 46.0 50.7 45.0

Graduate 9.1 5.8 7.4 4.8 3.3

Total 57.9 58.4 53.4 55.5 48.2

Table 7a (Section II, C.)Department FTES by Location

Ellensburg

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Total Lower Division 4.8 7.6 5.2 7.4 7.3Upper Division 579.5 562.9 542.4 560.9 375.9Undergraduate Subtotal 584.3 570.5 547.6 568.4 383.2Graduate 54.8 38.8 41.0 24.7 23.4Total 639.1 609.3 588.6 593.1 406.6

Administration Graduate 25.5 15.2 15.5 12.8 14.3Bilingual Upper Division 20.2 18.7 21.1 24.4 22.6

Graduate 4.3 4.2 5.0 0.8 0.2Total 24.5 22.8 26.1 25.2 22.8


Early Childhood Lower Division 4.8 7.0 4.4 7.2 6.4Upper Division 32.3 27.0 28.2 28.3 29.3Total 37.1 34.0 32.6 35.6 35.7

Elementary Lower Division 0.5Upper Division 25.5 28.8 30.2 30.3 27.4Undergraduate Subtotal 25.5 28.8 30.2 30.3 28.0Graduate 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1Total 25.5 29.1 30.7 30.4 28.1

Page 224/4/08

Ellensburg

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Foundations Lower Division 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.3Upper Division 60.4 64.7 66.8 61.2 40.4Undergraduate Subtotal 60.4 65.3 67.5 61.4 40.7Graduate 9.9 8.6 8.6 3.8 2.6Total 70.4 74.0 76.1 65.2 43.3


Special Education Upper Division 48.8 42.8 40.3 38.7 42.9

Graduate 6.3 4.0 5.6 2.7 2.7

Total 55.2 46.8 45.9 41.4 45.6

Des Moines

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Total Upper Division 106.9 110.2 121.1 118.3 123.9Graduate 27.7 21.2 21.8 28.5 24.3Total 134.6 131.5 142.9 146.8 148.2

Administration Graduate 16.1 8.7 11.4 14.4 11.5Bilingual Graduate 0.1 0.1Curriculum & Supervision Upper Division 43.5 41.3 47.8 48.9 64.8

Graduate 3.2 3.0 5.4 4.7 4.2Total 46.6 44.3 53.2 53.6 69.1

Early Childhood Upper Division 37.5 37.0 38.1 38.7 30.6Elementary Upper Division 5.6 7.2 7.7 7.1 6.8Foundations Upper Division 10.8 10.8 12.3 9.5 8.2

Graduate 6.6 7.8 3.2 7.1 7.8Total 17.4 18.5 15.5 16.6 16.0

Reading Upper Division 9.5 14.0 15.2 14.0 13.5Graduate 0.1Total 9.5 14.0 15.2 14.1 13.5

Special Education Graduate 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.1 0.6

Page 234/4/08

Lynnwood

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Total Upper Division 8.1 29.3 32.2 28.5 47.6Graduate 0.4Total 8.1 29.3 32.7 28.5 47.6

Bilingual Upper Division 6.2 3.2 6.2 2.2Curriculum & Supervision Upper Division 5.5 9.0 21.4 15.2 40.5

Graduate 0.1Total 5.5 9.0 21.4 15.2 40.5

Elementary Upper Division 1.5 1.3Foundations Upper Division 2.6 3.2 2.0 2.0 2.5

Graduate 0.3Total 2.6 3.2 2.3 2.0 2.5

Reading Upper Division 1.2 3.6 1.1Graduate 0.1Total 1.2 0.1 3.6 1.1

Special Education Upper Division 9.8 5.7

Moses Lake

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Total Upper Division 0.7 1.7 1.8 1.1Graduate 3.4 3.1 1.3 2.8 2.9Total 3.4 3.9 3.0 4.6 4.0

Curriculum & Supervision Upper Division 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.7Graduate 1.2 2.5 0.6 0.5 2.0Total 1.2 3.0 1.4 1.5 2.7

Foundations Upper Division 0.3 0.9 0.8 0.4

Graduate 2.2 0.6 0.7 2.3 0.9

Total 2.2 0.9 1.6 3.1 1.3

Page 244/4/08

Pierce County

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Total Upper Division 16.7 66.4Curriculum & Supervision Upper Division 6.7 45.2Elementary Upper Division 1.5 2.1Foundations Upper Division 0.5 2.6Reading Upper Division 8.1 16.6

Wenatchee

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08


Bilingual Upper Division 3.0 0.6Graduate 1.7Total 3.0 2.3


Early Childhood Upper Division 1.7 0.1Elementary Upper Division 1.7 1.7Foundations Upper Division 4.2 4.9 4.2 4.8 1.8

Graduate 5.6 1.5 1.9 1.6 1.6Total 9.8 6.4 6.1 6.4 3.4

Reading Upper Division 9.4 6.2 4.6 3.8Special Education Upper Division 12.0 2.0

Graduate 0.1

Total 0.1 12.0 2.0

Page 254/4/08

Yakima

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08


Bilingual Upper Division 1.7 2.0 5.3 6.3 8.6Graduate 5.1 6.5 3.7Total 6.8 8.5 9.0 6.3 8.6


Early Childhood Upper Division 5.5 5.2 5.0Elementary Upper Division 3.5 3.7 1.9 1.0 1.9Foundations Upper Division 4.8 4.0 0.4 4.5 3.2

Graduate 5.8 4.6 2.3 3.5 3.6Total 10.6 8.6 2.7 8.0 6.8


Special Education Graduate 0.7

D. Describe currency of curricula in discipline. How does the curriculum compare to recognized standards promulgated by professionals in the discipline (e.g., state, national, and professional association standards)?

All programs within the Department of Education are based on the standards provided by professional organizations. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education standards are used as the basis for the Professional Education Program. The State of Washington has developed a set of criteria that must be met by all teachers in order for them to receive their certificates and endorsements. This criterion is aligned with the standards set by national professional organizations.

Each program reviews their curriculum on a regular basis. Changes to program and course content are based on assisting the students meet the standard set by the state and by the professional organizations.

E. Effectiveness of instruction - Describe how the department addresses the scholarship of teaching with specific supporting documentation including each of the following:

Page 264/4/08

1. Departmental teaching effectiveness. Report a five-year history of the “teaching effectiveness” department means as reported on SEOIs, indexed to the university mean on a quarter-by-quarter basis.

See Table 8

2. What evidence other than Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) is gathered and used in the department to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction?

The Department of Education does not have at this time a systematic process for gathering evidence of teaching effectiveness. Many of the department members participate in peer observation protocols that allow other faculty members to provide input and guidance in bettering instructional practices.

3. Effectiveness of instructional methods to produce student learning based upon programmatic goals including innovative and traditional methods.

The Department of Education recognizes the need for a philosophical underpinning to the university’s broad efforts in the preparation of teachers and other school personnel. This is identified as “constructivism” in the Conceptual Framework for the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL).

Social constructivism views all learning as taking place within a social sphere. The language and culture of a person provides access to the knowledge base by establishing a framework for shared understanding. This framework allows humans to overcome the natural limitations they have. Vygotsky (1978) demonstrated the social construction of shared knowledge with the following quote: “I do not see the world simply in color and shape but also as a world with sense and meaning. I do not merely see something round and black with two hands; I see a clock and I can distinguish one hand from the other. (p. 33)

Consequently, learning occurs through social interaction. Vygotsky (1978) stated: Every function in the child's cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level and, later on, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals. (p. 57)

Education in general, and schooling, in particular, needs to be organized around the concept of students acting as cultural agents. Consequently, instead of providing decontextualized, rote knowledge through a transmission model, schools should create environments that assist students in co-constructing their own knowledge. Key to this approach include the processes of problem-posing and sense-making. When students can collaborate in exploring issues related to their cultural contexts, they become aware of what is needed and appropriate (Wink & Putney, 2002 pp. 60-84).

One result of faculty adhering to this philosophy is that teacher candidates are engaged in interactive classroom environments. The form of interaction that takes place varies according to content area and the specific course outcomes. The following are representative samples of what occurs.

Page 274/4/08

Table 8 (Section II.E.1)Five-Year SEOI Comparison

28: Course as a whole was:

1039 1041 1043 1046 1049 1051 1053

1056

1059 1061 1063 1066

1069 1071 1073 1076 1079 1081 1083 1086

Total

Department 4.44

4.42

4.34

4.39

4.21

4.22

4.20

4.17

4.22

4.18

4.18

4.32

4.27

4.40

4.36

4.24

4.29

College 4.39

4.37

4.40

4.49

4.34

4.28

4.28

4.27

4.36

4.31

4.26

4.38

4.40

4.38

4.33

4.29

4.35

University 4.24

4.25

4.29

4.38

4.21

4.24

4.20

4.22

4.26

4.20

4.23

4.24

4.36

4.19

4.23

4.26

4.25

29: Instructors teaching effectiveness was:

1039 1041 1043 1046 1049 1051 1053

1056

1059 1061 1063 1066

1069 1071 1073 1076 1079 1081 1083 1086

Total

Department 4.49

4.45

4.40

4.45

4.23

4.33

4.31

4.30

4.33

4.28

4.29

4.42

4.28

4.52

4.45

4.33

4.37

College 4.48

4.44

4.47

4.54

4.39

4.38

4.38

4.36

4.42

4.40

4.35

4.47

4.48

4.47

4.42

4.39

4.43

University 4.36

4.33

4.38

4.44

4.30

4.33

4.31

4.31

4.35

4.30

4.33

4.34

4.43

4.30

4.33

4.35

4.34

Page 284/4/08

1. Inquiry-based learning experiences: in a class focused on multicultural education the teacher candidates are required to interact with district personnel in exploring the multiple cultural entities being serviced by their district.

2. Collaborative research: as part of an introduction to special needs, teacher candidates are required to choose a specific needs category, conduct research on identifying and servicing students with such needs, and developing a poster session presentation which is then delivered to others in the class as well as all who pass by at that time.

3. Practicum/Service Learning: all teacher candidates pursuing a degree in Elementary Education and/or the minor in Reading are required to complete a course on the basics of instruction. One of the requirements for this course is that the teacher candidates work with elementary students. The teacher candidates identify and instruct to the specific needs of the students.

4. Discovery learning experiences: in a class focused on elementary math methodologies, teacher candidates explore different approaches to solving mathematical problems. This is done through a "hands-on" approach for the candidates use manipulatives. The candidates also taught multicultural approaches to mathematical issues and then use such approaches in the classroom.

5. Guided discussions: in an introductory course for working with English Language Learners, teacher candidates are engaged in guided discussions. The discussions are often preceded with activities such as "role-playing." One example is when the candidates are divided into four distinct groups, each representing an identified perspective on the failure of minorities in education. These groups then are involved in the debate over what the district should do to assist English Language Learners. After the role-play is over, the candidates are then involved in a guided discussion as to what each of the perspectives represent and how it impacts on education of English Language Learners in today's schools.

6. Practicums: all teacher candidates at Central Washington University have at least one practicum before entering the student teaching stage. All teacher candidates seeking degrees through the Department of Education have at least two practicums. These practicums allow the candidates the opportunity to practice using the methods and techniques they been taught in an authentic setting.

F. Degree to which distance education technology is used for instruction.

1. ITV

The Department of Education at Central Washington University has a strong presence at the different University centers located throughout the state of Washington. The department has function under the belief that whenever possible, courses should be delivered by full-time faculty. This is done in order to maintain the integrity of the program curriculum and to assure adherence to the assessment procedures that have been developed.

The majority of the time courses are delivered by faculty members who have made the trip to the centers or are actually located at those centers. Nevertheless, regularly there are occasions when distance education technology is needed. The one that is most commonly used is the interactive television (ITV). ITV is most commonly used for courses at the graduate level or small numbers of students are located at different centers. This system is used on average for one or two classes each quarter. In addition, during the winter quarter, when travel conditions can be dangerous, ITV is used with the Professional Core Sequence program located at the Wenatchee and Moses Lake centers to limit the amount of travel required by the students.

Page 294/4/08

2. Online

The use of online resources vary significantly between professors. Central Washington University is connected through Blackboard services. Approximately one quarter of the professors in the Department of Education use Blackboard for services such as "dropbox" and record-keeping. Other professors use online resources such as the Internet to assist students in locating significant resources related to their assignments and projects.

Online courses specifically aimed at being used in relation to distance education are at the beginning stages. The only online course that has been implemented by programs under review is EDF 301a, a one credit course specifically aimed at students who have been introduced to basic concepts of education, but have not been trained in the specific technologies needed at Central Washington University.

The movement to online courses is in progress. One program, Library Media Endorsement, has been approved to move their entire course of study online. It is anticipated that this will begin during the fall quarter of 2009. Other programs are examining which courses can make the transition to online.

G. Assessment of programs and student learning

1. List student learner outcomes for each graduate and or undergraduate degree program and note how the outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals.

a. Describe the specific method used in assessing each student learning outcome. Also specify the population assessed, when the assessment took place, and the standard of mastery (criterion) against which you will compare your assessments

The Department of Education has a system for course and program evaluations. Each program has determined what evidences are needed in order document students progress. This evidence has been gathered into an electronic portfolio system, LiveText, whether that is evaluated according to standards-based assessment rubrics. The results of this these rubrics are then available for faculty and staff members to help guide their instruction and program development.

The student learner outcomes for the undergraduate programs can be located in Table 9. Student learner outcomes for graduate programs have not been fully articulated. One result of this self-study is that the graduate programs will more fully develop their student learner outcomes in the assessment procedures that accompany them.

2. List the results for each student learning outcome.

a. Provide results in specific quantitative or qualitative terms for each learning outcome. b. Compare results to standards of mastery listed above.c. Provide a concise interpretation of results.

The Department of Education at Central Washington University, in conjunction with the Center for Teaching and Learning, has been actively engaged in collecting, analyzing, and reporting data associated with student learning outcomes. This is been done in a systematic format in order to meet

Page 304/4/08

requirements for NCATE accreditation and reauthorization from the PESB. The following sections are a program specific analysis that was conducted in line with these previous requirements.

Table 10 provides documentation for the results of the student learner outcomes of the three undergraduate degree programs. It should be noted that each of the programs aimed at a 95% successful completion rate. Elementary Education and the Early Childhood Education programs met this goal, while the Special Education program exceeded the goal.

3. Based upon the results for each outcome listed above describe:

a. Specific changes to your program as they affect student learning (e.g., curriculum, teaching methods.

The Department of Education at Central Washington University, in conjunction with the Center for Teaching and Learning, has been actively engaged in collecting, analyzing, and reporting data associated with student learning outcomes. This is been done in a systematic format in order to meet requirements for NCATE accreditation and reauthorization from the PESB. The following sections are a program specific analysis that was conducted in line with these previous requirements.

Specific changes due to the combination of factors include:TESL: Increasing requirements for assessment and testing;

Develop new coursework for Sheltered Instruction

Elementary Increase focus on mathematics pedagogy, art pedagogy, and science pedagogy; Education: Review and possibly rework Elementary Education program

Special Reworking of course structures to eliminate redundancy Education:

Reading/ Changing the name of the program to reflect standards;Literacy:

b. List specific changes related to assessment process if any.

Two factors are impacting the development of a new assessment process at this point in time. First, NCATE will be conducting a follow-up site visit during the fall of 2009. This is required is to maintain the assessment procedures we are using at the current time until the review is completed. It will be at that time that program based learner outcomes will be revised.

Second, under the direction of the Dean of the College of Education and Professional Studies and the Provost, the Department of Education is undergoing a significant structural change. All preliminary planning procedures been completed to reorganize the department into four distinct department entities. It is anticipated that this will occur before the beginning of the 2009-10 academic year. At that point, each of the new departments will be able to fully develop and implement their department level student learning outcomes.

Page 314/4/08

Table 9 CWU Student Learning Outcome Assessment Plan Preparation Form

Department of EducationElementary Education Program

Student Learning Outcomes

(performance, knowledge, attitudes)

Related Program/

Departmental Goals

Related College Goals

Related University

Goals

Method(s) of Assessment (What is the

assessment?)*

Who Assessed (Students from what

courses – population)**

When Assessed

(term, dates) ***

Standard of Mastery/ Criterion of Achievement

(How good does performance have to be?)

1.Teacher Candidates will successfully complete state and professional standards.

1. Graduates will be prepared to be outstanding educational leaders and facilitators of learning

Goals 1 “outstanding academic and professional growth experience”


Each course has one or two required artifacts that demonstrate meeting of standards. These are submitted via LiveText.

Teacher Candidates will be evaluated by professors and instructors using program approved electronic rubrics.


Teacher Candidates are expected to reach the “Meets Expectations” level of the assessment. Program goals are for a 95% meeting this standard.

Department of EducationEarly Childhood Education Program



Related Program/

Departmental Goals


Related University

Goals


assessment?)*



When Assessed

(term, dates) ***







ECE has a program portfolio that requires artifacts that demonstrate meeting of standards. These are submitted via LiveText.




Page 324/4/08

Department of EducationSpecial Education Program



Related Program/

Departmental Goals


Related University

Goals


assessment?)*



When Assessed

(term, dates) ***







Special Education has a program portfolio that requires artifacts that demonstrate meeting of standards. These are submitted via LiveText.


Fall, Winter, Spring termsFinal evaluation takes place during practicum experience


Table 10 Student Outcome Results for Undergraduate Programs

2005-2009 Meets or Exceeds Does Not Meet TotalAverage Meeting or Exceeding

Early Childhood Education 590 31 621 95%Elementary Education 12723 699 13422 95%Special Education 469 5 474 99%

Page 334/4/08

PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION

Program assessment data for Bilingual/Teaching English as a Second Language, Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, Reading, and Special Education are included on the following pages. Also included in program reports are interpretations of the data and conclusions.

Bilingual/Teaching English as a Second Language

Program Interpretations and Conclusions: After examining the program assessment reports, we feel that the program is preparing the students well. Overall, the competencies are being met, and students who are struggling are able to receive the assistance needed in order to meet the competencies. The one area that we need to address more aggressively is the use of language objectives.

Page 344/4/08

The chart and graphics all demonstrated that the students have been successful in meeting the standards. EDBL 435 will need to reexamine the standards and assess appropriate CTL standards. The success rate is consistent with other measures, except for the West-E (the Praxis). The TESL Praxis exam was not based on the Washington States standards, consequently the pass ratio for our students does not reflect the students' capability in meeting competency.


Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

Page 354/4/08

A review of the data collected in the LiveText portfolio suggests that there are emerging trends that include:

1. The Des Moines cohort students received ratings that are slightly above the Ellensburg campus students. This discrepancy may be attributed to one or a combination of many factors. The program review and discussion by faculty yielded the following possibilities. A. Cohort students have more of a support network since they are moving through the program together each term. B. Faculty members are more familiar with the cohort students since they would have them in several different classes over their program career. C. The ratio of faculty to instructors is much lower for cohort students than the main campus students at this time, as has been the situation since 2003. D. The required double major cohort students at the Des Moines center are better prepared compared to the major/minor students typically found on the main campus. E. Variances in the individual faculty members scoring of the artifacts maybe skewing the data. A suggestion of scoring the same artifacts by different faculty was discussed as well as an end of program review of the artifacts by a faculty team. F. The rubrics may not be detailed enough to produce fine discriminations in the outcomes.

2. The candidates’ artifacts addressing the learning outcomes, as evidenced by their electronic portfolio, are relatively consistent across the standards. These data are within the bounds of what was expected by the program faculty.

3. The Field Experience standard indicates an expected discrepancy between the cohort and main campus students. The Des Moines cohort data represents 2 senior field experiences (EDEC 493 Practicum and Student Teaching) where the Ellensburg campus has students in an introductory practicum (EDEC 292) included in the data set. Students entering the cohort program complete their introductory practicum at a community college while approximately 60% of the main campus students take EDEC 292 as part of their CWU campus program. Hence, the discrepancy in the Field Experience standard is expected as the main campus program includes data on novice as well as end of program students.

4. The curriculum development appears to be a weak area judging from the program outcome artifacts. This is an area that the faculty discussed during our program meetings and will investigate further as the end of the year program meeting. One of the options discussed was to increase the number of curriculum development credits required in the ECE minor from 3 to 6 as it is for the ECE majors.

5. Given that the ECE program converted from a course based to a standards based assessment it was felt that we should collect data through the Spring quarter before making any major changes in the assessment rubrics. This will be revisited at the end of year program meeting when the data is more populated.


Page 364/4/08

Page 374/4/08

Page 384/4/08

Page 394/4/08


The Advisory Council discussed some of the reports on several occasions and found them to be accurate, consistent and, therefore, fair. Some changes in the rubrics have been made so that some have a 3-category rubric now when the original was 5-point for a wider possibility for more accurate designation of category. The criterion for the rubrics and the weighting of the points in categories on the rubrics varies from instructor to instructor. Sometimes, one instructor has been delegated to a course, its artifact, and its rubric. There continues to be discussion and tweaking the artifacts and rubrics as instructors work toward consensus of all of the people who teach the course. An example is EDRD 308 Beginning Reading. The delegated person chose the Basal Reader Review. As the faculty who teach the course use this choice, the assignment seemed too trivial. A reflective response paper was added. Now, this artifact activity is even being considered to be changed to another assignment that is more representative of the major concepts of the course.

In regards to the example above, there are changes are in progress to remedy the issues identified in the data. The three areas of particular weakness were identified as 1) Skills-based Objectives, 24% did not meet the competency, 2) Democratic and Constructivist Learning Opportunities, 21% did not meet the competencies, 3) Use of Technology, 31% did not meet the competencies. The course has been re-evaluated with adjustments to create an improvement in these areas but other areas as well. The data is

Page 404/4/08

giving us information that has been used to improve our courses and programs.

Another important acknowledgement from the reports was that there was a definite weakness of teacher candidates’ writing skills. The discussion included several ideas:

1) Send the teacher candidates to the Writing Center.

2) Use a common rubric for writing conventions or like the 6+1 Trait Writing rubric in all of our courses and ask instructors to give feedback on writing to all of the teacher candidates. By getting the same message from many instructors, teacher candidates may change, but having the consistency of grading may be problematic.

3) Require a spontaneous writing sample to be graded by the Testing Center in addition to the two short questions with a general rubric and multiple-choice questions of the West B and E. If teacher candidates score low, require them to take ENG 320 English Grammar or other writing classes.

4) Add ENG 320 to the pre-requisites or electives. More options are being considered for all the teacher education programs. The accuracy of the assessment is as good as the representation of the artifact for authentic aspects of the course. The lack of consistency between instructors of the course may indicate that the lead teacher needs to take more of a leadership role so that the content and activities within a course are similar in the delivery of each section whether they are taught by tenure/tenure-track or part-time faculty or are on main campus or in one of our centers. This area needs work. Right now, there is a great deal of variation and academic freedom which may need a bit of harnessing. Some faculty groups work on many drafts of the artifact to bring it to an acceptable standard with consensus. Others put their first attempts in as a finished products. Some faculty meet the standards independently; others have guidance and assistance. We are trying to gain more and more consensus and team spirit in working toward our goals. We need more uniform and standard ways of doing these procedures to really see the effects and results across the population, while allowing academic freedom and creativity at the same time.

As the data is giving us information in all of our courses, we are discussing the issues, reaching consensus as possible, and making changes. We also recognize that the part-time people may need more support and specification to conform to the syllabi for the courses as developed by the lead faculty.

Page 414/4/08

Reading


LiveText Data: All courses/artifacts have been submitted for Fall, 2007. Reading faculty looked at the courses/data and reflected on these questions: What are the data telling/showing us? How can we improve our courses/program based on the data?

EDRD 308 We did notice that language ‘mechanics’ seemed to be a problem for our students, but faculty stated that the Livetext reports did not really show us anything. The artifact reports did not show us meaningful data. An artifact that better reflects standards and students’ abilities needs to be developed.

EDRD 309The faculty seems to be satisfied with the lesson plan as an artifact. For the most part students (from the data) seem to be on track. They are making decisions, implementing and reflecting. Students are able to use GLEs when planning and are able to reflect on the lesson plan as a whole. What we did notice was an inability to follow written directions, a learned work habit.

EDRD 420Students have ideas, and can organize them, however, language conventions/writing skills are weak. Professor Donahoe recommended a program change: students must pass a writing test, or take a grammar course (English 320?) as a prerequisite to EDRD 420. We should also use OSPI rubrics with

Page 424/4/08

grade level conventions.

EDRD 421It was noted that the artifacts for many courses (EDRD 420, 421 in the EL. Ed. sequence) are instructor specific. These artifacts need to be generalized as they are difficult for instructors across the seven (7) sites to utilize.

EDCS 424It seems that the artifact chosen (anticipation guide) is working fairly well. Following directions (work habit problem), and language mechanics seems to be a problem for students. A text for this course is now required for all instructors of 424 and is listed on the syllabus. (On line)

EDRD 410Again it was noted that the artifact for this course is instructor specific and needs to be generalized.From the data of one class it was noted that students had difficulty with the rational/research/background information. Students had difficulty connecting readings/philosophies to the project, or making the connections specific. The rubric will be given to students at the beginning of the course to assist them.

EDRD 411 – Ellensburg – seems to have a weakness in Lesson Plan and Student Directions.

EDRD 413The data indicated that the students seemed to do well on the artifact (research brochure). Writing mechanics was once again a problem for students.

EDRD 493The data indicate that students are able to organize and reflect. However, once again, writing mechanics are weak.

SUMMARY:

1. It was noted that many of the chosen artifacts are instructor specific, confusing and need to be changed/modified to reflect standards more accurately.2. The data indicate that students have a wide spread problem with grammar, writing conventions and over-all language mechanics. It was suggested that writing tests, or grammar courses need to be implemented as a prerequisite for Reading courses.3. The data indicate that students have study skills/work habit weaknesses, i.e., following directions.4. The data also indicate that many artifacts (lesson plans, brochures) indicate that students can make decisions, organize, plan, implement, reflect and incorporate GLEs into their thinking and planning.

Page 434/4/08

Special Education


For EDSE 495/490, 14 of the 17 students completing the special education practicum/field experience are represented in the Fall 2007/Winter 2008 data exhibited in Livetext at this time. The 3 remaining students successfully completed the practicum and demonstrated competency on identified standards. The program has followed up to ensure the aggregate data reflects this. It appears that the assessment for the EOP is accurately reflecting student competence and that relevant standards are being met (CTL, State, NCATE). For changes, prior EDSE meeting minutes indicate discussion by EDSE faculty members to consider the potential addition of student reflection in the Livetext data system. Page 444/4/08

These reflections are already generated in a written format, kept within the hard copy portfolio, and shared at the Exit Interview. Please note that evidences supporting student outcomes on each of the competencies measured on the Livetext rubric are available in 2 formats: 1) hardcopy evidences in each student’s written portfolio and 2) a video/DVD of student Exit Interview from the end of the practicum experience.

III. FacultyA. Faculty profile – Using attached chart show faculty participation for mentoring student research, professional service activities, scholarly activities including grant writing and teaching? (Designate graduate or undergraduate publications or creative activities.) (See Table 9a)

The number of respondents was small. Consequently, we have included Table 9b that includes information gathered for the 2007 NCATE review.

B. Copies of all faculty vitae.

See Appendix 6

C. Faculty awards for distinction: instruction, scholarship, and service

College of Education and Professional StudiesExcellence in Teaching:2007- Yukari Amos2008- Keith Salyer2009- Steve NourseExcellence in Scholarship:2007- Ian Loverro2008- Christina Curran2009- Dan FennertyExcellence in Service:2007- Cathrene Connery2008- Cory Gann2008- James Pappas2009- Sharryn Walker

D. Include in appendices performance standards by department, college and university.

See Appendix 1

Page 454/4/08

Table 11a (Section III)Tenured and Tenure-track Faculty Profile

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

# faculty

% of faculty

# faculty

% of faculty

# faculty

% of faculty

# faculty

% of faculty

# faculty % of faculty

5-yr total

Annual avg

% of faculty

TT - T TT - T TT - T TT - T TT - T

* Scholarship Measures: (Use categories applicable to your departmental & college criteria)

(e.g. peer reviewed articles)

6 28.57% 5 23.81% 6 27.27% 8 33.33% Not Available

Not Available

25 6.25 28%

(e.g. abstracts/conference proceedings)

3 14.29% 1 4.76% 2 9.09% 1 4.17% Not Available

Not Available

7 1.75 8%

(e.g. conference presentation)

14 66.67% 12 57.14% 13 59.09% 18 75.00% Not Available

Not Available

57 14.25 64%

Other, etc. 1 4.17% Not Available

Not Available

1 0.25 1%

* Grants: (Use categories applicable to your departmental & college criteria)

External 2 9.52% 1 4.76% 0.00% 0.00% Not Available

Not Available

3 0.75 4%

Funded / Unfunded

3-Feb 1-Jan Not Available

Not Available

79661 19915.25 0%

Internal 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Not Available

Not Available

0 0 0%

Funded / Unfunded

1/ Not Available

Not Available

0 0%

* Service measures: (Use categories applicable to your departmental & college criteria)

CWU Committees 21 100.00% 21 100.00% 22 100.00% 24 100.00% Not Available

Not Available

88 22 100%

State Committees 6 28.57% 5 28.57% 5 27% 8 33.33% Not Available

Not Available

24 6 29%

Leadership & Service - Professional Organizations

10

47.62%

11

52.38%

14

63.64%

14 58.33% Not Available

Not Available

49 12.25 55%

Community Service 10 47.62% 10 47.62% 12 54.55% 13 54.17% Not Availabl

Not Available

45 11.25 51%

Page 464/4/08

eOther Not

Available

Not Available

0 0 0%

* Faculty Mentored Research: (Use categories applicable to your departmental & college criteria)

Undergrad projects / SOURCE

N/A N/A N/A N/A Not Available

Not Available

0 0

Graduate Committees – Supervising thesis/projects

19 N/A 14 N/A 14 N/A 12 N/A Not Available

Not Available

59 14.75

Graduate Committees – Participation thesis/projects

28 N/A 24 N/A 26 N/A 19 N/A Not Available

Not Available

97 24.25

Page 474/4/08

Table 11b Tenure and Tenure-Track Data from 2007 NCATE ReviewIN THE PAST FIVE YEARS:Tenure/Tenure-Track Faculty: 30How many of the following did you publish?

sum avg 26 0.87 Books23 0.77 Book chapters65 2.17 Refereed journal articles12 0.40 Non-refereed journal articles12 0.40 Monographs18 0.60 Newsletter articles35 1.17 Book reviews Other, such as:9 0.30 Curriculum programs19 0.63 Program reports (external)13 0.43 Program reports (internal)14 0.47 Article published with a national clearing house

How many of the following did you accomplish? sum avg

96 3.20 Presentation at an international meeting96 3.20 Presentation at a national meeting126 4.20 Presentation at a regional meeting88 2.93 Presentation at local meeting

Organize session/act as a facilitator/discussant at a professional meeting? Sum: 7 Avg. 3.5 Did you write a grant?

sum avg 10 0.33 External under $40,00018 0.60 External over $40,00024 0.80 Internal

Page 484/4/08

IV. Students – for five years

A. Student accomplishments (include SOURCE, career placement information, etc.). List students working in field; students placed in master’s or doctoral programs.

Five-year data is presented in the following tables and discussions. In some cases, five-year data is not available. Therefore, the available data is presented.

Students admitted into initial teacher preparation: (Note: All students who are admitted to teacher preparation do not enroll in majors in the Department of Education. However, all initial teacher preparation students are required to complete the Professional Education Core, including Pre-Autumn and Student Teaching field experiences, which are housed in the Department of Education.)

Table 12Student Demographics

White Hispanic AsianAmer Indian N/R Alien Black Multicul Unknown Total

Year M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F

1995 341 713 15 33 9 12 5 10 0 1 5 1 0 0 1 8 1154

1996 357 757 18 25 5 18 6 13 0 3 4 1 0 0 7 29 1243

1997 392 775 23 35 6 15 7 17 1 4 4 5 2 1 14 34 1335

1998 387 805 14 35 5 18 3 19 1 3 5 7 2 1 18 33 1356

1999 305 758 15 38 4 21 4 21 0 4 5 9 1 0 24 37 1246

2000 258 665 11 32 7 16 5 14 0 5 2 9 0 0 22 34 1080

2001 236 594 22 38 3 23 2 11 0 7 4 5 1 1 21 40 1008

2002 277 705 22 41 8 20 4 14 2 8 4 2 0 0 34 74 1215

2003 296 816 19 40 11 24 2 13 3 1 4 3 0 0 27 74 1333

2004 303 798 19 43 11 24 2 14 3 4 5 3 0 0 28 75 1332

2005 292 781 23 54 12 26 1 14 4 27 7 6 0 0 4 4 1256

2006 365

1027 35 52 16 27 5 15 0 0 8 12 0 0 30 40 1632

2007 299 953 33 61 12 26 6 11 0 0 9 11 0 0 29 58 1508

First year teaching certification for the past five years include the following:

Year Fall Winter Spring Summer Total02-03 85 72 229 36 42203-04 122 115 248 74 559

Page 494/4/08

04-05 120 85 253 69 52705-06 75 45 275 71 46606-07 87 116 216 63 482

Endorsements earned through the Department of Education include the following:

Program 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07Bilingual Ed 7 14 13 4 5Early Childhood Ed

65 139 135 120 112

Elementary Ed

249 337 291 297 287

Reading 38 50 40 61 29Special Ed 19 18 29 29 26ECE-Special Ed *

1 2 NA NA NA

*The Early Childhood Special Education program was discontinued at the end of 2003-04.

Pre-Autumn is a field experience candidates must complete at the beginning of their teacher preparation programs. The numbers of candidates who successfully completed the Pre-Autumn experience are:

Year/Fall 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Total 537 451 482 426 428

Student teaching, as well as Pre-Autumn, occurs in one of 166 school districts with which the Office of Field Experience has signed contractual agreements. The school districts are rural, suburban, and urban. During the past five years, the number of candidates placed in student teaching includes the following:

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08Fall 155 137 121 114 126Winter 179 145 135 123 175Spring 252 241 250 234 214Totals 586 523 506 471 515

To be certified in the state of Washington, candidates must pass a subject content test, WEST-E. The 2007 candidate pass rates for the Department of Education students are:

Program Candidate Pass Rate*Page 504/4/08

Bilingual/TESL 60%Early Childhood Education 92%Elementary Education 93%Library Media 100%Reading 63%Special Education 100%

*Programs with a pass rate under 80% do not meet NCATE criteria.

The next four tables present data on program completers and their placements in full-time teaching positions in the state of Washington. Please note that there was a very low response rate for years 2003-04 and 2004-05.

2003-04: Total number of students for all CWU teacher preparation programs contacted was 296 (53% of total); total number of students for all CWU teacher preparation programs “unable to contact” was 263 (47% of total).

Program Full-time PlacementBilingual Education 9%Early Childhood Education 1%Elementary Education 36%Reading 9%Special Education 100%


Program Number of Completers

Number Full-time Placements

(Responders)

Rate of Full-time Placements

Bilingual Education 12 2 17%Early Childhood Education

126 29 23%


272 61 22%

Reading 39 2 5%Special Education 26 11 42%




(Responders)


Bilingual Education 3 2 67%Page 514/4/08


68 39 57%


224 172 77%





(Responders)


Bilingual Education 5 4 80%Early Childhood Education

76 34 45%


262 152 58%


Post Bachelor and Graduate Programs: The Department of Education offers a graduate program under the Master of Education (MEd), as well as an endorsement program in Library Media. In addition to these two programs, a Professional Certification is offered through the Office of Continuing Education.

The master’s students accepted into the MEd programs include the following:

Quarter Master Teacher Reading Specialist Special EducationFall 2003 24 5 2Winter 2004 16 1 0Spring 2004 11 4 0Summer 2004 24 8 2Fall 2004 20 3 1Winter 2005 10 0 0Spring 2005 6 1 0Summer 2005 28 3 0Fall 2005 9 0 0Winter 2006 3 0 0Spring 2006 7 1 0Summer 2006 19 6 1Fall 2006 11 4 3Winter 2007 3 0 0

Page 524/4/08

Spring 2007 5 0 0Summer 2007 9 1 0Fall 2007 11 2 1Winter 2008 9 0 2Spring 2008 9 1 0Summer 2008 9 1 0

The master’s candidates who successfully completed the MEd program include the following:

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08F W S

pSu F W S

pSu F W S

pSu F W S

pSu F W S

pSu

1 8 19 40 5 2 15 30 6 6 18 25 7 4 4 26 2 6 14 Na**Data not available as of August 2008.

Professional Certification (Pro Cert): The state of Washington’s teacher certification policy requires the Residency Certification as the initial certificate. By year five of initial certification and employment, teachers must earn the Professional Certificate. Dr. Andrea Sledge, Associate Professor in the Department of Education, is the Director of the Pro Cert program, which is offered through the Office of Continuing Education.

Candidates admitted to the Professional Certification program during the past five years:

Fall Winter Spring Summer Totals2003-04 11 28 28 29 962004-05 38 27 26 39 1302005-06 41 16 30 36 1232006-07 34 24 23 7 882007-08 1 16 17

Candidates who successfully completed the Professional Certification program:

Fall Winter Spring Summer Totals2003-04 14 142004-05 1 7 30 382005-06 19 12 32 23 862006-07 7 2 25 20 542007-08 14 5 11 30

Library Media: The Library Media program is a “summer only” endorsement program. Students enrolled in the past five summers include the following:

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008EDCS 450* 27 12 47 20 18

Page 534/4/08

EDCS 516 27 12 21 25 19EDCS 526 14 20 27 19 17EDCS 536 23 13 45 19 18EDCS 548 14 23 27 19 18EDCS 558 14 19 1 24 19EDCS 568 13 23 24 19EDCS 578 22 12 17 24 19

*EDCS 450 became EDCS 514 Summer 2006.

SOURCE: SOURCE is the Symposium on Research and Creative Expression and is an annual one-day CWU venue for undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty to present their scholarly work. Undergraduate and graduate students are mentored by faculty members. The SOURCE participation by students in the Department of Education includes the following:

2004 2005 2006 2007 20080 2 2 1 4

Career Services: The CWU Office of Career Services offers workshops and sponsored and coordinated events. The teacher education focused events include the following:

Workshops:Year Date Event Number of Students2007 Feb.13 Resumes and cover letters 7

Feb. 14 How to work a career fair 7Feb. 15 Interviewing for educators 7

2008 Feb. 19 Resumes and cover letters 18Feb. 20 Interviewing for educators 12Feb. 26 How to work a career fair 8

2003-04: Career Services sponsored and coordinated events.Event Date DescriptionMajors Fair Nov. 5 Students meet academic faculty and advisors to learn

about majors, minors and career pursuits.Education Connections

Feb. 7 District/employer-led educator workshops, resume critiques, and mock interviews.

Educators Career Fair May 4 District and agency representatives discussing job and career opportunities with candidates.22 Districts/agencies participated78 students participated

2004-05: Career Services sponsored and coordinated events.Event Date DescriptionMajors Fair Nov.

14Students meet academic faculty and advisors to learn about majors, minors and career pursuits.

Education Connections

Feb. 5 District/employer-led educator workshops, resume critiques, and mock interviews.

Page 544/4/08

6 districts/groups offered workshops66 students participated

Educators Career Fair May 4 District and agency representatives discussing job and career opportunities with candidates.24 Districts/agencies participated94 students participated


about majors, minors and career pursuits.Get Hired Day Mar. 2 District Administrator speakers and new educator

panel, presenting career and job search issues74 students participated

Educators Career Fair Apr 20 District and agency representatives discussing job and career opportunities with candidates. Held in conjunction with Career Quest, CWU’s all-campus job fair16 Districts/agencies participated (weather affected event)92 students participated


about majors, minors and career pursuits.Educator Career Fair& Mock Interview Workshop

Mar 1 District and agency representatives discussing job and career opportunities with candidates.Interview Prep workshop17 Districts/agencies participated (weather affected event)98 students participated

2007-08: Career Services sponsored and coordinated events.Event Date DescriptionMajors Fair Feb.

13Students meet academic faculty and advisors to learn about majors, minors and career pursuits.

Educator Career Fair& Mock Interview Workshop

Feb. 28

District and agency representatives discussing job and career opportunities with candidates.District administrators and educators discussing career and job search issues.37 Districts/agencies participated (weather affected event)126 students participated

Page 554/4/08

B. Provide one masters project (if applicable); two will be randomly selected during site visit. Available in either the library or through the departmental office.

C. Describe departmental policies, services, initiatives, and documented results for successful student advising.

Policies: For teacher preparation students who are enrolled in initial certification programs, student policies are under the auspices of the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), the Teacher Certification Office (TCO), and the Office of Field Experiences (OFE), which is housed in the Department of Education (DOE). The Center for Teaching and Learning is the CWU governance unit for all professional education and includes administration and faculty participation from the Colleges of Arts and Humanities, Education and Professional Studies, and the Sciences.

Policies are included in the following publications:

Publication Source DescriptionCTL Policy Manual

CTL www.cwu.edu/~ectl/CTL_Policy_Manual_2006-2007.pdfAll policies for professional education programs.

Teacher Preparation Program – Student Handbook

TCO

www.cwu.edu/~cert/docs/Student _Handbook.docAll policies related to the curriculum, program of studies, processes and procedures related to teacher preparation programs.

Teacher Certification Policy Changes

TCOwww.cwu.edu/~cert/docs/Policy_changes.docAll policies related to CWU and state of Washington requirements for initial teacher certification and subject area endorsements.

Pre-Autumn OFE www.cwu.edu/~education/fieldexp/students/pa.html/Policies related to the first field experience required for all teacher preparation candidates.

Student Teaching OFE

www.cwu.edu/~education/fieldexp/students.html/All policies, processes, and procedures related to the candidates’ student teaching experiences.

Yearlong (Internship) Program

DOEwww.cwu.edu/~education/yearlong%invite%20to%20join.docA web site which invites teacher preparation candidates to a year-long internship and student teaching field experience.

Policies related to graduate students are included in the Graduate Handbook, which is located through the Department of Education at www.cwu.edu/~education/graduatehandbook.doc.

Services: Services offered to the candidates in the Department of Education overlap with services through the Center for Teaching and Learning. The services include:

Service Type DescriptionAdmission to Teacher Education

The Teacher Certification Office determines when a student has met the requirements for admission to a teacher education. program; notifies the department.

Page 564/4/08

http://www.cwu.edu/~education/graduatehandbook.doc

http://www.cwu.edu/~education/yearlong%25invite%20to%20join.doc

http://www.cwu.edu/~education/fieldexp/students.html/

http://www.cwu.edu/~education/fieldexp/students/pa.html/

http://www.cwu.edu/~cert/docs/Policy_changes.doc

http://www.cwu.edu/~cert/docs/Student%20_Handbook.doc

http://www.cwu.edu/~ectl/CTL_Policy_Manual_2006-2007.pdf

LiveText Help Desk Provides training and technical assistance to candidates who need help posting assignment artifacts to LiveText software for the CTL Assessment System.

Education Technology Center

Provides curriculum electronic and print media for candidates who need to develop course assignments and projects; houses technology for student use.

Advising: Advising is available to candidates for each stage of the teacher education program and includes:

Advising Purpose Source and DescriptionAdmission to Initial Teacher Certification

Teacher Certification Office Staff – Provides students with information about requirements, processes, and procedures about admission into a degree offering or certification only teacher education program; informs students concerning their admission status.

Pre-advising Tina Clark, Program Coordinator – Provides candidates with initial information concerning teacher education programs and the professional education core, which is required of all teacher preparation candidates; directs candidates to appropriate faculty advisors.

Program Requirements

Department Program Coordinator (faculty member) or other assigned faculty -- provides appropriate advising to candidates as they progress through their respective certification/endorsement programs.

Field Experience Dr. Rexton Lynn, Director, Office of Field Experience – Assigns candidates to school district and school, as well as appropriate field supervisor and cooperating teacher; field supervisor advises candidates throughout the student teaching process.

Teacher Certification

Teacher Certification Office Staff – Provide CWU and state of Washington information to all teacher certification and endorsement candidates.

Graduate Studies Faculty Chair and Members of candidate’s Graduate Committee – Provides guidance and approves the candidate’s program of studies and the candidate’s capstone project (project, thesis, or examination).

D. Describe other student services offered through the department including any professional societies or faculty-led clubs or organizations and their activities.

The Department of Education has five faculty-led clubs or organizations.

Club or Organization Annual ActivitiesKappa Delta Pi (KDP) Chapter Initiation Program; Recruitment; Scholastic

book fair Page 574/4/08

Phi Delta Kappa (PDK) Quarterly membership meetingsStudent Association for Bilingual & English Language Learners (SABELL)

Inactive at present; during the review period annual activities included Dias de los Ninos, and multilingual valentines.

Student Council for Exceptional Children (SCEC)

Monthly membership meetings; national conference; member recruitment

Student Washington Education Association (SWEA)

Monthly membership meetings; fundrasiers

Page 584/4/08

V. Facilities & Equipment by location

A. Describe facilities available to department and their adequacy (program delivery location, size, functionality, adjacencies, lighting, ventilation, finishes, plumbing, electrical outlets, etc.). Describe anticipated needs in the next three to five years.

Overall, the facilities used by the Department of Education are well planned and developed. Black Hall, where the majority of courses taught by the Department of Education are located, was developed with an understanding of the constructivist approach to education. Consequently the classrooms are structured to facilitate that type of interaction needed. The technology of Black Hall are adequate in all aspects. Efforts have been made to assure that the computers in the classrooms are current and that the needed applications are available.

The Department of Education use facilities at six of university centers. All of the center facilities are new, with the one at the Yakima Community College being the oldest (6 years old). They been equipped with the technology needed at the centers, as well the technology needed to interact with other centers.

At this point in time, it is just a matter of the facilities been maintained and kept up to date. With such updating and maintenance occurring, there should be no need for drastic improvements.

The only significant change that will be required during the next five years will be in relation to the separation into four departments. When this occurs, some of the departments will remain in the current office location for the Department of Education but others will move to other locations within Black Hall.

B. Describe equipment available to department include program delivery location and its adequacy (office furniture, instructional fixtures, lab equipment, storage cabinets, specialty items, etc.) Describe anticipated needs in the next three to five years.

The Department of Education has long used its self-generated funding to supplement equipment supplied through general funding. Consequently, students, faculty, and staff have had access to equipment needed. Some of this equipment has been maintained in the office of the Department of Education while other has been delegated to the Education Technology Center.

C. Describe technology available to department include program delivery location and its adequacy (computers, telecommunications, network systems, multi-media, distance education, security systems, etc.). Describe anticipated needs in the next three to five years.

The anticipated needs for the next five years are summarized best by the statement of maintaining program needs. As we proceed forward with online courses and programs, we will need the technology required to support such efforts. We will also need to maintain state-of-the-art technology for classrooms and faculty offices.

Page 594/4/08

VI. Library and Technological Resources by location

A. Describe general and specific requirements for library resources by program and location that assist in meeting educational and research objectives. Indicate ways in which the present library resources satisfy and do not satisfy these needs. Describe anticipated needs as to the next 5 year period.

All of the undergraduate programs in the Department of Education have similar needs and requirements for library and technological resources. All programs require at least one significant research paper based on theories and/or methodologies related to that particular field.

For students at the Main campus in Ellensburg, research material is housed in the Brooks Library. Many of the holdings/resources specific to education are outdated. In the last few years, there has been input and more recent resources have become available. This pattern of acquiring recent and recommended materials must continue. The DOE Library Representative has provided opportunities for faculty input to suggest new holdings as they become available. Often times, for research purposes, student’s must utilize other sources such as SUMMIT because adequate recent resources on the topics are just not available at the CWU library.

Brooks library has very adequate online resources to electronic data-bases which represent best practice journals in special education. Continuing access to the full spectrum of journals is necessary for our students to have access to current evidence-based practices in education.

Another significant need of our undergraduate teacher candidates is access to curricular materials and resources. Curricular materials, necessary to support prospective educators, such as textbooks, instructional manipulatives, kits and games, curricular and educational assessments, and educator curricular resource books are housed within the Curriculum Library at the Educational Technology Center housed in Black Hall. Because of the lack of a budget to obtain materials and adequately develop the curriculum library, this collection is not comprehensive, is very dated and not reflective or supportive of best-practices for students soon to be teachers in the field. The collection is dependent on donations and faculty who are able to write publishers to obtain donations. Current materials supporting statewide education curriculum, such as a comprehensive library of recent recommended curricular materials supporting evidenced-based practices across all core curriculum served by the DOE and that supports the unique learning of all students is necessary. An adequate budget, faculty input and stewardship, and adequate resources such as staff to catalog newly acquired materials within a timely manner would benefit students both undergraduate, graduate and faculty.

For our students located at the centers, graduate as well as undergraduate, access to quality materials is much more limited. The students have access to the libraries at the community colleges, but the holdings that these libraries are minimal in regards to education. For the students, electronic resources have even greater importance. Having access to electronic journals and training on how to access them is paramount.

Another resource consistently used by our students epicenters is the interlibrary loan system. Through the use of these two systems, interlibrary loan and SUMMIT, students can access materials needed for their coursework in their individual studies.

Page 604/4/08

In regards to our graduate students, their needs are very similar to the undergraduate students at the different centers. The vast majority of our graduate students are full-time practicing teachers. Consequently, you have limited time to access the Brooks Library in Ellensburg or the libraries at their community colleges. For them, electronic access is greatly needed and appreciated.

B Technological Resources

The use of technology is tightly integrated into the instruction provided by the Department of Education. Classroom use of technological tools such as Internet, PowerPoint, and video/DVD occurs on a regular basis. In addition to the use of technology in the delivery of curriculum, all faculty members use electronic resources for record-keeping purposes. All programs have developed electronic formats for gathering and analyzing program specific data used for program improvement.

Educational facilities used by the department education at the Ellensburg campus and the different centers located around the state are all very current in regards to technology. Central Washington University has made a concerted effort to remain as up-to-date as possible. The one outcome that would be needed for the next five years would be that Central Washington University maintain this vision as financial hardships appear.

C Describe technology available to department and its adequacy. Describe anticipated needs as to the next five year period.

The Department of Education has set aside a significant portion of their self generated monies to ensure that the technological needs of faculty and students are met. Newly hired faculty members are awarded a substantial fund to be used in purchasing the technological needs. The department itself has purchased and maintains items such as laptop computers, projectors, digital cameras, and video recorders that are available as needed by faculty and students.

In anticipation of the restructuring of the Department of Education many of the more recent electronic acquisitions were transferred to the Educational Technology Center. This will allow for faculty and students from each of the new departments to have access to equipment.

The restructuring of the Department of Education into four distinct departments will have an impact on the future needs of technology. Each of these departments will need to evaluate their electronic and technological needs as well as their access to the needed resources.

VII. Analysis of the Review Period

The department retreat occurred on Friday, December 5, 2008. We held a retreat in the distance education classroom in Black Hall with ITV connections made to the Des Moines, Lynnwood, and Pierce County centers.

A. What has gone well in the department and each degree program(s)?

1. Explain accomplishments of the past five years.

Hiring of new faculty: In relation to tenure-track faculty, many of the programs in the Department of Education have been understaffed for several years. The lack of faculty contributes to the lack of Page 614/4/08

course offerings and/or the use of instructors that are not adequately prepared. The hiring of new faculty members allows all of the programs to run their entire programs.

Program coordination: the Department of Education currently includes four bachelor degree programs, four master degree programs, three certificate programs, a professional core sequence program, and the five undergraduate minors. The coordination of these programs would have little probability of success if attempted at the department level. Consequently, each of the programs are coordinated at the program level under the direction of faculty members within that specialty area. Each of these programs coordinates the scheduling of classes, the development of curriculum, and the mentoring of new faculty members.

Coordination across departments has primarily occurred through the Center for Teaching and Learning governance system. Beginning in Fall 2007, elementary education and professional core faculty have developed a coordinating committee that includes representatives from other departments on campus. This has allowed for the input of programs and other departments, as though the opportunity to address their concerns and needs.

A related area is the use of program coordinators in a department level council. The program coordinators meet on a regular basis. These needs are used to coordinate department business and coordinate items that cross program boundaries. It is also very important that coordination takes place across the program boundaries. Changes that occur in one program could, and often do, have an impact on other programs as well. Each mutation between program coordinators allow for this type of interaction take place.

Alumni survey results: the alumni recognize that the program that central Washington University have prepared them to be effective teachers in the K-12 classrooms.

The role of department faculty in demonstrating professionalism service and/or scholarly activities: The faculty members in the Department of Education at Central Washington University have taken active leadership roles in service at the university, community, and professional organization levels. As noted previously, the majority of the faculty members have been actively engaged in serving on committees, assisting community organizations through a variety of ways, and taking leadership roles in professional organizations. This has increased the visibility of our programs at Central Washington University at the local, state, national, and even international levels.

In addition to service, but faculty of the Department of Education are actively engaged in the scholarship efforts. These efforts have appeared in forms ranging from traditional articles in scholarly journals to the publications, presentations at regional, state, national, and international professional conferences to study guides for interpretive centers.

Facilities at the centers have been upgraded: over the course of the past five years many of the CWU centers have had significant upgrades to their facilities. The programs located at the Des Moines Center, they Yakima Center, the Lynnwood Center, and the Wenatchee Center are all now located in facilities that have been specifically prepared for our needs. All of these facilities have high-tech capabilities.

2. How have accomplishments been supported though external and internal resources?

Page 624/4/08

Internal and external support for the accomplishments of the Department of Education has come from several different resources. The majority of the support has come from internal resources. For example, the hiring of new faculty, with a couple of exceptions, has been funded by already existing funds. Another example is the program coordinators. Program coordinators are funded through internal sources, as they are reassigned from instructional time to service time. The internal funds allow for instructors to be paid in order to cover the courses that would normally be taught by the program coordinators.

In addition to internal sources, there have been some external sources used as well. High Needs funding provided by the Professional Education Standards Board (PESB) and the Higher Education Coordinating Board (HEC) has assisted in increasing the offerings of programs in Special Education, Bilingual Education, and Teaching English as a Second Language. This funding paid for new faculty members, as well as expenses needed to move such programs to the Centers.

Additional external funding has included funded grants. Some of these grants came from the United States Department of Education (Preparing All Teachers for Linguistic Diversity, 2001-2006) others from private entities (Puget Sound Energy).

B. What challenges exist for the department and for each degree program?

Changes in the demographics of the people we are serving: Historically, the programs located in the Department of Education have required the completion of the Professional Core Sequence, which include student teaching, in order to complete their degree. An increasing number of our potential students are looking at using their degrees in ways that do not require the professional licensure from the State of Washington. Consequently, one challenge we face is to make our programs more accessible to such students. This is particularly true with the Early Childhood Education program.

Program curriculum changes: the Department Of Education at Central Washington University has been granted the authority by the State of Washington to prepare future teachers. In order to maintain this status, our programs must demonstrate that they are meeting the standards developed by the state governing boards.

Survey data concerns: one area of concern that was visible through the alumni survey was a perceived lack of need in dealing with quantitative information. Education programs are, and should be, based on existing research. Graduates who do not understand how to interpret research results are not prepared to make judgments using such research. We need to increase our graduates’ ability to interpret and utilize educational research.

It was also pointed out that we need to use the data provided through feedback (i.e. student feedback on SEOIs, alumni survey results) to systematically review and improve our education programs.Center Cohort: The students that make up the cohort at the centers often come from different stations in life. The majority of students at the centers are place bound and/or time bound. Consequently, many of them are "non-traditional" students. Other cohort members are the more traditional college student, being younger with fewer life experiences. The combination of the students can be seen as positive and/or negative depending upon how they interact together.

Page 634/4/08

Challenges related to specific programs cannot be adequately addressed at this time. As is explained in the future direct section of this document, the Department of Education is in the process of being divided into four departments. Once this has been completed, each of these departments will then need to examine their perceived challenges and how to best address them. A “New Department Appendix” will be added to this document from each of the new departments by April 1, 2010.

C. What past recommendations from the previous program review have been implemented?

The Department of Education has not conducted a previous self-study. Consequently, we do not have recommendations from the previous program review. However, we have had reviews conducted by NCATE and PESB. As a result of these reviews, we have developed a systematic form of gathering data on student learner outcomes and using this data to implement program change and improvement.

VIII. Future directions

A. Describe the department’s aspirations for the next three to five years.

Reorganization of Department of Education into the four designated new departments: The Department of Education as it now exists is the largest department on campus at Central Washington University. As mentioned earlier, the collection of programs housed within the Department of Education limits the amount of focus that can be paid to any particular program. Beginning in Spring Quarter, 2008 efforts began to reorganize the department into smaller units. These four units have been designated along similar conceptual and pedagogical lines. For example, Early Childhood, Elementary, and Middle School focus on education of the student from preschool through eighth grade. Once the departments have been officially reorganized, each will be able to focus on the programs within their sphere of distinction.

Hand-in-hand with the reorganization will be the development of program goals and outcomes based on the particular needs of these new departments. While many of these golden outcomes will be similar, the articulation will depend upon the areas of focus located within that department.

Instructional technology center for faculty: Advances in the area technology are occurring at a rapid pace. Such trends have an impact on teachers and future teachers. In order for teachers and future teachers to be prepared in such areas, they need to see it in their teacher training programs. In order for this to happen, education professors need to be aware of and comfortable with the usage of new technologies, as well as the applications related to such technologies.

The development of an Instructional Technology Center would assist in facilitating faculty development in this area. Such a center would need the latest technologies and the associated software programs. It would also need to be staffed by those who could comfortably assist education professors in developing the ability to use and apply such training in their classroom settings.

Systematic reorganization of course sequencing: As it exists now, the course work required of all future teachers does not have a particular sequence. There are certain structures in place that require certain prerequisites and procedures before being allowed to take selected coursework. But, outside of this Block I/Block II structure there is no sequencing to the coursework.

Page 644/4/08

The development of a sequential order for the coursework would assure that certain prerequisites and/or background experiences needed for successful completion of certain courses will have occurred. It will lessen the amount of overlap provided in the following courses (professors will not need to do more than basic review of key concepts if they are sure that all students have completed the class that included the required information).

One possibility to assist in the development of the sequential order would be the use of cohorts in the education programs. The movement towards cohorts would a) place all education students in a program where the courses will be presented in a predetermined sequence; b) assure that all sections are at capacity and that the students assigned to particular cohort are assured of a seat within that class time; and c) facilitate field placement with participating school sites.

Development and implementation of curricula in changes based on professional standards: Professional standards have become a major component in development of program curriculum. Program changes become a necessity in order to maintain alignment with the changes in these professional standards. I'll programs located within the Department of Education are currently engaged in realigning and/or implementing changes based on recent standard changes. One major aspiration is that we are able to accomplish this without disrupting the progress of our current students.It is also important to maintain the collaborative relationships with faculty and programs located outside of the Department of Education. The recent progress we've made in this area needs to continue in some ways be strengthened. This would assist in ensuring that off teacher candidates receive adequate preparation and that their progress is adequately documented.Faculty professional development: In relation to the need to maintain currency with professional standards, it is important that our faculty be prepared to address the different components of the professional standards. Historically, many aspects of the professional standards have been implemented in "standalone" coursework. Many of these need to be implemented across the curriculum, which would mean that all faculty members need to be comfortable in addressing such issues.

Preparing teacher candidates for diversity in the classroom: The demographics of the students attending school through the K-12 system demonstrate a much higher level of diversity than previous generations. All teacher candidates need to be prepared to effectively deal with these issues of diversity. Diversity issues have been addressed in the teacher preparation program through the requirement that all teacher candidates successfully complete two classes. While both these classes introduce teacher candidates to the needs of diverse student populations, the practical application of methods and techniques needed to successfully address their issues are very limited. Consequently, the department will need to analyze and implement the changes needed to assure that all teacher candidates receive adequate preparation in working with a diverse student population.

B. In this context, describe ways the department or unit plans to increase quality, quantity, productivity, and efficiency as a whole and for each program. Provide evidence that supports the promise for outstanding performance.

As explained above, the Department of Education is in the process of being divided into four departments. Once this has been completed, each of these departments will then need to examine program issues mentioned above and how to best address them. A “New Department Appendix” will be added to this document from each of the new departments by April 1, 2010.

Page 654/4/08

C. What specific resources would the department need to pursue these future directions?

As explained above, the Department of Education is in the process of being divided into four departments. Once this has been completed, each of these departments will then need to specify the resources needed. A “New Department Appendix” will be added to this document from each of the new departments by April 1, 2010.

D. What do you want us know that is not included in this self-study.

IX. Suggestions for the program review process or contents of the self-study?

This is the fourth time the Department of Education has been asked to produce similar data and reports in the past two years. Each of these reports should be coordinated in such a way that it minimizes the amount of time required to complete them.

Page 664/4/08

Documents

Proposed - Central Washington · Web viewUniversity departments are groupings of teaching and research personnel, organized around traditional academic disciplines. As such, departments