Universidad del Turabo School of Education

Teacher Education Accreditation Council Inquiry Brief Proposal for the Educational Leadership Program

School of Education of Universidad del Turabo

Submitted by Angela Candelario, Ph.D. Dean, School of Education

Prepared by Steering Committee TEAC Self – Study

Approved by Faculty June 2012

Dr. Rafael Cartagena Committee Chair

i

Table of Contents

Page Brief Introduction v

Members of Steering Committee v

Faculty Approval vi

Section 1: Program Overview 1

Institutional Profile 1

UT’s Mission 1

The School of Education 2

SOED’s Conceptual Framework 3

Brief History of the Program 5

Enrollment 5

Section 2: Claims and Rationale 7

Introduction 7

Claims of the SOED – Graduate Program 7

General Description of the Evidence to Support the Claims 8

Claim 1 9

Claim 2 13

Claim 3 14

Claim 4 15

Claim 5 16

Section 3: Methods of Assessment 17

Claim 1 17

Claim 2 19

Claim 3 19

Claim 4 19

Claim 5 19

Section 4: Pilot Assessment Results 20

Section 5 Discussion and Planning 21

Section 6: Evidence of Institutional Learning 24

Section 7: References 25

Appendix A: Internal Audit 28

Appendix B: Program Capacity for Quality 47

Appendix C: Faculty Qualifications 62

Appendix D: Program Requirements 75

Appendix E: Inventory of evidence 80

Appendix F: Local Assessments 83

ii

Requirements for the Brief Find it on page

Still missing

1. We identify the author(s) of the document. v

2. We provide evidence that the faculty approved the document. vi

3. We give a brief account of the history and logic of the program and its place within the institution. 1

4. We provide some demographics of program faculty and students (e.g., race and gender), broken out by year, by each program option. 5

5. We state our claims explicitly and precisely. 7

6. We provide evidence to support our claims organized by their relationship to the components of QPI (1.1–1.3). 8

7. We provide evidence for all the subcomponents of QPI (I.4): learning how to learn (1.4.1); multicultural perspectives and accuracy (1.4.2) and technology (1.4.3). 8

8. We have checked that our claims are consistent with other program documents (e.g., catalogs, websites, and brochures). 87

9. In the rationale, we explain why we selected our particular measures and why we thought these measures would be reliable and valid indicators of our claims. 17

10. In the rationale, we also explain why we think the criteria and standards we have selected as indicating success are appropriate. 17

11. We describe our method of acquiring our evidence – the overall design of our approach, including sampling and comparison groups (if applicable). 17

12. We provide at least two measures for each claim unless there is a single measure of certain or authentic validity. 17

13. For each measure we include empirical evidence of the degree of reliability and validity. 8

14. We present findings related to each claim, and we offer a conclusion for each claim, explaining how our evidence supports or does not support the claim. 21

15. We describe how we have recently used evidence of student performance in making decisions to change and improve the program. 8, 24

16. We provide a plan for making future decisions concerning program improvements based on evidence of our students’ performance. 24

17. We provide evidence that we have conducted an internal audit of our quality control system (QCS) and we present and discuss the implications of the findings from our internal audit. 28

18. We provide Appendix C that describes faculty qualifications. 62

19. We provide Appendix D that describes our program requirements and their alignment with state and national standards. 75

20. We make a case for institutional commitment to the program (Appendix B). 47

21. We make a case that we have sufficient capacity to offer a quality program (Appendix B) 51

22. We list all evidence (related to accreditation) available to the program (Appendix E). 80

23. We provide copies of all locally developed assessments in Appendix F. 83

24. We provide, if applicable, copies of decisions by other recognized accreditors for professional education programs not covered in the Inquiry Brief (Appendix G). N/A

25. If our program or any program option is delivered in distance education format, we make the case that we have the capacity to ensure timely delivery of distance education and support services and to accommodate current student numbers and expected near-term growth in enrollment.

N/A

26. If our program or any program option is delivered in distance education format, we describe the process by which we verify the identity of students taking distance education courses. N/A

iii

Acronyms used throughout the brief AGMUS Ana G. Méndez University System

(Sistema Universitario Ana G. Méndez, SUAGM, Spanish acronym) CCSSO Council of Chief of State School Officers GAC Graduate Assessment Committee IDDUT Instituto de Desarrollo del Docente de la Universidad del Turabo

(Institutional Faculty Development Institute) INTASC Interstate New Teachers Assessment and Support Consortium ISLLC Interstate School Leader Licensure Consortium SLLA School Leaders Licensure Assessment SOED School of Education of UT UT Universidad del Turabo List of Tables No. Table Page

1 Enrollment in the MA in Educational Administration and Doctoral Degree in Educational Leadership 5

2 Ethnicity of MA and Doctoral Students 5 3 Gender of MA and Doctoral Students 6 4 Degree Completion by Program 6 5 General Description of the Evidence to Support the Claims 8 6 Doctoral Degree Comprehensive Examinations Results 2008-2009 21 7 Grade Distribution in Courses of the MEd Degree 22 8 Grade Distribution in Courses of the Doctoral Degree 23

List of Tables in Appendices

No. Table Page A-1 Curriculum Audit Results 31 A-2 Faculty Audit Results 35 A-3 Facilities Audit Report 38 A-4 Fiscal and Administrative Affairs Audit Report 40 A-5 Student Admission and Retention Audit Trail 42 A-6 Student Support Services Audit Results 44 A-7 Student Learning Audit Results 47 B-1 Average Salary for School 53 B-2 Basic Salary for Rank and School 53 B-3 UT Faculty Ranks- Graduate and Undergraduate Academic year 2011-2012 54 B-4 SOED Type of Contract – Graduate and Undergraduate Academic Year 2011-2012 54

B-5 Proportion of Full vs. Part Time Faculty at SOED : Doctoral and Master Degree Level Academic Years 2007, 2008, 2009 54

B-6 Basic Salary of Adjunct Faculty by Rank and School 54 B-7 Resources in Education available at VIR 55 B-8 Electronic Resources Databases 56 B-9 Electronic Resources: A sample of E-Journal available at UT 58

B-10 Electronic Resources: E-Books 59 B-11 Classrooms Assigned to SOED 59 B-12 Laboratory Space Used by SOED 60 B-13 Annual Budget of the Different Schools 61 B-14 End of Semester Evaluation 64

iv

No. Table Page C-1 Full Time Faculty 63 C-2 Adjunct Faculty 72 C-3 Part Time Faculty 74 D-1 Alignment of MA Program Requirements 75

D-2 Alignment of Doctoral Program Requirements with TEAC Q.P.I, State Standards and Program Requirements 76

D-3 Specific Program Requirements: Masters in Educational Administration and Supervision 78

D-4 Specific Program Requirements: Doctoral Degree in Educational Leadership 79 E-1 Inventory of Evidence 81 F-1 Topics of Completed and in Progress Dissertations 93 F-2 Assessment of Internship using ISSLLC Standard 98

List of Figures

No. Figure Page 1 UT’s Organizational Chart 2 2 Organizational Chart of the School of Education 3

A-1 SOED Quality Control System 29 A-2 Curriculum Processes at SOED 30 A-3 Curriculum Audit Trail 31 A-4 Faculty Audit Trail 35 A-5 Facilities, Furniture and Equipment Audit Trail 37 A-6 Fiscal and Administrative Affairs Audit Trail 39 A-7 Student Support Audit Trail 40 F-1 Conceptual Model Linking Learning Objectives to Actions 87

List of Documents

No. Figure Page Doc-1 Rubric for the correction of the Doctoral Comprehensive Examination 83 Doc-2 Questionnaire about the educational experience in the Master Degree Programs 85 Doc-3 ISLLC 2008 at a Glance 88 Doc-4 Facsimile Survey of End-of-Program Survey 89 Doc-5 Professional Portfolio 95 Doc-6 Orientation for Employees 97 Doc 7 SOED Assessment Plan 99

v

TEAC Inquiry Brief Proposal Approval

The Brief received unanimous approval for submission on June 2012 Many colleagues throughout the University provided information and feedback during this process. The School of Education (SOED) appreciates the support of Dr. María del C. Santos, Associate Vice-Chancellor for Evaluation and Development; Prof. Edna Orta, Associate Vice-Chancellor for Administrative Affairs; Ms. Ana María Ortega, Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs; Dr. Gladys Betancourt, Vice-Chancellor for Administrative Affairs; Dr. Sarai Lastra, Vice-Chancellor for Academic Resources; Dr. Jorge Crespo.

For the sake of this Brief, we will be examining the Educational Leadership Program. Steering Committee

This Brief has been prepared by a SOED Steering Committee selected by the Dean of the School of Education with the endorsement of the Faculty. The members of the Steering Committee are:

Rafael Cartagena Rosita Puig Gladys Betancourt Jorge Garófalo Juan González Lamela

Sub-Committees

Claims and Rationale Claim 1 Rafael Cartagena & Rosita Puig Claim 2 Rosita Puig & David Méndez Claim 3 Francisco Vélez & Rafael Cartagena Claim 4 Gladys Betancourt & Alejandro Betancourt Claim 5 Jorge Garófalo & Angel Caraballo

Faculty Qualifications Juan González Lamela & Rafael Cartagena Institutional Capacity Gladys Betancourt & Dulcina Nuñez

Program Requirements Rafael Cartagena & Rosita Puig Audit Team Steering Committee

vi

Faculty Approval

1

Section 1 Program Overview

Institutional Profile

Universidad del Turabo (UT) is a private non-profit institution of higher education located 15 miles southeast of San Juan within easy reach of the entire East-Central part of the Island of Puerto Rico. Its 140-acre suburban campus provides an ideal atmosphere for the learning experience. A professionally oriented institution, UT offers certificates, associate, baccalaureate and master degrees in business, education, science, social sciences, design, engineering and health sciences, and doctoral programs in business, psychology, environmental sciences and education. The University’s student population consists mostly of commuting young adults from the east-central region of the Island. The student body is composed of undergraduates, graduate students at the master’s level, doctoral students and students in certification programs.

Since its founding in 1972, UT has evolved an educational philosophy that places high value on individual accomplishment, providing opportunities to students who, because of economic limitations, may not otherwise advance in today’s highly competitive world. Such advancement is a primary focus at UT, where development is achieved by working closely with agencies, businesses and industries throughout Puerto Rico, and through partnerships with higher education institutions in the United States and Latin America. The Institution sees the need for a new generation of technically-skilled individuals, who are deeply aware of their origins, committed to ethical human values and prepared for the challenge of a lifelong learning. UT, as part of the privately-funded Ana G. Méndez University System (AGMUS), is dedicated to fulfilling that need through continuous improvement of its faculty, programs and facilities to make individual growth and achievement its hallmark of excellence, now and in the future. UT’s Mission The mission of UT states the following:

“…to enhance knowledge through excellence in teaching, and to foster research, innovation, and the internationalization of its programs.” The University is committed to graduating well educated, professionally competent students, who can think critically and are technologically literate. The Institution also promotes the development of ethical principles and values that will allow graduates to contribute to the well-being of the community through their knowledge of social systems and their role as responsible citizens.

UT is committed to freedom of thought and expression; respect for diversity; respect for the dignity of the individual; the generation, dissemination and application of knowledge; excellence in planning, operations and service; and respect for nature and the environment. To accomplish its mission the institution recruits and develops quality human resources to excel in academic affairs, community involvement, cultural development, international collaboration, and sports. UT will: 1. Maintain a flexible admission policy in which each academic School establishes requirements for its

programs. 2. Provide services to a diversified student body to help them achieve their academic and personal goals. 3. Foster research to strengthen the teaching and learning processes as well as to improve the quality of life of

the surrounding communities. 4. Develop and implement a systematic faculty development plan to improve academic credentials,

pedagogical competencies and instructional technology skills. 5. Recruit and develop quality human resources 6. Promote the use of innovative and nontraditional teaching methodologies. 7. Promote ethical values that will allow students to exert their professional judgment and performance

responsibly. 8. Foster the preservation, and dissemination of those values inherent to the Puerto Rican culture in a global

context. 9. Establish collaborative partnerships among universities, government, industry, and community

organizations. 10. Contribute to student’s awareness of their rights and responsibilities as citizens in a democratic society.

2

Figure 1: UT’s Organizational Chart The School of Education

The SOED is one of the largest Schools at UT in terms of academic programs offered and in terms of support staff to serve its students. The School offers Bachelor degrees in Elementary Education, Secondary Education, Special Education and Physical Education (Accredited by TEAC on February 2012); Master degrees with eight specializations (Educational Administration, Teaching English as a Second Language, Special Education, Curriculum and Teaching, Counseling, Library Systems and Information Technology, Physical Education and Teaching the Fine Arts); and two doctoral degrees (Educational Leadership and Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Environments). For the purpose of this brief proposal we will be examining the curriculum, enrollment and graduation statistics of the Master’s degree with specialization in Educational Administration, and the Doctoral degree with specialization in Educational Leadership. Both these program are offered only at the Main Campus in Gurabo, Puerto Rico.

The head of the SOED is Dr. Angela Candelario. The SOED is the only School that has three Associate Deans (one each for the undergraduate and physical education divisions, and one for student services), an External Resources Specialist and two Doctoral Coordinators. The SOED has seven student academic services officers. The 31 full time faculty members of the School are assigned either to the undergraduate or graduate divisions according to their academic preparation and expertise. The 17 women and 14 men who compose the faculty of the SOED are 100% Hispanic. During the three academic years included in this Brief, 51 part time and adjunct professors (44 women -86.27% and 7 men -13.23% men; all Hispanics) collaborated in teaching undergraduate and graduate courses. As is true for all universities in Puerto Rico, a Master’s degree is accepted as formal education to teach in the undergraduate divisions, not so for graduate courses where a doctoral degree

3

is required. The fact that the SOED is the institutional unit responsible for all sports activities demands that we have additional staff. The SOED Organizational Chart is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Organizational Chart of the School of Education of UT SOED’s Conceptual Framework

The philosophy of the School of Education derives from the mission of UT. The principle of excellence in teaching, applies both to our faculty and to future teachers. The curriculum has been designed in an effort to prepare professionally competent teachers who can think critically (reflection) and are technologically literate (Cross cutting theme 1.4.3–Technology). We value the development of ethical principles, the knowledge of social systems and respect for nature and the environment. All these are reflected in the core curriculum of both MA and Doctoral Program related to educational administration and educational leadership. We promote respect for diversity; respect for the dignity of the individual (Cross cutting theme 1.4.2–Multicultural perspectives and accuracy). We expect the generation, dissemination and application of knowledge and excellence in planning, operations and service. The combination of all the above expectations from our students and faculty sustains the purpose of the SOED of preparing educators that will adhere to the School’s motto: Leadership, Collaboration and Reflection to Transform Education.

SOED Dean

Administrative Director

Associate Dean for Physical Education

Universidad del Turabo School of Education (SOED)

Associate Dean for

U d d t

Administrative Secretary

Administrative Assistant

Special Projects Director

Athletic Director

Sports Coordinator

Sport Complex Coordinator

4

The Conceptual Framework of the SOED at UT was developed through continual dialogue between the different constituents of our learning community and encompasses all undergraduate and graduate programs of the School. Its purpose is to ensure coherence of curriculum, instruction, clinical practice and assessment across the professional education unit. It articulates a shared vision, mission and theme for both initial and advanced programs. Each program has its own specific outcomes that align with national content area standards, as stated by the state, and the goals of the performance of its educational leaders.

As stated in our Conceptual Framework, we expect our candidates to be reflective practitioners who create, organize and disseminate knowledge. The SOED’s faculty strongly believes that educational leaders must have knowledge of a group of disciplines that give educational leaders a strong understanding of the complexity of our society and its pedagogical challenges. They should be able to translate this knowledge to help create better educational enterprises (Q.P. 1.1).

The constructivist paradigm supports our view of preparing reflective and collaborative educational leaders that will help to transform education. The constructivist paradigm has evolved from the work of many twentieth century research psychologists and educators who have contributed significantly to the development of the professional educator. Historically, Gesell (1925) provided insights into the role of maturation in learning. Piaget (1972) introduced the stages of cognition. Dewey (1933) explored the concept of active, self-expressive learning; and Erikson (1950) established the importance of social/emotional relationships. Kohlberg (1981) and Gilligan (1983) outlined the stages of moral development, and Vygotsky (1979) focused on language and thought development. Vygotsky additionally discussed the influence of culture on learning and understanding. Gardner (1983; 1993) added the notion of multiple intelligences, with each student having his or her own repertoire of strengths. Research on how the human brain learns (D’Arcangelo, 1998; Jensen, 1998; Wolfe & Brandt, 1998) supports the constructivist theory, as does Daniel Goleman (1995) with his theory of emotional intelligence. Constructivism is a theory of knowledge and learning (Fosnot, 1996) that provides the basic framework for professional education programs at the SOED.

We view educational leadership both as an art and a science, learning as a reciprocal process and service as a responsibility. (Q.P. 1.3) Thus, we provide a learning environment that promotes individual creativity and fosters the synthesis of theory and practice. We facilitate the development of leaders who are sensitive to individual differences (Cross cutting theme 1.4.2–Multicultural perspectives and accuracy), to moral and equity issues, and who in their work as educators will actively shape educational organizations.

Leadership is not solely professionalism, enthusiasm, passion and commitment. It is also action that transforms teaching and learning in a school, that ties school and community together on behalf of learning and that advances social sustainability and quality of life for a community (Crowther, Kaagan, Ferguson & Hann, 2002).

Collaboration is defined as working collectively to identify common goals, developing strategies for attaining those goals and jointly resolving problems that arise in the processes. In order to foster collaboration, we must build a culture of trust and respect for all. We work with students, colleagues and the community to build relationships and strengthen caring and justice. We view collaboration as a concept that includes contributing to the well-being of the community (caring), respect, sensitivity and value for individual differences.

A number of researchers have demonstrated the high degree of learning possible when students can collaborate in learning tasks and when they use their own knowledge as a foundation for learning. Some of them are: Moll’s (1988) research on teacher use of successful cultural patterns, Palincsar & Brown’s (1985) work on reciprocal teaching and Johnson & Johnson’s (1987) and Slavin’s (1990) work on cooperative learning, a form of collaboration. (Cross cutting theme 1.4.1-Learning how to Learn).

Reflection is an inquiry approach that emphasizes an ethic of caring and collaborating, a constructivist approach to leadership and creative problem solving. (Henderson, 2001). An ethic of caring provides a framework of respect to the uniqueness of individuals and the range of multiple talents and capacities of all learners (Cross cutting theme 1.4.2–Multicultural perspectives and accuracy). A premium is placed on the persons, a view which is constant to the AGMUS vision statement and UT’s mission. Educators using a constructivist approach place emphasis on concepts, active learning and cooperative learning, and they interweave assessment. A constructivist approach seeks to connect theory to practice, a view that is supported by the SOED curriculum and teaching practices of our faculty. Key references on the importance of reflective

5

practice include Cruickshank & Haefele (2001), Good & Brophy (1997) Henderson (1992), Kauffman, Mostert, Trent & Hallahan (2002), and Langley & Senne (1997).

Our candidates must have the practical experiences that allow them to understand and use self-evaluation and reflection as tools for professional growth (Yost, Sentner & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). An assessment plan that encompasses all students from the time they enter the degree, until they graduate is in progress. This plan evidences the commitment of the faculty to the improvement and competence developed by each student prior to their induction into the leadership program. Educational experiences are designed to develop candidates’ ability to think systematically about professional practice and learn from experience. Brief History of the Program

The history of leadership education at UT reveals a dynamic process of growth and evolution. Along with UT’s foundation, in 1972, academic education programs were created, the first being a bachelor’s degree in Elementary Education. Since then, what was originally the Department of Education has evolved to become the SOED. In 1987, the first graduate programs were started, and in 2003, we initiated our Ed. D. program. The SOED also includes the administration of the Sports Complex, the Center for Wellness and Health Promotion, a Distance Education program in New York, a Master’s Degree in English as a Second Language Program in Pennsylvania and several grant projects.

The Educational Administration and Educational Leadership Program have often taken a pioneering role in the formulation of new visions and conceptualization of our academic offerings. Faculty work together in presenting an integrated curriculum, involving students through research, case analysis, group projects, integrative experiences and cooperative learning. Learning is an interactive process, thus integration, student participation and teamwork is consistently reflected in all courses. Enrollment

For the first semester of academic year 2009-10, the 15,268 student body at UT was composed of 11,779 undergraduates, 2,607 graduate students, 373 doctoral students and 509 students in certificate programs. During that semester, the undergraduate teacher education program had an enrollment of 1,700 undergraduate students in the main campus, the Off-Campus Centers and the Adult Accelerated Program (AHORA). The graduate enrollment for the SOED was 706 master degree students and 172 doctoral students. All our students are commuters. It is important to highlight that some students enroll in the M Ed program only to obtain an 18 credit Certification to become a School Director. These students already have a M Ed degree in another field of education. Although these students are only interested in this Certification, they undergo all the assessment measures assigned for students completing the whole program. Table 1: Enrollment in the M. Ed. in Educational Administration and Doctoral Degree in Educational Leadership for Academic Years: 2007-2011

Year 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

M. Ed. 69 72 69 72

Doctoral Degree 51 53 60 77

Table 2: Ethnicity of M. Ed. and Doctoral Students for Academic Years: 2007-2011

Ethnicity 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

M. Ed. 100% Hispanic 100% Hispanic 100% Hispanic 100% Hispanic

Doctoral Degree 100% Hispanic 100% Hispanic 100% Hispanic 100% Hispanic

6

Table 3: Gender of M. Ed. and Doctoral Students for Academic Years: 2007-2011

Year 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

M. Ed.

M 11 15.94% 13 18.06% 13 18.84% 20

F 58 84.06% 59 81.94% 56 81.16% 52

Total 69 72 69 72

Doctoral Degree

M 16 31.37% 13 24.53% 14 23.33% 21

F 35 68.63% 40 75.47 46 76.67% 56

Total 51 53 60 77 Table 4: Degree Completion by Program for Academic Years: 2007-11

Year 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Total

M. Ed.

M 1 12.50% 3 20.00% 3 27.27% 7 53.85% 14 29.79%

F 7 87.50% 12 80.00% 8 72.73% 6 46.15% 33 70.21%

Total 8 15 11 13 47

Doctoral Degree

M 3 37.50% 3 25.00%

F 1 100% 3 100% 5 62.50% 9 75.00%

Total 1 3 8 12 Note: The first graduate of the doctoral graduates was on 2008-09.

7

Section 2 Claims and Rationale

Introduction

As part of its mission, the SOED is committed to developing reflective, collaborative and highly effective educational leaders that will help to transform education. Based on the goals, objectives, beliefs and educational philosophy stated in our Conceptual Framework, we present five claims that operationally describe our mission and point to the fact that the graduates of the Educational Administration specialization for the MA degree and the graduates of the Educational Leadership specialization for the Ed. D. degree of the SOED at UT are competent, qualified and caring. The curriculum design for the MA degree in Educational Administration has been built upon three basic components: Core Courses, Required Specialization Courses and Research Courses. The Doctoral degree in Educational Leadership is built upon a Social Context Component, a Specialization Component and a Research Component. The relationship among the claims, our conceptual framework, the Puerto Rico Department of Education (PRDE) Professional Standards for Principals, the Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership, and our programs learning outcomes is presented in Appendix D. Claims of the SOED Graduate Program

Claim 1: Professional Knowledge. The faculty claims that the graduates of the MA degree in Educational Administration and the graduates of the Ed. D. in Educational Leadership (herein referred to as the graduates) understand the political, social, economic and cultural complexity of educational enterprises, and can use that understanding to solve problems and create a school environment that enhances learning. Claim 2: Strategic Decision Making. The faculty claims that the graduates understand educational structures and processes use this understanding to promote the success of every student, and gather data to measure the effectiveness of these efforts. Claim 3: Caring Leadership Skills and Multi Cultural Perspectives and Accuracy. The faculty claims that the program prepares educational leaders who will act in an ethical, fair and trustworthy manner to promote success of every student and are understanding and sensible to parents’, students’ and teachers’ cultural, racial, gender and individual differences. Claim 4: Learning How to Learn. The faculty claims that the constructivist learning philosophy enhances students’ abilities to continue learning after completion of programs. Claim 5 Technology. The faculty claims that students use instructional technology throughout coursework as an integral part of the program.

8

Table 5: General Description of the Evidence to Support the Claims Evidence Relevance Verifiable Representative Cumulative Actionable

Grade distributions

With added confidence by using in combination with other evidence give clear picture of student achievement.

Easy to verify electronically as it is certified by the Registrar.

All students receive grades in their courses.

Provide a consistent history of student achievement over time

Yield information for curriculum and academic regulations revision; provide information on faculty development needs.

Comprehensive examinations or EDUC 604

Students’ demonstrate knowledge and skills.

Scores and test guidelines are available to review

MA students take comprehensive examination or EDUC 604; all doctoral students are required to take The Comprehensive Examination.

Provide a historical record of mastery of content and skills.

Allows faculty to calibrate students’ strengths and weaknesses and take action in program revision.

Capstone projects and Professional Portfolios

Reinforce grades and comprehensive examination in understanding students’ acquisition of skills and knowledge.

Portfolios are easily verifiable by independent evaluators.

All MA and Doctoral students’ are required to complete a Capstone Project and Portfolio.MA students start a portfolio in EDUC 504, doctoral program start in EDUC 716.

Allow students to create a reflective history of academic life in the program from beginning to end.

Allows for students recommendations for revising courses and processes.

Dissertation Courses

Students demonstrate mastery of the process of acquiring, processing and creating new knowledge

The document is published and presented to the educational community.

All doctoral students complete a dissertation.

Students have to accumulate different skills and knowledge to write a dissertation.

Dissertations’ recommendations are actionable. Quality of document reflects quality of program and provides new knowledge and recommendations for action.

End-of-program survey

Information is essential for understanding students’ self-assessment of knowledge and quality od program.

Results are presented for faculty to discuss and take action.

All students complete the end of program survey.

Accumulated and discussed results over the years reinforce or contradict evidence of student achievement.

Information is used to revise and improve programs.

Pre and Posttest using ISSLC Standards for Educational Leaders

SLLA Test is used to measure ISLLC 2008 Standards that provide adequate profile of needed skills for educational leaders.

Scores and correction criteria are available for review.

All MA and Doctoral students will take the PRE and Post SLLA test.

Comparison from PRE to POST provides progress achieved.

Results show areas where faculty action could be necessary.

MA Internship’ Results

Theory is put into practice. Educational output is seen in real time in a real educational setting.

All evaluations instruments produced during internship are kept in SOED and are available for examination.

All MA students complete the internship.

The internship scheduled at the end of MA program provides a comprehensive view of the candidates capabilities developed over time in program.

Students’ strengths and weakness are shown in internship evaluations reports indicating faculty the direction of program adjustments.

Work samples

MA Students have to demonstrate skills by producing specific products in selected courses.

Work samples are kept by faculty members and are available for examination.

All MA students have to take EDUC 604, 617 and 515.

All these courses required acquired knowledge and skills during program in order to produce three different work samples.

Evaluation documents of courses provide information for program revision.

9

Claim 1: Professional Knowledge. The faculty claims that the graduates of the MA degree in Educational Administration and the graduates of the Ed. D. in Educational Leadership understand the political, social, economic and cultural complexity of educational enterprises, and can use that understanding to solve problems and create a school environment that enhances learning.

Graduates of the SOED MA degree in Educational Administration complete 30 credits, including a core of general courses which gives completers a holistic view of the educational enterprise and specific knowledge of those subject areas important to an educational leader such as conflict resolution, human resources management, administration of financial resources, planning and evaluation, leadership and communication. Students are required to successfully complete EDUC 604: Interdisciplinary Seminar. The purpose of this course is to integrate and apply knowledge acquired in the core and specialization courses.

Graduates of the Doctoral degree in Educational Leadership complete 9 credits from the social context of education. These courses provide a strong foundation of introductory and interdisciplinary knowledge of the educational enterprise. The specialization components give the student a wide spectrum of professional knowledge. The comprehensive examination gives students the opportunity to integrate the acquired knowledge. In the doctoral dissertation students can apply the knowledge and skills acquired.

As evidence of Claim 1, the SOED will present the following evidence for all educational leaders programs: 1. Grade Distributions

Courses are designed for explicit expectations of performance that match the course objectives and that are assessed with rubric for consistency (Rogers, n.d.; Sadler, 2005). At the graduate level, it is expected that students will perform well and meet or exceed expectations provided in the courses by the instructors. UT requires a minimum 3.0 grade-point average for graduate programs.

The issue of grading is one that comes under continuous scrutiny. Anchoring instructor assessment of student work to valid and reliable criteria is difficult in the absence of standardized testing, which is not an outcome component for program completion or review. Providing authenticity and believability of outcomes is challenging (Carpenter-Hubbin & Hornsby, 2005; Chatterji, 2005). Insofar as SOED has an arduous process for hiring and assigning its faculty, part of the believability of using grades to determine the degree of professional knowledge demonstrated by program candidates comes from the expertise provided by the faculty. Since grades are determined with criterion reference established and applied by each instructor, SOED is establishing linkages between course objectives, course activities, and evaluation of student work (guided by defined rubrics).

SOED is required to update each master and doctoral course syllabus every five years. This includes updating the course requirements and the bibliography that supports each course. Additionally, each course is reconfigured according to the conceptual model linking learning objectives to outcomes (Appendix F, Figure F1).

The conceptual model establishes a connection between the course objectives, the assignments to demonstrate learning, the means of assessment linked to the Interstate School Leader Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards 2008, and the performance outcomes. Each benchmark assessment stresses understanding and application of specific ISLLC as deconstructed by faculty (Appendix F).

Historically, longitudinal grade distributions show students performing well (on a 4 point scale). The further implementation of the linkages described above should add veracity to the use of grades to determine professional knowledge. The reliability of grades is based on the instruments used by the faculty and the adequacy of the grading system.

10

2. Comprehensive examinations MA Students either take a comprehensive examination or EDUC 604 which is an integration

seminar. The Comprehensive Examination measures the students’ academic achievement upon completion of course load.

EDUC 604 allows students to integrate professional knowledge acquired in specialization, research and general courses and explore in depth a leadership topic. At the end of the course students assess the program by answering questions such as: A. What courses help the student to develop skills in leadership, collaboration and reflection? B. How did these courses helped in terms of course content, teaching methodology, group

dynamics? C. What would the students recommend to further develop these skills? D. Which two courses helped the student the most in their professional development? E. What was the most positive experience in the program? What was the worst? They are also required to complete a satisfaction survey (Appendix F-2).

One of the required capstone activities for the Doctorate in Educational Leadership is a comprehensive examination. Students are asked to respond to specific issues related to program content that will allow them to demonstrate their command of professional knowledge, critical thinking and writing. The rubrics for the comprehensive examinations appear in Appendix F. The areas of focus are: (1) Overall Understanding/Conceptual Frameworks, (2) Creation of a Cogent Argument and Ability to Synthesize Responses, and (3) Command of Theory Base and Tenable Support.

Reviewers assess students’ responses using the rubrics. Each question has two reviewers. Responses are submitted with numbers so as to avoid reviewer positive or negative bias. If there is a disagreement of more than 10 points between reviewers which usually arise from interpretations as to whether the student has provided an answer of sufficient quality and has supported it with literature; a third review is appointed. The third reviewer has to assess the adequacy of students handling of content in terms of quantity, depth and support of literature. This occurs occasionally which indicates that there is reasonable inter-rater confidence.

3. Capstone project: Professional Portfolio

Each program has a capstone project for students to demonstrate knowledge and/or research skills. They are as follows:

MA program – School Leadership Portfolio: Students start preparing a professional portfolio in the gateway course of the program, EDUC 504: Leadership, Communication and Team Work. In this course they complete a self-evaluation of their professional aptitudes, a demographic data questionnaire, and write an essay on their program’s expectations. In EDUC 604, at the end of the program, students complete the portfolio with exhibits of their work. They prepare resumes and professional platforms of perspectives that are generated from their learning in program offerings as they relate to the field of educational leadership. They are asked to address the following areas: 1) Leadership 2) Management and Administration 3) Decision Making 4) The School (including considerations of the physical environment) 5) The Student 6) The Teacher 7) The Administrator 8) Student Assessment 9) Supervision and Evaluation 10) Problem Solving 11) Education Change

11

12) Other position that the students thinks are pertinent to his her program. A faculty member reviews the portfolio and discusses the student’s perspectives at an exit

interview, along with feedback regarding the student’s experiences during the program – these include the student’s perspective of program strengths, areas for improvement, and suggestions for improvement. Copies of the resume and professional platform (key components of the professional portfolio) are kept in the students’ files as evidence of capstone completion.

SOED is realigning the Professional Portfolio with the Interstate School Leader Lisensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards for MA and doctoral students. Students will prepare personnel ISLLC inventories when they first enter the program and again as part of their exit requirements. The final inventory will be reviewed by a faculty member using a rubric.

At the doctoral level, students will start a professional portfolio in EDUC 716: Contemporary Problems and Issues in Education. In this course, students will complete a self-evaluation of their professional attitudes, and a demographic data questionnaire. They will write an essay on their program expectations. In EDUC 905 and 906 (Dissertation I and II), students will complete their portfolio including: 1) The Evaluation of their Dissertation Proposal Defense. 2) The Institutional Review Board approval of their dissertation. 3) A self-evaluation of their professional attitudes. 4) A satisfaction survey for program graduates.

4. Dissertation Courses

MA students can use EDUC 617 as an integration seminar in substitution of a thesis. The student will complete a non-interactive research project in educational administration. This course gives the student a synthesis of program course content with a research based focus and discussion of the capstone projects, some of which have been completed in the internship (EDUC 515).

For doctoral students the completed dissertation is one of the most important evidence supporting claims. The dissertation is a traditional research study proposed by the student to a three member faculty committee. After the proposal is approved, the student embarks on the study and presents it in written form, according to guidelines, UT Doctoral Programs Rules and Regulations, and presents an oral defense it his/her dissertation committee. The following general criteria are used to judge the acceptability of the dissertation: • Problem Statement:

o Articulates clear research problem/question/objective o Makes connections to previous research o Establishes need/contribution/value to the field of study o Describes limitations to the study o Defines unique terminology

• Literature Review o Sets out a context for the research o Evolves in an organized progression o Utilizes and synthesizes current, relevant, and credible sources o Uses appropriate APA format for citations o Supports the purpose and direction of the research project

• Methodology o Research methods complement the problem, purpose, hypothesis, questions, and objective of

the study. o Details methods of collecting and analyzing data based on the problem, purpose, hypothesis,

and objective of the study o Provides rationale for the instrument used in data collection

12

• Analysis/Results o Analyzes and explains the data presented in the context of the research questions/hypotheses o Displays data graphically and explains clearly in narrative

• Conclusions/Recommendations o Makes interpretations and recommendations based on the data provided. o Integrates findings of the literature with findings of the study that relate to the research

objectives o Provides succinct summary of research project.

• Writing/Formatting o Demonstrates professional and scholarly competence in the development of a major research

project o Demonstrates control of syntax, grammar/paragraphs are focused, coherent, and connected

with transitions • Proofread for spelling, typing, punctuation

o Uses most recent standards for APA style for in-text and end references, for tables/figures/charts, for Title page, Abstract, Table of Contents, headings, margins, and spacing.

5. End-of-program survey

Within a year after students have completed their programs, they will be asked to complete a survey that reflects their perspective on the importance of various aspects of the program. These surveys will be distributed electronically (Kjaer, Maagaard, & Wied, 2006). (A facsimile survey appears in Appendix F-A.)

The results of the survey will inform the faculty regarding the aspects of the programs that are affirmed by the students when they have the opportunity to compare program content with their job responsibilities. The survey will also provide feedback regarding program aspects that may not be meeting the needs of the graduates and should be considered for revision.

6. Pre and Posttest using ISSLC Standards for Educational Leaders

Students beginning the MA and Doctoral degrees will take a pretest: The School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA; Test of ETS) based on the applicable ISLLC Standards. A posttest (The SLLA Test) will be administered at the completion of all the course work. The difference between pre and posttest will serve as an assessment of knowledge acquisition during the programs (Appendix F-5).

The ISLLC Standards for School Leaders were developed under the auspices of the Council of Chief of State School Officers (CCSSO) in 1996 and lately revised in 2008 to address school reform issues begun by the Interstate New Teachers Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). The standards provided a basis of informing school leader preparation programs on the development and assessment of those programs.

The ISLLC standards provide an important springboard for developing school leaders’ preparation programs. The application of these standards to the performance of principals was considered preferential by a sample of school superintendents.

Current SLLA Test was developed by ETS and satisfies ETS Standards for Quality and Fairness which are consistent with the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing Industry Standards issued jointly by the American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association and the National Council on Measurements in Education.

ETS carried out a validity study that started with a survey of educational leaders around MSA who identified the knowledge and skills beginning educational leaders needed to possess. From the analysis of their answers (“job analysis surveys”) a committee developed guidelines and specifications for the multiple choice questions of the test. Panel of experts with representation of

13

gender, race, ethnicity, school demographics and experience in education then examined the test questions evaluating each question for its relevance. During the validity study, the panel provided a passing score recommendations.

Originally six jurisdictions participated in the validity study, namely Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and the District of Colombia. The SLLA test has not been used in sufficient members to build a large database by which its validity can be measured and it has not been validated in Puerto Rico. However since it was designed for attesting to the quality of an individual’s cognitive knowledge and skills to apply that knowledge, to real life situation in education, it is a most useful tool. Therefore Program Faculty decided to validate the instrument in Puerto Rico. The content of the instrument will be validated in Puerto Rico by a panel of educational experts selected from the local Universities and the Department of Education.

Interval validity (format, test location, biases, etc.) will be controlled via specific measures. Reliability will be achieved by a pilot administration in August to a group of students selected randomly from the program.

7. MEd Internship EDUC 515

This course is evaluated with a variety of methods: Students’ reports of internship site, reflective daily diaries of internship experience; self-assessment of ISLLC 2008 Standards, students’ final report of internship and site director’s evaluation of student using ISLLC Standards.

Claim 2: Strategic Decision Making. The faculty claims that the graduates understand educational structures and processes use this understanding to promote the success of every student, and gather data to measure the effectiveness of these efforts.

As evidence of Claim 2, the SOED will present the following evidence for all educational leaders programs: 1. Comprehensive examinations

The choice of approach in dealing with the issues presented on the examination is a key decision that students make. The justification for their approach responds to the choice of conceptual framework that is part of the rubric. (See criterion #2 in Claim 1)

2. Capstone project: Portfolios

The portfolios, internship (MEd level), and dissertation provides students an opportunity to demonstrate certain aspects of strategic decision making: • Depths of reflection in the professional platform, especially as the planks relate the concepts

acquired during the program are applied to future decisions. • The action or empirical research projects provide opportunities for students to apply critical

decisions acquired in the program as they relate to the focus of the inquiry. Evidence of these projects being completed successfully is demonstrated in degree completion. Additionally, copies of professional platform and resumes are found in student files. Completed field studies, EDUC 604 portfolio, dissertations are available in the SOED. (See criterion #3 in Claim 1)

3. Internship Evaluations (See criterion #7 in Claim 1) 4. Dissertation Courses (See criterion #4 in Claim 1) 5. End-of-program survey (See criterion #5 in Claim 1) 6. Pre and Posttest using SLLA test (See criterion #6 in Claim 1)

14

Claim 3: Caring Leadership Skills and Multicultural Perspectives and Accuracy. The faculty claims that the program prepares educational leaders who will act in an ethical, fair and trustworthy manner to promote success of every student and are understanding and sensible to parents’, students’ and teachers’ cultural, racial, gender and individual differences.

Caring Leadership Skills - The assessment of a candidate’s dispositions to become a caring, collaborative, reflective leader starts in the admission interview where students are assessed about their disposition throughout the program. A specific concern of these assessments is to establish candidates’ capacity for developing a collaborative and caring learning environment.

Multicultural perspectives and understanding - The Core component of the MA and the Social Context of the Doctoral degree is designed to look at Puerto Rico as the center of a wide and varied Universe that makes the MA and doctoral candidates aware of uniqueness as a small but important place in the world.

This claim is evidenced and experiences obtained by candidates in courses such as EDUC 504 – Leadership Communication and Teamwork, EDUC 715 – Social, Cultural and Political Dimensions of Educational Organizations, EDUC 718 – Ethics and Education, and EDUC 719 Interpersonal Communication and Collaboration, EDUC 807 – Leadership Community Partnership and Corporate Alliances. Faculty is considering the inclusion of service learning activities in community institutions which would provide additional experiences in the causes.

As evidence of Claim 3, the SOED will present the following evidence for all educational leaders programs: 1. Capstone project: Professional Portfolio

Work samples and reflective diaries included in portfolios will be used to demonstrate caring as an essential characteristic. Details of portfolio structure and content were provided in criterion #3 of Claim 1.

2. Grades Distribution for the following courses (See criterion #1 in Claim 1)

Masters Degree a. EDUC 504 – Leadership Communication and Teamwork b. EDUC 515 – Practicum in School Administration and Supervision Doctoral Degree c. EDUC 715 – Social, Cultural and Political Dimensions of Educational Organization d. EDUC 718 – Ethics and Education e. EDUC 807 – Leadership, Community Relations and Partnerships

3. MEd Internship Evaluations

The internship is integral of the MEd degree. The internship is designed to provide opportunities to students to apply their knowledge and skills as identified in national standards and research. It is the culminating experience in the MEd candidate’s academic program of study. The internship is an exciting, yet challenging, learning experience that places the intern in unfamiliar situations affords intellectually stimulating activities, and allows for empirical application of concepts and skills learned. These experiences will be offered through scaffolding that includes observation, participating and actually leading activities. During the internship, introspection, personal change, professional growth, and self-assessment will empower the intern’s field coupled with supportive mentoring from the principal mentor and faculty instructor will give a strong sense of the exciting opportunities that await the intern in the coming years. Mentoring Support The mentoring process is central to internship success. Formative and summative meetings are designed to offer insightful feedback vital to the professional development of students. These meetings offer a variety of formats, including formal face to face or virtual meetings, informal conversations, planned performance observations, informal observations, debriefing activities, written

15

evaluations, video reviews, email based mentoring or site visits from the faculty supervisor when appropriate or practical. The following individuals will be in position to support the MA Candidate during the Internship Program. They include: • Principal Mentor: The Principal Mentor is the school administrator located at the internship

site to which the student is assigned. The primary responsibility of the principal mentor is to the school and district, then to the student. These individuals have to expertise to provide formative feedback on students’ performance.

• The Practice Supervisor: The Practice Supervisor is a faculty member who has oversight responsibility for the development, implementation and evaluation of the student and the internship action plan. This individual will work closely with the Principal Mentor and the student to ensure that the quality, integrity and outcomes of the Internship meet the University’s standards. The Practice Supervisor is also responsible for implementing course assignments, as required through the curriculum which relate to the Principal Candidate’s practicum/fieldwork experience. They also evaluate students’ logs and activities summaries. Currently students propose plans, including objectives, activities and complete evaluation forms. They also keep logs of their work and write summaries reflectors of their work.

Claim 4: Learning How to Learn. The faculty claims that the constructivist learning philosophy enhances students’ abilities to continue learning after completion of programs.

We have embraced Hargreaves (2003) definition that “learning to learn is not a single entity or skill, but a family of learning practices that enhances one’s capacity to learn”. The SOED fosters the dimension of learning to learn by providing an environment where various active learning methods are used, a decision consistent with our Conceptual Framework. Some of these active methods are cooperative learning and field work as part of their clinical experiences, role playing, class presentations; service learning is being incorporated. Reflection on what they have learned is required in all courses as an important part of their coursework. Modeling is a part of learning to learn and is practiced by the faculty of the SOED when they use different teaching strategies and models for their courses. Conferences, technology, panel discussions, socialized discussions, collaborative learning, group projects, class presentations, are some of the teaching strategies that are modeled by the faculty and that students get to practice in their work environment.

As evidence of Claim 4, the SOED will present the following evidence for all educational leaders programs: 1. Work Samples from courses and clinical experiences:

Masters Degree a. EDUC 604 – Reading Seminar b. EDUC 617 – Classroom Research Seminar c. EDUC 515 – Practicum in School Administration and Supervision

2. Comprehensive examinations (See criterion #2 in Claim 1) 3. Capstone projects (See criterion #3 in Claim 1) 4. End-of-program survey (See criterion #5 in Claim 1)

16

Claim 5 Technology. The faculty claims that students use instructional technology throughout coursework as an integral part of the program.

Facilities are adequately equipped so that technology used in teaching is modeled through coursework. (Appendix A) Students are required to demonstrate competence in utilizing technology in classroom applications. They are required to use the internet for required tasks, give PowerPoint presentations in different courses, and use UT’s Virtual Library resources. Students can also take the following courses as electives.

As evidence of Claim 5, the SOED will present the following evidence for all educational leaders programs: 1. Grades Distribution for the following courses

Masters Degree a. EDUC 501: Curriculum Principles and Development b. EDUC 562: Computer Applications to Teaching Doctoral Degree c. EDUC 808: Educational Computing d. EDUC 810: Technology Media in Education and Training e. EDUC 811: Theory and Practice of Distance Education f. EDUC 809: Instructional Design

EDUC 808, 810 and 811 are elective courses for doctoral students 2. Work Samples from the following courses:

Masters Degree a. EDUC 501: Curriculum Principles and Development Doctoral Degree b. EDUC 808: Educational Computing c. EDUC 810: Technology Media in Education and Training d. EDUC 811: Theory and Practice of Distance Education e. EDUC 809: Instructional System Design EDUC 808, 810 and 811 are elective courses for doctoral students

17

Section 3 Methods of Assessment

Claim 1: Professional Knowledge. The faculty claims that the graduates of the MA degree in Educational Administration and the graduates of the Ed. D. in Educational Leadership understand the political, social, economic and cultural complexity of educational enterprises, and can use that understanding to solve problems and create a school environment that enhances learning. Program measures to support this claim are: 1. Grade distributions

As the faculty move more intentionally to matching the course objectives with the assignments and evaluation anchored to rubrics, we expect greater confidence in using the grades to demonstrate student learning.

Course grades for courses representing each claim can be verified in the Registrars’ office. Grades more than any other evidence can provide a consistent history of student achievement over a five year period (2008 to 2012). Course grades yield solid information for curriculum and academic regulations design and revision; and for faculty development

2. Comprehensive examinations.

It is anticipated that the SOED will develop greater confidence in the review of the comprehensive examinations by analyzing the assessment criteria and working with faculty readers to apply the criteria consistently. Since the examination is comprehensive, only passing rates will be reported.

The Comprehensive Examination is another measure of students’ mastery of content. Two (or three) reviewers verify students’ knowledge using a rubric which is a reliable instrument. Results over five year periods provide a historical view of student mastery of content and as course grades provide a solid cumulative body of evidence of student achievement.

Student performance in the different parts of the examination provides information for program revision, and for restructuring the examination itself. Internal validation is achieved by a strict procedure control in preparation the test, student orientation, the administration and correction of the test. Content validity comes from the panel of faculty member preparing test items.

3. Capstone project and Professional portfolio

For program completion of the master’s degree, each student submits a project for review by the faculty. For research projects, students prepare a proposal to be reviewed by a committee, which determines the acceptability of the project, makes suggestions for changes in the design, and approves the project. Once the proposal is approved, students are authorized to complete the project and report on the results. This report (for a field study, thesis, or dissertation) is reviewed by the committee for acceptability. Any further modifications are recommended before final approval is given.

MA students also have a complete portfolio that started in EDUC 504. The portfolio includes evidence of all important work during program and is evaluated with a rubric.

Samples and reflective diaries included in EDUC 504 and 604 will be used to demonstrate that students have the professional knowledge to become educational leaders. At the Doctoral level, the Portfolio starts in EDUC 716.

In the Capstone Project students translate theory into practice and provide evidence of knowledge and skill growth over the duration of the program. A portfolio is easily verified by independent evaluators. Since all students completing the MA or doctoral program have to put together a portfolio, it is a typical and powerful assessment of students’ effort.

The portfolio, course grades and comprehensive examinations are mutually reinforcing of mastery of knowledge. The portfolio is a vivid witness of our students’ capabilities in practice and provides information as to the validity of itself as an assessment tool.

18

4. Dissertation Courses

When coursework is completed, students embark on their capstone projects. The capstone projects demonstrate that students have met the program requirements for independent projects, as evidence of professional knowledge through professional platforms or student research, and those projects which have been scrutinized by program faculty.

Doctoral students Capstone projects are the dissertation in which they apply the professional knowledge acquired in courses. The dissertation process is very formal and nurtured by faculty and the SOED Dean. Table F-1 (Appendix F) shows the topics of approved dissertations and those in progress. The topics are chosen by the student centered and must contribute to expand the theoretical or practical knowledge of educational leadership.

The dissertation is the most powerful tool to demonstrate mastery of the process for acquiring, processing and generating new knowledge. The dissertation document published in PRO Quest is for the whole educational community to review. The number of dissertations over the years represents our program capabilities and addition to the educational literature. Good dissertations over the years provide a consistent measure of programs contribution to the educational community. The dissertation provides feedback to adjust academic policies and time frames, the relevance of our program for our country’s needs.

5. End-of-program survey.

SOED will administer an alumni survey online in 2012. Part of the survey was designed to inform 2012 the SOED about the importance of job skills and abilities. This was coupled with a probing of the perceptions the respondents had of the contributions of their program related to those job skills and abilities.

A congruence of importance with contributions is critical to either affirming the direction and delivery of the programs or providing information for change. That is, if the importance matches the contributions, the SOED is placing on the appropriate emphasis on the skills and abilities. If there is a mismatch, either too much emphasis is placed on less important areas or insufficient contribution is reaped from more important areas.

A four-point perceptual scale will be used, with 1 being the most favorable – either “Very Important” (for importance) or “A Great Deal” (for contribution). The survey results are available for perusal. Results over the years provide historical consistency and reinforce or contradict other evidence of students’ achievement. The information is vital for program revision.

6. Pre and Post test using SLLA Test

The SLLA Test is based on the ISLLC Standards. These standards provide a framework for educational leaders programs regarding content and necessary skills of modern educational leaders and consequently provide a most useful assessment tool of those skills and knowledge. Results are available for examination and comparison in terms of the knowledge and skills measured by the SLLA Test with those evaluated in courses and comprehensive examinations. This information over the years provides a comprehensive picture of each student and a cumulative evidence over the years that serve to revise courses and program policies.

7. MEd Internship EDUC 515

Theory gets applied in the MEd internship where students have to apply acquired knowledge in real educational settings. The internship evaluation provides an array of documents that are available for examination. Since internship comes at the end of the programs it becomes a sample of our educational output. In the internship students can calibrate the usefulness of the knowledge acquired in program courses and reinforce skills. The information provided by students help the Institution to evaluate program content, academic policies, quality of the internship centers, the

19

adequacy of collaborative agreements with the Department of Education, and the community impact of our students (Document F-4).

Claim 2: Strategic Decision Making. The faculty claims that the graduates understand educational structures and processes use this understanding to promote the success of every student, and gather data to measure the effectiveness of these efforts. Program measures to support this claim are: 1. Comprehensive examinations (See criterion #2 in Claim 1) 2. Capstone project: Professional portfolio (See criterion #3 in Claim 1) 3. Internship Evaluations (See criterion #7 in Claim 1) 4. Dissertation Courses (See criterion #4 in Claim 1) 5. End-of-program survey (See criterion #5 in Claim 1) 6. Pre and Posttest using SLLA test (See criterion #6 in Claim 1) Claim 3: Caring Leadership Skills and Multicultural Perspectives and Accuracy. The faculty claims that the program prepares educational leaders who will act in an ethical, fair and trustworthy manner to promote success of every student and are understanding and sensible to parents’, students’ and teachers’ cultural, racial, gender and individual differences. Program measures to support this claim are: 7. Capstone Project: Professional portfolio (See criterion #3 in Claim 1) 3. Grades Distribution for the following courses

Masters Degree a. EDUC 504 – Leadership Communication and Teamwork b. EDUC 515 – Practicum in School Administration and Supervision Doctoral Degree c. EDUC 715 – Social, Cultural and Political Dimensions of Educational Organization d. EDUC 718 – Ethics and Education e. EDUC 807 – Leadership, Community Relations and Partnerships

3. MEd Internship Evaluations (See criterion #7 in Claim 1) Claim 4: Learning How to Learn. The faculty claims that the constructivist learning philosophy enhances students’ abilities to continue learning after completion of programs. Program measures to support this claim are: 1. Work Samples from courses and clinical experiences:

Masters Degree a. EDUC 604 – Reading Seminar b. EDUC 617 – Classroom Research Seminar c. EDUC 515 – Practicum in School Administration and Supervision

20

2. Comprehensive examinations (See criterion #2 in Claim 1) 3. Capstone project: Professional portfolio (See criterion #3 in Claim 1) 4. End-of-program survey (See criterion #5 in Claim 1) Claim 5 Technology. The faculty claims that students use instructional technology throughout coursework as an integral part of the program. Program measures to support this claim are: 4. Grades Distribution for the following courses

Masters Degree g. EDUC 501: Curriculum Principles and Development h. EDUC 562: Computer Applications to Teaching Doctoral Degree i. EDUC 808: Educational Computing j. EDUC 810: Technology Media in Education and Training k. EDUC 811: Theory and Practice of Distance Education l. EDUC 809: Instructional Design

EDUC 808, 810 and 811 are elective courses for doctoral students 5. Work Samples from the following courses:

Masters Degree f. EDUC 501: Curriculum Principles and Development Doctoral Degree g. EDUC 808: Educational Computing h. EDUC 810: Technology Media in Education and Training i. EDUC 811: Theory and Practice of Distance Education j. EDUC 809: Instructional System Design EDUC 808, 810 and 811 are elective courses for doctoral students

21

Section 4 Pilot Assessment Results

Doctoral comprehensive exams

Data gathered for the three year period in the Inquiry Brief Proposal shows that 70.73% of students taking the examinations passed in years 2008 to 2010. Table 6: Doctoral Comprehensive Examination Results, 2008-09. Leadership Program Academic

Year

Number of students who took the test

Number of students who

passed the test

Percent of students who

passed the test

Number of students who failed the test

Percent of students who failed the test

2008 14 10 71.43 4 28.57 2009 14 10 71.43 4 28.57 2010 13 9 69.23 4 30.77

2008-10 41 29 70.73 12 29.27

22

Grade Distributions Table 7 shows the general grade distribution in the Master’s Degree Level. The academic norm states that students at this level are

required to approve classes with a B-grade. During academic years 2006-2007 through 2008-2009, 97.99% of the students in the Master’s Level got the minimum expected grade. Table 7: Grade Distributions in Courses of the Master’s Degree in Educational Administration in Academic Years 2007-2009

Term A % B % AB % C % D % F % Total Fall 2006 2321 79.54 538 18.44 2859 97.98 48 1.64 3 0.10 8 0.27 2918

Spring 2007 2029 84.72 314 13.11 2343 97.83 26 1.09 5 0.21 21 0.88 2395

Summer 2007 225 89.64 22 8.76 247 98.41 1 0.40 3 1.20 251 Fall 2007 1838 82.98 333 15.03 2171 98.01 28 1.26 1 0.05 15 0.68 2215

Spring 2008 1736 83.34 303 14.55 2039 97.89 17 0.82 1 0.05 26 1.25 2083

Summer 2008 284 94.04 16 5.30 300 99.34 2 0.66 302 Fall 2008 1814 83.10 334 15.30 2148 98.40 16 0.73 3 0.14 16 0.73 2183

Spring 2009 1694 85.17 245 12.32 1939 97.49 18 0.90 2 0.10 30 1.51 1989

Summer 2009 180 81.45 39 17.65 219 99.10 1 0.45 1 0.45 221 Total 12121 83.27 2144 14.73 14265 97.99 155 1.06 16 0.11 121 0.83 14557

23

Table 8 shows the general grade distribution in the Doctoral Degree Programs. The academic norm states that students at this level are required to approve classes with a B-grade. During academic years 2006-2007 through 2008-2009, 98.99% of the students in the Doctoral Level got the minimum expected grade. Table 8: Grade Distributions in Courses of the Doctoral Degree in Educational Leadership in Academic Years 2007-2009

Term A % B % AB % C % D % F % Total Fall 2006 435 87.70 56 11.29 491 98.99 5 1.01 496

Spring 2007 354 84.29 62 14.76 416 99.05 4 0.95 420

Summer 2007 67 95.71 2 2.86 69 98.57 1 1.43 70 Fall 2007 291 78.23 72 19.35 363 97.58 6 1.61 3 0.81 372

Spring 2008 268 70.71 99 26.12 367 96.83 5 1.32 7 1.85 379

Summer 2008 48 96.00 2 4.00 50 100.00 50 Fall 2008 307 78.52 75 19.18 382 97.70 5 1.28 3 0.77 1 0.26 391

Spring 2009 276 80.47 63 18.37 339 98.83 2 0.58 2 0.58 343 Total 435 84.80 56 10.92 491 95.71 5 0.97 3 0.58 14 2.73 513

24

Section 5 Discussion and plan

SOED faculty understands that improvement is a continuous activity required to achieve program

quality and excellence. The design of the improvement plan overlooks each of the Assessment System Stages to assure that the proposed efforts and initiatives have impact on candidates’ preparation and performance as educational leaders. The faculty is aware of the importance of sustaining and using the obtained results in this self-study report to search for new ways to improve. Therefore, an SOED Graduate Assessment Committee (GAC) will be established to revise the Assessment System using the proposed guidelines in this Inquiry Brief Proposal.

The SOED Assessment System will be revised along the following guidelines: a. Enforcement of a systematic process to administer, analyze and publish assessment results among

faculty and students; b. Revision of assessment instruments to align them to new accreditation guidelines; c. Improvement of established measures to strengthen the documentation process for the caring and

cross cutting themes elements of the accreditation process; d. Use of feedback instruments to gather data about students’ perceptions of their preparation process as

future leaders; e. Integration of clinical experiences in more courses to allow students to get actively involved in school

settings before the Practicum; and f. Use of inferential statistics to enhance the understanding of assessment results.

Faculty recognizes that data gathering and analysis from different sources will provide a multicontextual perspective not only for the understanding of candidates learning experience but also for the improvement of their teaching strategies. This data will allow SOED professors to benchmark and integrate effective practices of students and fellow professors into the design of effective learning environments where candidates will acquire knowledge and skills to become highly qualified educational leaders.

At the Exit stage, faculty acknowledges the data from graduated cohorts is limited. Besides the results from the Puerto Rico Principals Examination, that are no longer available as the State has eliminated the examination, there is not data gathered. The development of instruments to gather alumni data about their status after graduation is needed. Surveys can be considered as a means to gather this information from alumni, and also from school administrators for those graduates who are working in school settings.

Faculty also recognizes the need to: a. Integrate the internship with the ISLLC standards (for appropriate PK-12 emphases) and coordinate

the internship with the exit requirements for the MA, Educational Administration and Leadership Program.

b. Continue to standardize the linkages between course objectives, course activities, and evaluation of student work (guided by defined rubrics). (See Claim 1 method of assessment above.)

c. Explore additional student assessment options (Wehlburg, 2010). d. Consider alternatives or adjuncts to student evaluations to provide feedback to instructors regarding

effectiveness of teaching and other instructional activities (cf. Calkins & Micari, 2010). e. Continue the development and implementation of electronic learning options. f. Explore the possibility of including internship requirements for doctoral students in leadership

25

Section 6 Evidence of Institutional Learning

The process of preparing the Brief Proposal was both, a humbling and rewarding experience for

Faculty. The process revealed a most competent faculty, with adequate credentials, experience and well-

motivated, but too busy with teaching loads that hinder research and publication. We also learned that our admissions, academic advertisement, and administrative processes are agile and respond to student’s needs. We learned to appreciate more our own product that the audit, surveys and focus groups revealed as one of great quality; but we also discovered that many people do not know this. Consequently they do not appreciate it because we have done a poor job in disseminating what our students produce such as dissertations. We have good programs, but the large educational community does not know it.

Our students are well established, esteemed and in good educational leadership positions; employers are satisfied with them but we do not have a systematic way of contacting this employers and associating them with the programs, nor our own alumni.

The real learning experience was the realization that we did not effectively use the data available from our academic and administrative processes. We used to look at processes divorced from cold data. Consequently our reflection was somewhat void of reality.

Data coming from courses, tests, internships, surveys and focus groups did not impact systematically our discussions. This showed that faculty communication processes in general were not conducive to programs’ identification of strengths and weakness. Our communication was formal stereotyped and from the bottom down. We really need to communicate more with the administrative offices who generate data to become a real data driven institution; and we have to establish many communication outlets within the faculty, with alumni, employers and government education agencies. This has been the most important learning experience for Faculty in this process.

26

Section 7 References

Ana G. Méndez University System (2000). General statutes for the AGMUS. San Juan, Puerto Rico:

Author. Ana G. Méndez University System (2005). Faculty Handbook. San Juan, Puerto Rico: Author. Ana G. Méndez University System (2005). Student handbooks for the AGMUS. San Juan, Puerto Rico:

Author Babo, G. (2010). The ISLLC standards’ footprints and principal evaluation: A national study of school

superintendents. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 5(1). http://ijelp.expressacademic.org

Betts, F. (1994). On the birth of the communication age: A conversation with David Thronburg, Educational Leadership, 51(7), 20-23.

Brian, D. (2008). The accountable leader. London : Kogan Page Brooks, J, & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD Coles, R. (1993). The call to services: A witness to idealism. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. Council of Chief State School Officers (2007). Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008.

Retrieved April 12, 2009 from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/elps_isllc2008.pdf. Council of Chief State School Officers (2008). Introduction to the educational leadership policy

standards: ISLLC 2008, Washington, DC: Author Retrieved from www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/Introduction to ISLLC 2008.pdf

Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). The interstate school leaders licensure consortium standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2007). Updating the ISLLC standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Author.

Crowther F., Kaagan, S., Ferguson, M. & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher leaders: How teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico. (2004) Reglamento para la certificación de maestros de Puerto Rico. San Juan, PR: Author.

Department of Education of Puerto Rico. (2002) Standards and procedures for assessing performance of teacher preparation programs in Puerto Rico. San Juan, PR: Author.

Glans, J. (2006). What every principal should know about leadership : The 7 Books Collection. California : Crowin Press.

Green, R. (2009). Practicing the Art of Leadersip: A Problem Based Approach to Implementing the ISLLC Standards. Boston: Pearson.

Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society. New York: Teachers’ College Press. Henderson, J.G. (2001). Reflective teaching: Professional artistry through inquiry. (3rd Ed.). Columbus,

Ohio: Merrill/ Prentice Hall. Hesselbein, F. & Goldsmith, M. (2006). The leader of the future. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Hole, S. & McEntee, G. (1999). Reflection is at the heart of practice. Educational Leadership, 56 (8), 34.

Retrieved from .http://wwwnbpts.org/nbpts/standards. Hord, S. & Sommers, W. (2008). Leading professional learning communities. California : Corwin Press. Kjaer, N. K., Maagaard, R., & Wied, S. (2006). Using an online portfolio in postgraduate training.

Medical Teacher, 28, 708-12. Kozma, R. & Shank, P. (1998). Connecting with the 21st century: Technology in support of educational

reform. In C. Dede (Ed), Learning with technology (pp 3-31). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Martin, G., William, W. & Arnold. D., A. (2003). School leader intership. Larchmont, New York : Eye on Education.

27

Mastering the challenges of 21st century leadership (2003). Boston, MA : Harvard Business School Publishing.

National Policy Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2010). National Policy Board certification for principals: A new way to develop, recognize, and retain top school leaders. Arlington, VA: Author.

Schon, D. (1988). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers. Schon, D. (1987). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books. School of Education. Universidad del Turabo. (2003). Conceptual framework. Gurabo, Puerto Rico:

Author. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational

Review, 57, 1-22. Teacher Education Accreditation Council. (2005). Guide to accreditation. Washington, D.C. Author. Teacher Education Accreditation Council. (2006). Quality principles for educational leadership programs.

Washington, DC. Retrieved November 11, 2007 from teac.org/educaleadership/index.asp Teacher Education Accreditation Council. (2009). About TEAC goals and principles. Washington, DC.

Retrieved April 19, 2009 from teac.org/educaleadership/index.asp Watson, B. G., & Glaser, E. M. (1994). Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. San Antonio, TX:

The Psychological Corp. Wehlburg, C. (2010). Assessment, teaching, and learning. Advocate, 28(2), 5-8. Yost, D., Senter., S. M., & Forlenzo-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct of critical

reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st Century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 39-49.

28

Section 8: Appendixes

Appendix A – Internal Audit INTRODUCTION The SOED conducted an internal audit that covered Program Quality, Faculty Qualifications and Quality of Student Learning. The Audit Team, a subcommittee of the TEAC Steering Committee conducted the audit between November 2010 and February 2011. Members of the audit team were:

Dr. Rafael Cartagena Dr. Juan González Lamela Dr. Rosita Puig Dr. Gladys Betancourt Dr. Jorge Garofalo

DESCRIPTION OF THE QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM Universidad del Turabo is one of the three higher education institutions of the AGMUS. As such, most of the regulations and policies that comprise the Quality Control System are set by the AGMUS Central Administration and apply to each of its three universities. These policies mostly cover areas related to Program Quality, Faculty, Fiscal and Administrative policies. Policies and procedures related to curriculum, student services, admission and graduation criteria, etc. are established at the institutional level in matters relative to the Graduate and Doctoral Programs such as policy, norms, regulations and procedures. The Doctoral Program is subject to an advisory group composed of the Program Coordinators of all doctoral programs, the Dean of Doctoral Programs, and is chaired by the Vicechancellor of Academic Affairs. Each School has the flexibility to approve internal regulations related to these areas according to institutional procedures. Each of the primary responsibilities of the different administrative positions is described in the AGMUS Student Handbooks. Positions include the Board of Directors, the President, and the Vice-President for Research and Academic Affairs, the Vice-President for Marketing and Student Affairs, the Executive Vice-President, the Chancellor, Vice Chancellors and Deans. The Statutes Handbook also defines the responsibilities of each position, of the Administrative Council, and the Academic Board. The Faculty Handbook describes the definitions, rights and responsibilities of ranked faculty, adjunct faculty, part-time faculty and administrative officers with faculty positions. The Handbook includes policies on promotion, contract related to severance, sabbatical leave, and different types of licenses. Procedures related to faculty/staff recruitment, evaluation, employment contracts, medical and pension plans, benefits, workloads and other personal policies are under the jurisdiction of the Vice-Presidency for Human Resources. Quality of Student Learning norms and procedures are established and administered by the SOED. In the case of the doctoral degree, the advisory input of the Council for Doctoral Studies, is taken into consideration. Admission and graduation criteria are determined by the SOED and approved by UTs governing bodies (the Academic Board and the Administrative Council). The SOED has its own assessment System based on our Conceptual Framework and reflecting the SOED’s vision, mission and beliefs. The Assessment system is included in Appendix F. The following diagram illustrates the Quality Control System.

Figure A.

1: SOED Quaality Control

System

29

PROCEDIn order tthat relatesupport seAdministrLeadershitrial for eaAs part otrial. An SAMPLEIt was agrMA studeprobes, fin CURRICAs stated procedurediagram il

DURES FORo examine th

es to the folloervices, recruration and Suip program wach componen

of the processaudit sheet fo

E reed to select ents out of 69ndings and th

CULUM AUDin the descri

es for course,llustrates the

R THE AUDIhe quality of towing componuiting and admupervision MAwere examined

nt and the pros, the Steerinor each compo

a 30% sampl; 18 doctoral

he auditor’s si

DIT TRIAL ption of UT , program or curriculum p

IT the SOED stunents: curricu

missions, and A student recd to review thobes to be verng Committeeonent include

le of enrolled students out o

ignatures.

Quality Contdegree level

rocesses.

udents’ experulum, facultystudent compords and all f

he effectivenerified are incle agreed on sed probes, find

MA and doctof 60). An au

trol System, cl are establish

rience at UT, , facilities, fisplaints. The ffiles for doctoess of the menluded in the psampling prodings and the

toral studentsudit sheet for

curriculum aphed by AGM

we conductescal and admfiles of a samoral students ntioned comp

pages that follcedures, and

e auditor’s sig

s in admissioneach compon

pproval is higMUS. The fo

ed an internalministrative, stmple of Educa

in the Educaponents. Thelow.

prepared an gnatures.

ns 2009-10 (2nent included

ghly structureollowing sche

30

l audit tudent ational ational e audit

audit

21

ed and ematic

THE AUDIncluded v

∗ Pr

∗ Pr

∗ C

∗ C

∗ St

∗ C

∗ F Figure A

For the puand the dfaculty prThe list ofthe purpo

• ME

• DE90

DIT TRAIL verification o

rogram’s lice

rogram’s accr

Course descrip

Course Guides

tudents grade

Course evaluat

aculty teachin

.3 – Curricul

urpose of the doctoral specirovide the studf courses offese of the curr

MEd in AdminEDUC 501, 50Doctoral DegrEDUC 714, 71

06, 907.

FOR THE Cof:

ensure by the

reditation by

ption in Catalo

s

es in the Cour

tions

ng the course

lum Audit T

curricular aualization coudents at the bered by the SOicular audit thnistration and03, 504, 506, ee in Educati15, 716, 717,

CURRICULU

Puerto Rico C

the Middle S

og

rse

rail

dit all courserses in Educaeginning of eOED and theihe following

d Supervision510, 515, 519onal Leadersh718, 719, 80

UM COMPO

Council of Hi

tats Associati

s required forational Leadeeach academicir descriptionscourses were

9, 520, 600, 6hip: 1, 802, 803, 8

ONENT

igher Educati

ion for Colleg

r the MA in Aership were sc term were as are availablselected.

602, 604, 617,

804, 805, 806

ion (PRCHE)

ges and Univ

Administratioselected. Theaudited. e online, broc

, 630, 702, 70

6, 807, 901, 9

ersities (MSA

on and Superve course guid

chure and CD

05.

902, 903, 904

31

A)

vision, de that

D. For

4, 906,

32

Table A.1 – Curriculum Audit Results PROBE YES NO COMMENTS

1. Confirm if program have PRCHE and MSA approval, and have followed the institutional approval process.

X

An interview with Dr. María del Carmen Santos Associate Vice Chancellor for Development and Evaluation confirms that both programs are licensed by PRCHE and fully accredited by MSA. Records are kept in her office. The Academic Board and the Administrative Council keep their own approval documents.

2. Confirm the existence of a clearly defined process for submitting the creation of new programs or the revision of existing programs

X

Procedures are clearly established by the AGMUS Statutes and the Academic Board procedures. A review of curriculum creation and revisions in the SOED during the years 2007-2010 include

• the creation of the curriculum for the doctoral degree in leadership

Proof that the required process was followed is in the records for meetings of the Academic Board, and the Administrative Council.

3. Confirm if course description in catalog is accurate; if syllabi are complete with operational objectives, up to date topics, comprehensive teaching strategies, and diversified student evaluation criteria.

X

MEd COURSES: It was found that MEd course syllabi do not match catalog descriptions, except EDUC 602, 603, 630, and 604. Steps were taken to correct this finding. No single student complaint was filed in this area. MEd courses have different level of quality in terms of objectives, teaching strategies, content topic and references. DOCTORAL COURSES: It was found that all doctoral course descriptions, except for EDUC 903 and 904 are identical in catalog and syllabi. In doctoral courses objectives were operational, topics up to date, teaching strategies diversified, student evaluation criteria were clear and followed; student assessments of courses were carried out by the Assistant Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs. No single student complaint was filed in this area. Students participating in focus group expressed satisfaction with course relevance. In spite of the fact that courses need revision MEd students considered them relevant.

33

PROBE YES NO COMMENTS 4. Confirm if course syllabi have

been revised in the last five years Doctoral courses.

EDUC 714 EDUC 715 EDUC 716 EDUC 717 EDUC 718 EDUC 719 EDUC 801 EDUC 802 EDUC 803 EDUC 804 EDUC 805 EDUC 806 EDUC 807 EDUC 901 EDUC 902 EDUC 903 EDUC 904 EDUC 905 EDUC 906 EDUC 907

Master Degree Courses. EDUC 501 EDUC 503 EDUC 504 EDUC 506 EDUC 510 EDUC 515 EDUC 519 EDUC 520 EDUC 702 EDUC 705 EDUC 600 EDUC 604 EDUC 630 EDUC 617 EDUC 602

X X X X X X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X

X X X X X X X X X X X

Half of the doctoral courses have been revised in the last five years. The SOED Curriculum Committee has programmed the revision of the other half for the Fall semester of academic year 2012-13. The MA program needs a complete overhaul. This revision was programmed for the Fall semester of academic year 2012-13.

5. Confirm if course guides are available for students. X Course guides were available for students every

term and are ready for revision at SOED. 6. Confirm if classroom facilities,

equipment and furniture are adequate

X Students find course adequate.

7. Confirm if student grading and course evaluation procedures were followed

X Course grading procedures and course evaluation were checked and found accurate.

34

PROBE YES NO COMMENTS 8. Confirm faculty qualifications to

teach the course. X Faculty qualifications that appear in Appendix C were checked and found accurate

9. Confirm if references are written, on line and if they are up to date. Confirm that there are multimedia available for teaching process. Doctoral courses

EDUC 714 EDUC 715 EDUC 716 EDUC 717 EDUC 718 EDUC 719 EDUC 801 EDUC 802 EDUC 803 EDUC 804 EDUC 805 EDUC 806 EDUC 807 EDUC 901 EDUC 902 EDUC 903 EDUC 904 EDUC 905 EDUC 906 EDUC 907

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Master Degree Courses. EDUC 501 EDUC 503 EDUC 504 EDUC 506 EDUC 510 EDUC 515 EDUC 519 EDUC 520 EDUC 702 EDUC 705 EDUC 600 EDUC 604 EDUC 630 EDUC 617 EDUC 602

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X

X

MA Courses references are not up to date. Practice course.

35

CURRICULLUM AUDIT 1. Doctoral courses syllabi were revised periodically by faculty members teaching the courses and

course guides are provided to students at the beginning of each term. 2. There is no uniformity in the format for syllabi presentation; the digitalized construct provided by

the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs has many limitations as it compels the instructor to omit important information.

3. Master degree courses have not been revised for more than five years; references are not up to date; there are very few references online and multimedia. There is no uniformity in course syllabus presentation.

4. Master degree students are provided a course guides at the beginning of each term. 5. No official format for citing references was followed (MA or ED.D.) 6. A major revision the MA program to address these issues started in the spring term of 2010-2011.

FACULTY AUDIT All records of faculty teaching doctoral or master degree courses were audited. The auditors then examined the faculty members’ files to confirm that he/she met UT’s requirements to teach the course, and that hiring, evaluation and promotions have been conducted according to UT’s policies. The Faculty Audit Trail is illustrated in Figure A.4. Figure A.4 – Faculty Audit Trail Table A.2 - Faculty Audit Results

PROBE YES NO COMMENTS 1. Determine if faculty are

qualified to teach assigned courses and to perform the duties of the profession at the time of employment

X

All full, part and adjunct faculty records were examined. All records include evidence of completed formal preparation and degrees in the field of specialization.

2. Faculty is evaluated according to policies and procedures established by AGMUS

X

All faculty is evaluated for hiring processes according to AGMUS policies as implemented by the Human Resources Office and approved by the Government Bodies of UT. The Associate Deans determine if part-time and adjunct faculty candidates have the qualifications to teach education courses. They follow executive order #01-201 that requires the certification of all part-time faculty. The procedure includes: an essay on a topic of the course to be taught, an interview by peers and a mini class.

Wellness Center Coordinator

Practicum Coordinator

36

PROBE YES NO COMMENTS The interview is aimed at assessing candidate’s skills in interpersonal relations and communication. The essay is judged by its content, writing and analytical skills as a writer. In the mini class the candidate must show competence as a teacher. The audit found that all evaluations were done according to procedure. The minutes of meetings of the Academic Board and Administrative Council when the hiring of these professors was approved revealed that policies and procedures were followed

3. Process for faculty promotion is followed. X

Full-time, part-time and adjunct faculty is evaluated for annual ranking positions available according to AGMUS policies. Final rankings are approved by the Government Bodies of UT.

4. Faculty development opportunities are available X

Full, part time and adjunct faculty are required to participate in the Faculty Forum organized by the Academic Vice Chancellor’s Office (twice a year) and the Faculty Assembly organized by the Chancellor’s Office (twice a year). Full and part time faculty are required to participate in the AGMUS Educational Congress (annually). Full and part-time faculty have opportunities to participate in development workshops organized by UT’s Faculty Development Institute (IDDUT). The auditors reviewed attendance lists for the Faculty Forum, Faculty Assembly and Educational Congress provided by the Vice Chancellor, Chancellor and Vice President of Academic Affairs respectively. The few members from the SOED faculty who did not attend these activities had been officially excused. Participation in IDDUT workshops and seminars revealed that attendance of the SOED faculty was less than expected.

5. Faculty have a regular workload assigned in each academic semester (August to December; January to May)

X

Full time faculty programs were examined. A complete workload (12 credits) was assigned to all regular professors in each academic term. Up to 12 credits were assigned to part time faculty as established in AGMUS policies.

6. Determine if work load is adequate X

Faculty loads are excessive not allowing time for research and committee work. The number of full-time faculty members must be increased.

FACULTThere is evaluationis appliedreliabilityThe IDDUteaching ppersonnelrecommenpart-time The facultof the cousome need

1. Pr2. C3. L4. P5. P6. C7. Pu

FACILITA group oaccuracy selected todeterminephysicallyThe audit the Graduspace andFigure A.

TY AUDIT a Faculty H

n system for cd to all progray has been conUT at UT proprofessionalsl of the SOEDnded that the and full time)ty personnel urses have thd to be reviserofessional D

Continuing EdLicenses and C

articipation inarticipation in

Coordination oublications

TIES AUDITof randomly for SOED co audit these e if they wery comfortablealso included

uate Programsd if the campu5 – Facilities,

Handbook appcourses and fams at the thrnfirmed. ovides a vari. Attendance

D tend to partiSOED plan a

) that addressfiles, to which

he necessary qed in the folloDevelopment ducation Certifications n Professionan Institutionalof Projects

T selected studourses and sfacilities. Th

re ADA compe in terms of ad a review of s, to see if it

us itself was A, Furniture an

proved and for faculty haree sister insti

iety of short e is recommeicipate in thesand carry out

s the interests h we had accqualificationswing areas:

al Organizatiol Committees

dents examinetudents in thhe classroomspliant, if theyair conditioninoffice space was adequate

ADA compliand Equipment

applied to aas been establitutions. This

term courses ended but nose activities tot a series of wand needs ofess, are comp

s to teach the

ons s

ed the physiche graduate ps in which thy had the neng, lightning assigned to Se to offer stu

ant t Audit Trail

all academic lished by the s system has

and workshot mandatory. o a higher de

workshops forf its membersplete. The face courses. Re

cal structuresprograms A rhe courses weecessary technand cleanline

SOED facultyudent services

employees Central Officbeen properl

ops for the d Generally, gree than fullr their teachin. culty memberegarding facu

s of UT in orrandom sampere conductednology and wess. , students, ans, if faculty h

of AGMUS.ce of AGMUly validated a

development opart-time teal time facultyng personnel

rs assigned toulty personne

rder to verifyple of coursed were examinwhether they

nd administrathad adequate

37

An US and and its

of the aching y. It is

(both

o each l files

y their s was ned to

were

tors in office

38

Table A.3 – Facilities Audit Report PROBE YES NO COMMENTS

1. Determined of how space is used to provide services (offices, classrooms, etc.) for faculty and students.

X

All full time faculty members have an office space. Administrative personnel have adequate space. Doctoral students have a controlled access area in the Institution’s Library and Center for Educational Resources (DRA) for academic work and receive administrative support from the institution’s Doctoral Studies Center.

2. Determine if the number of assigned classrooms is adequate for courses scheduled

X There are enough classrooms to meet the needs of the SOED graduate programs.

3. Classroom assignment procedure is followed. X

Each semester the Registrar’s Office designates a number of classrooms for all SOED courses. SOED administrators assign courses in the provided classrooms. All changes in classroom assignment are negotiated with the Registrar’s office and informed to faculty and students. Classroom changes are usually negotiated to accommodate larger groups enrolled, or disabled students or faculty

4. Determine if classrooms assigned to selected courses have the equipment and furniture, including air conditioning to carry out educational objectives

X

Classrooms are spacious, well illuminated and with functioning air conditioning systems All classrooms are equipped with student desks appropriate for average size adults. There is a need to address the need for oversize desks that will fit overweight students. Some classrooms should be furnished with tables and chairs that will provide space for group work. Most of the classrooms assigned to the SOED have electronic equipment, such as in focus projectors, Wi-Fi access and electronic blackboards among others. When a course is assigned to a classroom that is not equipped with the necessary equipment, the audiovisual department of the university offers support, by providing equipment such as projectors, televisions, VHS and DVD systems, opaque projectors, etc.

5. Determine if classrooms assigned to the selected courses are ADA compliant.

X

All ADA laws and regulations are observed throughout the entire Campus. All buildings have accommodations for wheelchair and other special needs. The building where most SOED courses are conducted has ramps and elevators to provide easy access.

FISCAL As part oavailable Figure A

Table A.4

1. Confifinanclear

2. Policdevelavaila

3. Confiin supactivi

AND ADMIf the internalto students, re.6 – Fiscal an

4 – Fiscal andPROBE

firm if UT’s bcial managemand available

ies, governinglopment are cable.

firm allocationpport of teachities.

INISTRATIVl audit we meesources for fnd Administr

d Administrati

udget and ment are e.

g faculty clear and

n of funds hing

VE SUPPOReasured areas faculty develorative Affair

ive Affairs AuYES N

X

X

X

RT related to bu

opment, avails Audit Tria

udit Report NO

All fSchoBudgwith

All pinstitand sHirinthe HpolicapprPolicfollogoverenewfollorevis2009rank Assorespeproc

SuppavailTeacVide

udget, studenlable staff, an

al

Cflowcharts areool’s participaget informatio

h the SOED adpolicies regartutionally estsalary mattersng and salaryHuman Resoucies and proceroved by UT’scies are clearlowed. Minuteerning bodies wal, and acad

owed. Nine spsed (three new9, three facultk promotions, ociate Professectively). In

cedures were fport staff and lable along wching aids in teos, Maps, Ch

nt financial aind library reso

COMMENTSe available to ation in plannon was requedministrative rding faculty dablished. Hirs are systemic

y policies are iurces Office; pedures are ims Governing Bly stated and es of meetingreflect that h

demic rank popecific facultw professors hty contract renfor Assistant

sor and Profesall nine casesfollowed. photocopyin

with teaching mthe manner oharts, Comput

d and scholarources.

S demonstrate

ning and budgsted and verifdirector.

development ring, promotioc (AGMUS). implemented promotion

mplemented anBodies. rigorously

gs of UT’s hiring, contracolicies were ty files were hired in 2008newals and tht Professor, ssor, s, policies and

ng services arematerials. f CD-ROM’ster Programs

39

rships

the get. fied

are on by

nd

ct

-hree

d

e

s,

4. Confiin supbeyon

5. Confiadequadminservicprovi

6. Confiamouscholthe st

STUDENFigure A

PROBE

firm allocationpport of activnd classroom

firm if the Prouate teaching,nistrative andces support stide services.

firm if the aveunt of financialarships provitudents is ade

NT AUDIT T.7 – Student

n of funds vities

teaching

ogram has ,

d student taff to

erage al aid and ided for quate.

TRAIL Support Aud

YES N

X

X

dit Trail

NO and oCentBudgmateand vdirec

Budgfaculsemimade

The admisupptheirSOEall Steachsupp

InforOfficAll soppoto coFinanfederThe gradutwo y

Cother are avaiter for Educatget includes aerials. Budgeverified with ctor. get includes llty to supportinars or course to include pgraduate proginistrative, te

port staff. Stur satisfaction wED has the larSchools at UThing support sport staff. rmation receice at UT revestudent of theortunities to aover for studyancial aids areral regulationaverage stude

duate studentsyears.

COMMENTSilable at the Ltional Resoura line for educet informationthe SOED ad

line for financt post-doctorases. A recommpart-time facugram has adeaching and st

udents in sampwith services

rgest administT. It includes

staff, and stud

ived from the ealed that: SOED have

apply for divey expenses. e assigned accns. ent loan awar was $5,350.0

S Library and rces (DRA). cational

n was requestedministrative

cial aid for al attendance mendation is

ulty as well. quate tudent serviceple confirmed rendered. Thtrative staff oadministratordent services

Financial Ai

equal rse financial

cording to

rd per year for00 in the last

40

ed

to

es d he f rs,

d

aid

r

41

Table A.5 – Student Admission and Retention Audit Trail

PROBE YES NO COMMENTS

1. Confirm if admissions criteria for new and transfer students were observed and easily accessible.

X

Admission criteria are available in WEB, brochures, in the UT Catalog, and by phone interviews. All students in MA sample and all doctoral students met the criteria for new and transfer students.

2. Confirm if criteria for transferring credits were observed and if observed students received academic advisement.

X

All admission criteria for transfer students were met. Doctoral students are required to have at least one interview with an advisor when starting the program. No interview is required for MA students, but all received some kind of orientation. All MA students received academic advisement in academic year 2010-2011.

3. Confirm if students are given a plan of study that reflects program/degree requirements.

All students in the sample were provided with a Program Requirement Sheet during the first weeks of their first year in the Program. . Each year students must submit to educational advisement and may request another copy of their Program Requirements. All students are required to update the plan of study each semester to guide the course selection process before the next semester enrollment. All students may receive academic advisement from the Student Services Officers at any time during the semester, especially during course selection for enrollment Students are required to attend a two day orientation seminar.

4. Confirm if students were interviewed by the admissions and retention committee of SOED

X

All doctoral students were interviewed. No interview is required for MA students. The forms used by interviewers are kept in the student’s record and filed by the Dean of Doctoral Studies. When all admission candidates have been interviewed a final report is prepared by the Doctoral Program Coordinator and sent to the SOED Dean.

5. Identify students who followed the program’s course sequence

X All doctoral and MA students in the sample followed course sequence.

6. Confirm program retention X

The following table shows retention in the doctoral program since the beginnings 2005-2011. Of all students entering the program, 44% are inactive. Of those inactive, 45% have complete more than 42 credits.

42

Table A.6 – Student Support Services Audit Results PROBE YES NO COMMENTS

1. SOED MA and Doctoral students have access to technology

X

All students have access to the Electronic Information Room at the DRA, where 78 computers are available. Services available include: internet, printing of documents, and electronic library among others. The working hours for this center are from 8:00 am to 9:30 pm. The SOED administers another smaller electronic information room (20 computers), as well as other technological equipment which is available under faculty supervision. Information and Telecommunications Office The Information and Telecommunications Office (ITO) provides computer resources to all students, faculty, and staff by means of computer labs and dedicated networks for faculty and administrative personnel. ITO manages more than 20 computer laboratories and more than 1,200 networked computers in the SUAGM. The mission of ITO is to provide technical assistance, support, and access to computer technologies that serve the university community. ITO’s services and facilities include:

∗ 12 hour, 7 day support center and help desk.

∗ Academic computing accounts and billing services.

∗ Microcomputer and networked/workgroup software support.

∗ Microcomputer hardware and network installation.

∗ Hardware repair and facility maintenance.

∗ Information technology training. ITO’s services are coordinated with the Information System Center (ISC), located at the Ana G. Mendez University System (AGMUS) headquarters. This way, any technology-driven project that will impact AGMUS is effectively handled by both units. Telecommunications infrastructure: Three T1 circuits connect AGMUS’ headquarters to AT&T of Puerto Rico Internet Service Provider, which is AGMUS’s primary path to the Internet. By using AGMUS’s own microwave infrastructure, a three T1 circuit connects an administrative computer network

43

PROBE YES NO COMMENTS to AGMUS’ headquarters, serving as its primary path to the Internet and other information technology services that reside at the Information System Center. ITO’s staff consists of the Director, the Technical Support Coordinator, the Security Specialist, one IT Trainer, and seven (7) Microcomputer Specialists. The state of the art telecommunications infrastructure available at UT, guarantees that the technical needs of the School of Education are constantly being evaluated and updated.

2. Library budget supports learning and research for SOED students

X

Library budget carries a line that purchases materials recommended by SOED faculty and doctoral students writing dissertations. They do have plenty of access to electronic materials to complete assignments or research. The Vice Chancellorship of Information Resources (VIR) is the primary information center for Universidad del Turabo students, faculty, staff, and the external community. Library services and collections play a crucial role in the support of the institution’s mission for teaching-learning, research, and information literacy within the university community through guided independent instruction on the web and direct group instruction. In fact, all doctoral students are required to participate in a seminar to get acquainted with library facilities and services. Current library holdings, including those in electronic form, are adequate to meet the Programs’ mission, and educational objectives of the SOED. At present, the education book collection has 41,496 titles in print, and an additional 11,799 titles in related supplemental areas such as General Sciences, Mathematics, Anatomy, Physics, Dictionaries and other general books, academia & learned societies. The numbers in these two tables only include the main Library of Congress designations within each area. The print book collection is systematically maintained by the education librarian, Mrs. Melva Rivera Caraballo. All recommendations for acquisitions by faculty members are coordinated with the education librarian. There are also electronic resources data base which are adequate for the current level of research being conducted at the SOED. The E-Journals and E-books are widely used.

44

PROBE YES NO COMMENTS The library budgets $10,000 annually to purchase additional journal articles on a pay-per-view basis. Assuming an average cost of $33.00 per journal article the current budget permits the purchase of an additional 300 journal articles per year. The library has never exhausted this budget allocation in the four years it has been implemented. As the level of research in the SOED increases, the institution is committed to providing additional funding, as required. This is an area where improvement is necessary in terms of more faculty and student input. The library is a member of a consortium of university libraries in Puerto Rico. Through this collaboration agreement, interlibrary services can also provide faculty and students with resources from other universities.

3. SOED MA and doctoral students have access to counseling services and academic advising.

X

Besides the in-School academic advising team, UT has personal and psychological counseling available to the entire student population, at the Quality of Life Center. These services along with health related information are housed in the Center for Student Services. The Center for Doctoral Studies provides academic counseling for doctoral students before entering the program.

4. Students have a clear procedure for submitting complaints and voicing their concerns and opinions

X

Complaints from doctoral students and concerns may be voiced by students either at the offices of the doctoral coordinators, the Dean of Doctoral Studies, or the Dean of the SOED. MA students can go to the Assistant Dean of Graduate Programs or to the Dean of the SOED. Both MA and doctoral students can use the institutional complaint procedures that can be initiated at the offices of the Vice Chancellors for Academic Affairs, Student Affairs or Administrative Affairs depending on the nature of the complaint. No complaints were filed in academic years 2009-2010. .

45

Table A.7 – Student Learning Audit Results PROBE YES NO COMMENTS

1. Examine candidates who have completed their course load in the past semester to determine if program completers have successfully met program requirements. Measures:

a. Proficient score in doctoral comprehensive examinations

b. MA Student evaluation of course 604.

c. End of semester student

X

Of 53 Doctoral students who have completed their course work since December 2008 and took the comprehensive examination, 39 have passed the examination. 209 MA students took an integration seminar at the end of their course work (EDUC 604) in 2009-10 and 263 in 2010-11. This course was recommended by a Middle States Association Visiting Team. The course allowed students to integrate the knowledge acquired in their specialization, research and general courses and substitutes the comprehensive examination at the end of the MEd program. Students answered the following questions regarding their opinion of the MEd program:

- What courses helped to acquire leadership, collaboration, and reflection skills?

- What parts of the program help to develop the above mentioned skills? What parts did not help?

Students mentioned EDUC 504 Leadership, Communication and Team Work as the most important course in developing leadership, collaboration and reflection skills. Students said MEd courses have given them:

- Self-knowledge - Discipline in doing graduate work - Solid subject content - Practice acquired knowledge in real

scenarios - Time management - Integration of knowledge - Knowledge of people from diverse

backgrounds - Self confidence - Capacity to share knowledge - Capacity in dealing with difficult

people Students mentioned the following areas of improvement:

- Some faculty members do not allow for discussion

- Some faculty members were lacking knowledge in their subject areas

- More empathy is needed on the part of the faculty

46

PROBE YES NO COMMENTS evaluation of courses - More courses in leadership are needed

- More orientation to new students is needed

- Terms are too short and pace is too fast.

The SOED established term course evaluation surveys in August 2009. Student evaluated their courses according to 20 criteria included in end of course concentration survey (criteria and average score per item is included in table B _____). Thirty nine (39) courses were evaluated in term January-March 2010. Each item was evaluated as Excellent (5), Very Good (4), Good (3), Poor (2), and Very Poor (1). This instrument has not been duly validated as it was just recently administered for the first time (December 2009). This will be one of our future tasks to be reported in a future Brief. The lowest score in any item is 4.03, which indicates great satisfaction with the courses.

2. Quantitative final results: • GPA and grades in

approved courses • ISSLC Post Test

X

Grades reflect mastery of course goals. More than 89% of all students scored at A or B level as reflected in the following tables 7 & 8. Students scored better in the ISSLC Post Test.

47

Appendix B Program Capacity for Quality

Evidence of UT’s Capacity to Support the Quality of the SOED Doctoral Degree in Educational

Leadership and the Master’s Degree in Educational Administration

INTRODUCTION In this appendix we will present evidence to prove that UT has more than adequate resources to support its Educational Leadership Degree in preparing competent, qualified and caring educational administrators. The School of Education is recognized as an important contributor to the academic mission and strategic goals of the university. With an undergraduate enrollment that represents 11% of the university total, the largest graduate program on campus, the SOED is vital at UT. Based on the information presented below, we concluded that our School has met the standards for parity with other units on campus and has adequate support for our program. QUALITY PRINCIPLE: CURRICULUM Doctoral Degree The Doctoral Degree’s requirement of 51 credits is divided into three components. The first component is the social context of education that comprises courses that provide a panoramic view of the field of education and are of pivotal importance for the contemporary educational administrator. Subject matters such as ethical, legal and communication issues are examined in depth. Other traditional subjects such as the history, philosophy, sociology, and politics of education are also included. The second component is the specialization component, which is divided in three parts: (a) organizational process dealing with matters such as project management, school finance and project education, (b) leadership theory such as leadership models and strategies, instructional leadership, change management and community alliances; (c) The third component is research in which the student receives a panoramic review of research methods and completes his/her dissertation. Six electives credits are available to the students for courses in components one and two. Master’s degree The Master’s degree totals 39 credits and has a minimum core component of two courses in principles of curriculum and general leadership theory, and a specialization component of 24 credits with specific subject matters for the educational administrator, such as conflict management, school finance administration, education and the law, planning and human resources management, and a practicum. As required by law both programs are licensed by PRCHE and also accredited by MSA. In the case of the Master’s degree the requirements have been aligned with DEPR principals’ certification requirements. Both, the Doctoral and Master’s degree, are aligned with programs outcomes which in return lead to achievement of program educational objectives. All students in the graduate program of SOED need a minimum grade point average of 3.00, both for maintenance in the program and for graduation. There is an admission formula for the Doctoral Degree which includes the following:

∼ Bachelor’s and Master’s Degree grade point averages, which is 30% of the total. ∼ Graduate Record Examination or EXADEP (examination for admittance to graduate school in

Puerto Rico), which is 30% of the total. ∼ An interview with an admission committee, which contributes 30% of the total. ∼ A written essay, which contributes 10% of the total.

The passing grade for admission is 80%. The Master’s degree requires a minimum bachelor’s degree grade point index of 2.50 or higher in the last 60 credits toward the degree. Q.P. 4.2 Faculty Qualifications The university has a diverse number of faculty to teach the courses in the different disciplines: full time faculty, adjunct faculty and part time faculty. The full time faculty of the SOED represents 18% of full

48

time faculty at UT. We also have three adjunct faculty members and approximately 33 part time faculty members. At the master degree and doctoral level courses are taught by full, part time and adjunct members. 4.2.1 The SOED full and part-time faculty is committed to the preparation of educational leaders who

are competent, caring and qualified educators. This commitment has driven their involvement in the preparation, discussion and approval of this Inquiry Brief. (See Faculty Approval Signatures at the beginning of this document.)

4.2.2 The SOED full and part-time faculty has an understanding of the impact of each course experience on the candidates’ integral formation, and future performance as educational leaders. The faculty is aware of the connection among disciplines required to develop a successful student in a diverse learning environment. The faculty acknowledges the importance of establishing relationship between the courses of each component to foster the acquisition and development of concepts, skills and attitudes required to become a competent, caring and qualified educational leader.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT Faculty members are afforded ample opportunities to develop professionally and maintain up to date standards in their fields, while keeping in pace with the mission of the SOED. Every semester each faculty member plans and reports on faculty development activities in consultation with the Associate Dean. Faculty members are encouraged to submit papers at local, national and international conferences. In addition it is expected that each faculty member continue his or her professional development and attend workshops and seminars that are available on campus or through professional societies. In addition, AGMUS coordinates a faculty development workshop at the beginning of each academic year. These workshops cover various subjects related to education such as: technologies in the classroom, classroom assessment techniques, distance learning. These workshops are offered to both full and part time faculty. Each faculty member is expected to complete a self-assessment process as part of his or her contract renewal, which results in a plan of action to implement needed improvements in their field of interest. New faculty is required to be certified by IDDUT. The Vice Chancellor for External Funding has been fundamental in offering the faculty information about funding opportunities and proposal writing. Every time a faculty member wishes to write a proposal seeking external funds the above mentioned office works with the faculty member and the School to mentor or guide the process of proposal writing and submission to the concerned agency. Full time faculty members of the SOED have comparable responsibilities to those of full time faculty members in other Schools. They are evaluated for contract renewal and promotions using the same criteria used in all other Schools as these procedures are system wide at AGMUS. All graduate courses are taught by faculty with terminal degrees. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF FACULTY All matters regarding rights and responsibilities of faculty members are amply described in the AGMUS Faculty Handbook. Course creation, modification, and evaluation are responsibility of the full time faculty. These actions are in response to program outcomes, assessments, and curricular revision, feedback from students and the DEPR, and, course improvement. All new courses require approval by the SOED’s Curriculum Committee, UTs Academic Board, and Administrative Council. To ensure consistency and quality of the courses, curricular changes must clear a multilayer approval process. The procedure is as follow: an action is initiated with the faculty of the SOED and its Curriculum Committee. Any matters regarding curriculum changes are submitted to the Office of the Vice Chancellor, who will in turn, submit the changes to the Registrar’s Office (if they are not considered substantial changes) or send them to the Academic Board for scrutiny (if they involve major changes such as new programs, new degrees, etc.) The Academic Board will review all the material sent by the School and recommend further changes or approve the changes. When the issue involves minor changes such as new courses, these go directly to the Registrar’s Office, via the Vice Chancellor’s Office. Major changes such as new programs

49

must go to the Academic Board and the Administrative Council for approval. Change recommendations involving new degrees are submitted and approved by UT’s Academic Board and Administrative Council and the Board of Directors of AGMUS. 4.2.3 Salary scales are established in the central offices of AGMUS. There are differentiated salary

scales for each School. The following Table B-1 illustrates the current salary Scale for faculty with terminal degrees

Table B.1 - Average Salary by School

SCHOOL AVERAGE ANNUAL SALARY SCHOOL AVERAGE

ANNUAL SALARY Business $48,058.00 International Design $40,200.00

Education $44,213.00 Sciences Social & Human Sciences $43,975.00

Engineering $70,137.00 Science & Technology $53,658.00 Health $44,924.00

In the year 2007, AGMUS revised faculty contracts of members of the Schools of Science and Technology, and Engineering to promote research among their faculty members. The contract stipulates that full time faculty must prepare a proposal or a research project each year they wish to continue employment at AGMUS. This initiative has improved the number of research projects in the aforementioned Schools, and is an idea that may be welcomed by other Schools at UT to promote research among its faculty. At present it has not been implemented in any other School. There are also differentiated faculty contracts and different salary scales have been established for these categories. Faculty responsibilities for each one vary. Detailed descriptions for these contracts are available in the AGMUS Faculty Handbook, which will be available for review during the Audit Team visit. Table B-2 illustrates the basic current salary for faculty according to rank and completed degree. Table B.2 - Basic Salary by Rank and School

School Instruction Master

Assistant Master

Assistant Doctorate

Associate Master

Associate Doctorate

Full Professor Master

Full Professor Doctorate

Business $33,300 $36,900 $51,120 $43,860 $52,290 $57,720 $63,960 Education $33,300 $36,900 $51,120 $43,860 $52,290 $47,280 $59,160

Engineering $44,400 $48,600 $65,400 $60,600 $75,000 $66,900 $84,600 Health $40,200 $43,500 $50,700 $48,060 $56,820 $50,880 $62,460

International School of

Design $42,000 $48,600 $65,400 $60,600 $75,000 66,900 84,600

Social and Human

Sciences $33,300 $36,900 $46,200 $43,860 $52,920 $47,280 $59,160

Science and Technology $33,600 $37,200 $49,800 $44,160 $58,200 $47,580 $69,360

Workload for full time faculty members at the SOED is 12 credits per semester for faculty teaching at the graduate and doctoral levels. Some Schools at UT have different workload requirements according to the type of contract.

50

Reduced workloads for special projects, research, and coordination of programs can be negotiated by the Dean. The Chancellor approves workload reductions after evaluating each petition submitted by the Dean. Rank distribution in the SOED and other UT Schools is reflected in Table B-4. It shows that 52.78% of SOED professors are associate or full professors. This percent accounts for the second highest among UT Schools. Table B.3 - UT Faculty Ranks – Graduate and undergraduate. Academic year 2011-12

RANK ADJUNCT INSTRUCTOR ASSISTANT ASSOCIATE FULL PROFESSORS TOTAL

RANKSSchool # % # % # % # % # % Engineering 1 4.00 6 24.00 7 28.00 5 20.00 6 24.00 25 Science and Technology 5 20.00 3 12.00 8 32.00 9 36.00 25

Health Science 9 50.00 8 44.44 1 5.56 18 Social and

Human Sciences 1 1.96 15 29.41 9 17.65 13 25.49 13 25.49 51

Education 7 8.33 9 25.00 5 13.89 11 30.56 9 22.22 40 Business 4 13.79 10 34.48 1 34.48 5 17.24 29 Design 2 100.00 2

UT eliminated tenured track positions 20 years ago. We still have tenured professors, but hiring is now based on multiannual contracts. New faculty are given a one year contract and after evaluation, they sign a three year contract. At the end of the third year, they are evaluated and given a five year contract. From then on, contracts are renewed on five year basis. Table B-5 presents the SOED Profile according to contracts. Table B.4 - SOED Type of Contract – Graduate and undergraduate. Academic Year 2011-2012 Adjunct 7 One year contract 4 Three year contract 2 Five year contract 16 Tenured 12

While we recognize the importance of having sufficient well-qualified full time faculty, we consider our part-time and adjunct faculty members to be an asset to our Program since they are selected according to their expertise as practitioners in the area, plus their academic qualifications. Part time faculty and adjunct are required to take training offered by UT’s Faculty Development Institute (IDDUT) to be eligible to teach in the SOED. Table B-6 shows the proportion of full and part-time faculty. Table B-5 Proportion of Full vs. Part-time faculty at SOED: Doctoral and Master’s Degree Level

Academic years: 2007, 2008, 2009 2007 – 2008 2008 – 2009 2009 – 2010

Full Part Full Part Full Part # % # % # % # % # % # % 9 37 15 63 7 30 21 70 10 45 22 53

51

The following table shows the basic salary of adjunct faculty. Table B.6 - Basic Salary of Adjunct Faculty by Rank and School

School Adjunct Faculty – Master Adjunct Faculty – Doctorate

Business $22,000 - $22,200 $30,800

Education $22,000 - $22,200 $30,800

Engineering $22,000 - $22,200 $32,700

Health $26,800 $33,800

International School of Design $22,200 $43,600

Social and Human Sciences $22,000 - $22,200 $30,800

Science and Technology $22,400 $33200 Q.P. 4.3 Facilities, Equipment and Supplies Universidad del Turabo is proud to have one of the most beautiful campuses in Puerto Rico. Located in a 21 acre suburban area, UT is proud of its excellent facilities that include modern, well maintained buildings as well as its historical buildings that date from the beginning of the 20th century. The beauty of UT’s landscape is conducive to a peaceful and relaxing teaching – learning environment. Students and faculty have equal access to all campus facilities. There are ample parking areas both for faculty and students. The university charges a fee to all students to maintain laboratories up to date. All laboratories have equipment to support educational activities. 4.3.1 Resources for offices, classroom and equipment are adequate for the provision of services. Space The SOED is located in several facilities on the Main Campus. The Office of the Dean, Associate Dean for the Graduate Programs, administrative and support staff and faculty of the Graduate and Doctoral Program are located in the Ana G. Méndez Building. The Associate Dean for the Undergraduate program, administrative personnel and faculty offices are located in the first floor of the same building. The Physical Education Department is located next to the Sport Complex and will be discussed in detail below. The current facilities include classrooms, laboratories, computer lab, one conference room and a faculty lounge. The following space facilities support the programs’ educational objectives and outcomes: Offices The office space allocated for faculty, and administrative and support personnel is adequate for the normal operations of the SOED. Each office is shared by two faculty members. Faculty members who coordinate programs have individual offices. All offices are adequately outfitted, including a desktop computer with internet connection, printer, telephone and storage. The campus network supplies e-mail services, Internet services and access to the administrative mainframe computer and the Virtual library. The administrative offices of the Dean, Associate Deans, Directors for Students Services and Administrative Affairs, the Assessment Coordinator and the Student Services Officers are adequate to serve students who come for advisement, enrollment procedures and for other services including teacher certification orientation, course changes and consultation of specific needs.

52

Information resources. The following tables show the resources available at the Vice-Chancellorship of Information Resources. Table B.7 - Resources in Education available at VIR

Discipline Resources (Books, video, CD)

Physical Education 2,820

Preschool Education 728

Teaching English as a Second Language 3,378

Primary Education 268

Libraries 1,047

Bilingual Education 3,370

Elementary Education 8,489

Fine Arts 2,967

School Administration & Supervision 1,106

School Counseling 2,758

Secondary Education 10,680

Curriculum and Teaching 807

Special Education 1,544

TOTAL 40,919 In addition to the print book collection, Universidad del Turabo has electronic access through the virtual library to an excellent collection of 28,787 electronic books from Net Library, available to the entire university community on a 24 hour per day, seven days per week basis. Of these, approximately 769 are education related. Additionally, the virtual library has eight (8) databases related to education disciplines as listed in Table B.10. Table B.8 - Electronic Resources Databases

Electronic Resource Description Subjects

Sage Education Fulltext

This collection includes the full text of 55 peer-reviewed journals published by SAGE and participating societies, encompassing over 17,342 articles

Adult and Continuing Education, Assessment, Multilingual Education, Educational Administration, Educational Policy, Educational Psychology, Elementary and Primary Education, Family and Community, High School and Secondary Education, Higher Education, International Education, Leadership, Measurement and Testing, Middle School Education, Multicultural Education and Diversity, Philosophy of Education, Professional Development, Research Methods and Evaluation, School Counseling, School Finance and Budgeting, School

53

Electronic Resource Description Subjects Funding, School Health, School Law, School Reform, Special Education and Gifted Education, Standards, Teaching and Instruction, Teaching Methods, Technology, Theory of Education, and Vocational Education

Education Fulltext (Wilson Web)

Education Full Text brings you comprehensive coverage of an international range of English language periodicals, monographs and yearbooks. Full text of articles, with indexing cover to cover, from hundreds of journals, makes this a one-stop source for research.

Adult Education, Arts, Athletics, Comparative Education, Competency-based Education, Computers in Education, Continuing Education, Educational Technology, Elementary Education, Government Funding, Higher Education, Instructional Media, Language Arts, Library Science, Literacy Standards, Multicultural/Ethnic Education, Parent-Teacher Education, Teacher Evaluation, Teaching Methods, Vocational Education.

ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center)

Provides access to education literature and resources. The database lists citations and abstracts for over 1,000 comprehensively indexed educational and education-related journals, primarily American, along with some Canadian and British publications. The ERIC collection includes annotated bibliographic records, including journal articles, books, research syntheses, conference papers technical reports, policy papers, and other education-related materials

Adult and Continuing Education, Assessment, Multilingual Education, Content Areas, Curriculum, Early Childhood Education, Educational Administration, Educational Policy, Educational Psychology, Elementary and Primary Education, Family and Community, High School and Secondary Education, Higher Education and Diversity, Philosophy of Education, Professional Development, Research Methods and Evaluation, School Counseling, School Finance and Budgeting, School Funding, School Health, School Law, School Reform, Special Education and Gifted Education, Standards, Teaching and Instruction, Teaching Methods, Technology, Theory of Education & Vocational Education.

Educator’s Reference Complete (Gale)

This collection of more than 1,100 periodicals and 200 reports is a great resource for any educator – from the school teacher and administrator to those studying in the field at the collegiate and graduate level. Educator’s Reference Complete is the perfect complement for any library that utilizes the ERIC database,

This database covers multiple levels of education from preschool to college, and every educational specialty – such as technology, bilingual education, and testing. Educator’s Reference Complete also focuses on issues in administration, funding and policy.

54

Electronic Resource Description Subjects because it provides full-text results for nearly half of the journal titles found in ERIC.

Professional Development Collection (EBSCO)

Professional Development Collection, designed for professional educators, provides a highly specialized collection of nearly 520 high quality education journals, including more than 350 peer-reviewed titles. This database also contains more than 200 educational reports. This is the most comprehensive and most valuable collection of full text education journals in the world. In addition to full text, indexing and abstracts are provided for more than 700 journals

Adult Education, Arts, Athletics, Comparative Education, Competency-based education, Computers in Education, Continuing Education, Educational Technology, Elementary Education, Government Funding, Higher Education, Instructional Media, language Arts, Library Science, Literacy Standards, Multicultural/Ethnic Education, Parent-Teacher Relations, Prayer in Public Schools, Preschool Education, Religious Education, School Administration, Science and Mathematics, Secondary Education, Special Education, Student Counseling, Teacher Education, Teacher Evaluation, Teaching Methods, Vocational Education.

Teacher Reference Center (EBSCO)

Teacher Reference Center provides indexing and abstracts for 280 periodicals. In addition, 96% of journals indexed in the database are peer-reviewed.

Assessment, Best Practices, Continuing Education, Current Pedagogical Research, Curriculum Development, Elementary Education, Higher Education, Instructional Media, Language Arts, Literacy Standards, School Administration, Science & Mathematics, and Teacher Education

Access to journal articles is adequate for the current level of research being conducted at the SOED. The entire journal collection is electronically based with exception of some older volumes still available in print. A representative list of the 932 journal resources currently available is included in Table B.10. Table B.9 - Electronic Resources: A Sample of E-Journal available at Universidad del Turabo

E-Journal Description Academic Leadership The online Journal of Academic Leadership is aimed at those in the

academic world who are dedicated to advancing the field through their research. Peer Reviewed.

Current Issues in Education Current Issues in Education (CIE) is designed to promote scholarly thought in the field of education. Peer Reviewed.

Educational Leadership ASCD’s award winning journal is for anyone interested in curriculum, instruction, supervision, and leadership in education.

Educational Technology, Research and Development

Educational Technology. Research and Development is the only scholarly journal in the field focusing entirely on research and development in educational technology. Peer Reviewed.

International Journal of IJIM is a professional refereed journal directly responsive to the need for

55

E-Journal Description Instructional Media precise information on the application of media to your instructional and

training needs. Peer Reviewed. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning

It’s the first journal to specifically address the issue and concerns of librarians and information specialists in this rapidly growing field. Peer Reviewed.

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance

JOPERD is a peer reviewed professional journal addressing socioeconomic, ethical, and education issues for physically education, recreation and dance educators

Lectura y Vida: Revista Latinoamericana de Lectura; Buenos Aires

IRA’s Spanish language quarterly which contains research, theory and practice applicable to all teaching levels.

Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation

PARE is an on-line journal supported entirely by volunteer efforts. Its purpose is to provide access to refereed articles that can have positive impact on assessment, research, evaluation and teaching practice.

Document Delivery Services: In addition, the library budgets an additional $10,000 annually to purchase additional journal articles on a pay-per-view basis. Assuming an average cost of $33 per journal article, the current budget permits the purchase of an additional 300 journal articles per year. The library has never exhausted this budget allocation in the four years it has been implemented. As the level of research in the SOED increases, the institution is committed to providing additional funding, as required. Table B.10 - Electronic Resources: E-Books

Subjects Quantity Language Education General 32 Spanish History of Education 61 Spanish Individual institutions - America (except United States) 1 Spanish

Individual institutions - Europe 1 Spanish Individual institutions - United States 2 Spanish Special aspects of education 240 Spanish Theory and practice of education 432 Spanish

Total 769 All three institutions at AGMUS share library resources and facilities, so that students and faculty may either request next day delivery of a book listed in the on-line integrated catalog of AGMUS learning resources collections or apply in site for any relevant materials. The AGMUS libraries are members of a consortium of university libraries in Puerto Rico. Through this collaboration agreement, inter-library services can also provide faculty and students with resources from other universities. These services greatly expand the library’s capabilities to serve faculty and students alike. The UT library is opened from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday; and from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sunday. 4.3.2 The Office of Facilities and Operations monitors that space, lighting, security, maintenance and landscaping services are adequate and conducive to a pleasant working environment in all UT’s buildings, including the sports facilities. The institutional services available to the School include security, parking, cleaning, repair, and maintenance of offices and laboratories, wellness program, and on issues related to quality of life. These institutional services are adequate to meet the programs’ needs.

56

Classrooms As shown in Table B-12 there are 12 classrooms that are permanently assigned to the SOED. Almost all classrooms are equipped with overhead projectors and internet connection. Faculty may request additional audiovisual equipment from the DRA. In addition, UT has over 75 classrooms that are used to support the rest of the Schools. Should the need arise; the SOED may request the use of other classrooms besides those permanently assigned. Overall classroom space is adequate to support the program’s educational objectives and outcomes. Table B.11 - Classrooms Assigned to SOED

Classroom Capacity (sq. feet) No. of Porcelain Boards 8ft x 4ft Internet Connection

AGM 250 35 740 2 Yes AGM 251 35 740 2 Yes AGM 252 35 740 1 Yes AGM 253 35 740 1 Yes AGM 254 35 740 2 Yes MGM 119 35 512 2 Yes MGM 121 35 695 2 Yes MGM 224 35 695 2 Yes UM 101 35 960 2 Yes UM 102 35 960 2 Yes

MGM 118 35 810 1 Yes ECT-ANF-T 116 1981 1 Yes

Table B.12 - Laboratory Space Used by SOED

Space Description

MGM-118 Computer Laboratory assigned to the SOED. 20 computers, printers, and overhead projectors

Mobile Laboratory 20 laptops that may be used in regular classrooms as needed

Electronic Facilities Room

An open computer laboratory equipped with 70 computers, printers, internet connection and virtual library access located on the first floor of the DRA. Accessible to all UT community from 8:00AM to 9:30PM

4.3.3 The facilities, equipment, and supplies for SOED operation are allocated as a function of the SOED academic needs, priorities and projects for each academic year. The proposed annual budget for this area considers course enrollment, faculty hiring needs, acquisition of equipment and supplies among other elements. Approval of SOED budget is the responsibility of UT’s Chancellor and Budget Office. Therefore, the overall institutional resources assigned and approved to the SOED are sufficient to support the operations of the Program. Support staff and photocopying services are available along with teaching materials. Teaching aids in the manner of CD-ROM’s, Videos, Maps, Charts, Computer Programs and others are available at the Vice-Chancellorship of Information Resources. Q.P. 4.4 Fiscal and Administrative Capacity 4.4.1 As part of the AGMUS, financial processes and policies are established by the Vice-presidency of Financial Affairs and implemented at the institutional level. The institution participates in the NACUBO endowment study which provides a comprehensive assessment of our own and comparable endowments by size, asset allocation, rate of return, payout rate, etc. AGMUS endowment funds were recently estimated in $46 million. State and federal aid funds total approximately $200 million.

57

Due to socioeconomic conditions UT/AGMUS has seen an incremental reduction in spending patterns compared to previous years based on more restrictive financial planning, evaluating discriminatory costs and promoting conscious spending. 4.4.2 UT’s administration is committed to faculty development; therefore, it created the Institutional Faculty Development Center (IDDUT) that facilitates training and workshops to faculty in each academic term. Full and part-time faculty have opportunities to participate in development workshops organized by UT’s IDDUT. Besides that effort, all full-time faculty are required to participate in the Faculty Assembly organized by the Chancellor’s Office (twice a year). Also, full and part-time faculty are required to participate in the Faculty Forum organized by the Academic Vice-Chancellor Office (twice a year) and the Annual AGMUS Educational Congress. The Center for doctoral studies also organizes development activities for faculty members teaching doctoral courses. Faculty participation in these events is enforced by the SOED administration.

Since the institution is starting to develop a research and publication culture among the academic schools, SOED has proposed a Research and Development Plan for academic years 2011-2015. Research areas comprised in the plan include: Language, cognition and learning; Creative arts and culture; Health education and wellness; Education for diverse populations; Information technology; Educational leadership and administration; Social and emotional learning; and Educational policies.

Faculty workload for full and part-time faculty is established as a systemic policy in the AGMUS Faculty Handbook. Different workload obligations are established to faculty assigned to teaching from those who are assigned to teaching and research. Because the SOED has been mainly a teaching unit during the past years, the workload obligation is 12 credits for full time faculty and 6 credits for part-time faculty. This obligation is higher than the one at the Engineering and Science and Technology Schools were the development of research initiatives was promoted earlier than in the SOED.

All SOED full-time faculty have the same opportunity to apply for promotion and contractual procedures as established by the AGMUS and UT’s policies and regulations. As a systemic norm, contractual procedures do not include tenure tracks. Faculty is submitted to evaluation to determine if contracts will be established for one, three or five year periods. 4.4.3 The Director of Administrative Affairs of the SOED is the person responsible of monitoring the budget allocated to the School according to fiscal policies established by AGMUS Vice-President of Financial Affairs. The budget is based on a projection of student registration and school needs. The Dean, with the feedback of the associate deans, prioritizes all requests and once the school budget is approved by UT administration, the Dean allocates the budget, according to the School’s priorities. The budget assigned to the SOED represents 23% of the budgets for all UT Schools.

The annual budgeting process includes an analysis of the previous year’s expenditures, an enrollment projection and a needs assessment for the School’s planned projects. In this part of the process each Dean meets with the Associate Vice-Presidents for Financial Affairs, Marketing and Student Affairs and Planning. Once the Annual Budget for the SOED is prepared, the Dean submits it to the Vice-Chancellor for Administrative Affairs.

The budget includes faculty and staff salaries, lab equipment, faculty development, student activities, travel costs, publications, memberships, office supplies, etc. The major expense, of course is faculty salaries and benefits.

The operating budget does not include external funds raised by faculty and administrators. Parts of the indirect costs are returned to the Dean for reallocation. 4.4.4 Table B-13 presents the overall picture of internal financial resources of the SOED relative to the other academic Schools of UT. Budget of each school are global and not allocated by programs.

58

Table B.13 – Annual Budgets of the Different Schools

UT Fiscal year Ending 2008

Fiscal Year Ending 2009

Fiscal Year Ending 2010

School of Education 5,040,722 5,009,692 5,543,548 School of Engineering 2,875,414 3,394,476 3,177,273

School of Business 2,945,820 2,946,613 3,101,883 School of Social & Human Sciences 4,071,638 4,115,508 4,540,733

School of Health Sciences 1,350,023 1,606,824 1,629,461 School of Science & Technology 3,396,284 3,295,769 3,324,266 International School of Design 315,090 338,078 354,648

Certificate Studies 629,759 590,943 661,843 AHORA Program 1,565,307 1,727,641 2,002,940

Another point of comparison is the level of administrative and support staff allocated to each of

the Schools at UT. The SOED has more staff than any other School. This difference is due to the number of students in the programs, the complexity of the records that must be kept and produced for the DEPR licensing requirements and the complexity of activities in the PHED Department. The SOED is fortunate to have an excellent administrative and support staff to serve its students, both in the number of positions and the professional quality and commitment of the persons holding such positions.

The SOED chief officer is the Dean who directly supervises the three Associate Deans for Undergraduate Programs, Physical Education, Recreation and Sports, and Student Services. The SOED also has a Director for Administrative Affairs, and eight Student Services Officers. The Sports Division of the Physical Education Department also has an adequate staff to maintain an excellent sports program. Q.P. 4.5 Student Support Services 4.5.1 The SOED students have access to many different services as they complete their program at UT. Some of the services available for SOED students are: Office of the Assistant Vice-Chancellor for Students’ Quality of Life.

• Program for students with impairments • Leaders in Action Program • Student organizations • Counseling Program • Health Services Program • Community Service Program

Other Student Support Services are: • The Multimedia Project - a university wide project that promotes the use of technology as a

means of getting information needed by students. (Web-page, virtual library, closed circuit, e-mails, Facebook page, etc.)

• Title V - a university wide, federally funded project that manages the Writing across the curriculum Center and the Comprehensive Student Support Center

4.5.2 The SOED has put in place an assessment system to support its students. A key position in our School is the Director of Student Services. The Director supervises the eight Student Services officers. Since all enrollment processes are done through the School, students are advised as to what courses they should enroll each semester. Students’ academic evaluations are carried out before course selection to ensure they follow the course sequence designed by each Degree. The SOED also has an Admissions and Retention Committee for the master’s degree students. An Associate Dean chairs the committee. The members include at least two faculty members and one of the Student Services Officers assigned to the Program. This committee meets at least twice each semester and interviews students who have been identified as “at risk students” due to their grades, attitudes, conduct, etc. The committee deals individually with each case and recommends actions to be taken.

59

The coordinator of the doctoral degree and the student services officer follow each doctoral student during the entire program and interview each student regularly. The doctoral degree coordinator also provides academic support if necessary. 4.5.3 The SOED is the academic unit with the highest number of personnel for student services among other schools in UT. The school has a Director of Student Services and six Student Services Officials. The number of personnel in others schools is about one to three officials. In addition, and also as a distinctive organizational structure from other schools, the SOED has an Admission and Retention Committee composed of faculty, administrators and student services officers to support student academic processes. The Graduation Committee is responsible for monitoring students’ long range performance to determine their graduation status. Also, the SOED designated the Director of Student Services as the Link-Administrator for Retention Issues. MA students are satisfied with the services offered, according to focus groups. On the other hand, doctoral students feel they deserve special attention and services geared toward their specific needs. Q.P. 4.6 Recruiting and Admission 4.6.1 Graduate recruitment is assigned to the Enrollment Management Division of the Student Services Integrated Center, specifically the Marketing and Admissions Offices. This division responds to the Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs. All of these offices maintain close contact with the SOED. The Center for Doctoral Studies provides marketing support for doctoral candidates. 4.6.2 The Registrar’s Office establishes and distributes a calendar for each academic term. It includes dates for the beginning and end of terms, holidays, class rescheduling, administrative processes (withdrawing, removing a course, incompletes) and final exams period. 4.6.3 SOED promotional literature and university catalog provide accurate information about the Program. Promotional information emphasizes the SOED goal of preparing qualified educational leaders to transform the educational process as stated in its motto. 4.6.4 The grading system and the policies and procedures related to the Program are available in the Graduate Catalog and UT’s Academic Norms. Q.P. 4.7 Student complaints 4.7.1 A number of policies are in place that serves as vehicles so that students can voice their concerns, complaints or grievances. These policies are university – wide and apply to all students enrolled at UT. Grade Grievance Policy The University’s grade grievance policy is clearly stated in the Academic Norms Handbook. Grading system is also described on the General Graduate Catalog, 2009-2010. If a student is not satisfied by the grade received he/she should first talk to the professor. If not satisfied, he may take his grievance to the Registrar’s Office. The Registrar will consult with the professor to ascertain that the grade reported is the one deserved by the student. After the professor has answered in writing his/her opinion about the case, the student may take the grievance to the Office of the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, where a Committee, presided by the Vice Chancellor conducts an inquiry with full disclosure on the part of all interested parties. The decision made by this committee is final. Sexual Harassment Policy Another policy clearly outlined and disseminated is the policy on sexual harassment. This procedure is under the supervision of the Office of Human Resources. The policy includes harassment, whether from a student, faculty, administrator or staff member. It outlines options for processing harassment complaints, including a formal investigation process. The policy is distributed and discussed as part of the orientation. 4.7.2 Due to lack of evidence about student complaints, there is no way to compare student complaints records with other academic schools at UT. As part of the efforts to improve student services in the SOED, a committee will be designated to develop a plan to establish school policies and procedures for complaints according to university regulations.

60

As part of our Internal Audit survey we realized that it was very important for the SOED to administer an end of term course evaluation survey. The SOED newly established this procedure in August 2009. This process was under the supervision of another Division at UT. The process had not been carried out since 2005 due to discrepancies as to the instrument being used and specific concerns from the faculty. Course evaluation surveys were carried out by the office of the Assistant Vice-Chancellor for Assessment responding to requests from the Vice-Chancellor’s Office for Academic Affairs. As part of our TEAC accreditation process, the SOED decided that it was important to reinstate this assessment, and manage its administration. The following table of evaluation of courses in the January-March 2010 term is provided as a sample of course evaluation Table B.14 - End of Semester Evaluation

Criteria Average Student Response

1 The course guide offered adequate, clear and understandable information about requirements and content. 4.63

2 Time management for this course, was made easier by the course guide. 4.48 3 The time I spent in preparing for this course was equal to my expectations. 4.37

4 The objectives of the course were clearly explained at the beginning of term 4.59

5 Assignments and readings for this course were related to the objectives and content, which made it easier to enjoy the learning experience. 4.54

6 The content of instructional resources (textbook, Electronic sites, suggested readings, references , and others) were relevant to the course and made learning easier

4.41

7 My previous knowledge and experiences helped me to comprehend better the material included in the course. 4.51

8 My attendance to this class was consistent and punctual. 4.32

9 Evaluation criteria for the course were explained at the beginning of the term. 4.61

10 Evaluation criteria for course work and activities were clear, specific and well defined. 4.49

11 Partial grades of student performance were known before the due date for partial withdrawals. 4.30

12 Activities used in the course included current, interesting and varied teaching-learning strategies and techniques 4.43

13 Students showed active classroom participation. 4.42 14 There was constant retro communication about students’ performance. 4.37

15 The activities allowed me to share relevant experiences that contributed to course development. 4.45

16 The course provided opportunities to ask questions and clarify doubts about content, assignments and others 4.53

17 The course was an intellectual challenge. 4.32 18 The course helped me in my professional development. 4.53

19 The course was conducted in an atmosphere of respect between professor and students. 4.68

20 Physical installations were adequate for the activities related to the course. 4.53

61

Conclusion In this appendix we have presented information that supports our contention that the SOED and

its educational leaders Program is generally well-supported both by UT and AGMUS in each of the seven capacity dimensions. Throughout this document, we have shown that the institution provides resources and support to the SOED that has parity with those provided for other Schools at UT. Taken together with the evidence presented for student learning, faculty qualifications and curriculum we confidently state that the SOED has the capacity to offer a high quality educational leadership program.

62

Appendix C Faculty Qualifications

Q.P. 4.2 Faculty

Full time faculty are hired and evaluated for contract renewal and rank promotions according to the AGMUS Faculty Handbook. Searches for new faculty members involve the development of a position description, internal and external notices of available positions, the creation of a search committee and careful collaboration with the Vice-Presidency for Human Resources.

The AGMUS Faculty Handbook clearly specifies criteria for the evaluation of faculty as well as a schedule for periodic one, three or five year evaluations by students, peers, and Deans for contract renewal. Academic rank promotion criteria and processes are also outlined in the AGMUS Faculty Handbook. A rank evaluation is the responsibility of the Rank Evaluation Commission and of the Academic Board. Faculty portfolios and interviews are part of the process.

Contract renewals are recommended by the Academic Board to the Chancellor. The Chancellor has the final decision of renewing or terminating contracts. Recommendations on rank promotions are processed by the Academic Board to the Administrative Council. The Council approves or rejects the rank promotion. Other quality control measures related to faculty are the delineation of standards for annual workloads, release time and faculty development.

To supplement the full time faculty, the SOED employs adjunct faculty members on a regular basis. Many of our adjunct faculty is current or former teachers, school Administrators or faculty/Administrators from other universities, who are valuable additions to our teaching staff because of their expertise and experience. Efforts are made to insure that adjunct faculty feels a part of the SOED. They participate in committees and their input is seriously taken into account. Seminars are scheduled for them by IDDUT managed by the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs Office, as well as by the Vice-Presidency for Academic Affairs.

Table C-1 shows the faculty profile of the SOED. Because UT has been primarily a teaching institution, the SOED faculty profile emphasizes the teaching activities of faculty. As the institution has started to move towards becoming a teaching and research institution, faculty activities will include research and publications. SOED submitted already a Research and Development Plan to be implemented in academic years 2011-2015.

63

Table C-1 Full Time Faculty

Name Academic Rank

Years in UT

Academic Degree

Area of Expertise Professional Profile Courses Publications

Betancourt Gómez, Gladys

Associate Professor 30

Ed. D Educational

Administration IAUPR

Social Worker Student services Administration

Professor Graduate Program Education Universidad del Turabo

13 years

Vice Chancellor for Administrative Affairs 12 years

Administration, Leadership,

Research, Student Life

EDUC:716, 715 801, 805, 905, 906,

907

Candelario Fernández,

Ángela

Full Professor 30

Ph. D Curriculum &

Teaching Fordham

University

ESL Teaching

Graduate Certificate in Curriculum

Teacher

Education

Dean of SOED 24 years

Professor Graduate Program Education

Professor Humanities Department

6 years

Vice-President of the Education Commission of Private Universities

ASCD Member

Administration Teaching of English as a

Second Language, Research

EDUC. 604, 828, 905, 906, 907, 803

Cartagena Rodríguez,

Rafael

Full Professor 23

Ed. D Higher

Education & Leadership

Southwestern University

Certificate Educational Management

Harvard University

Professor Graduate Program Education 22 years

Secretary of Education Government of PR

1 year

UT Chancellor 1 year

IAUPR Chancellor

10 years

President Escuela Preescolar, Elemental y Superior

Daskalos 18 years

Coordinator of Doctoral Program in

Leadership

Chair TEAC Accreditation Committee

Educational Entrepreneurship,

Leadership, Ethics, Philosophy & Sociology of Education,

Administration EDUC 515, 617,

716, 714, 715, 718, 804

Books: PR Enfermo Una agenda para la excelencia académica Medidas Reformados para la Educación de Puerto Rico

64

Name Academic Rank

Years in UT

Academic Degree

Area of Expertise Professional Profile Courses Publications

Méndez Pagán, David

Assistant Professor 5

PhD Science

Education New York University

Science Education

Professor Graduate Program Education 5 years

Vice-Chancellor International Affairs

1 year

Dean of Doctoral Studies 5 years

Assistant Dean

School of Engineering and Applied Science Princeton University

3 years

Director Minority Retention Program UT Austin

7 years

Coordinator Math, Science and Engineering Educational Opportunity Fund Grant

Rutger University 1 year

Member of: SUAGM IRB

SOED Grad Curriculum Committee AGM Annual Conference Committee

Glossa Editorial Board UT Internalization Committee

Graduate Education, Leadership,

Science Education, International

Education, Student Affairs, Research EDUC 504, 901,

904, 906, 807

Quintana Torres, Debbie

Full Professor 11

Curriculum and Instruction

Universidad de Puerto Rico

Teaching Certificate in Elementary

Education, and Secondary

School Spanish

Associate Dean School of Education

Professor Graduate Program Education

Universidad del Turabo 11 years

Library Director

Police Academy of Puerto Rico 6 years

Librarian I

The New York Public Library, Inwood Regional Branch

1 year

Library Sciences, Educational Technology,

Research, Curriculum &

Teaching EDUC: 523, 524, 526,527, 528, 529, 709, 710, 711, 713, 803, 809, 814, 905, 906, 907

2011-Quintana, D.A. (Años 2006 - 2008). Animación a la lectura:

estrategias para un Puerto Rico lector. BIBESCO: Revista Oficial de la

Asociación de Bibliotecarios Escolares de Puerto Rico (ABESPRI), XI (1) p. 3-5

2006-Quintana, D. A. (March, 2006)

Information Literacy Standars for Science & Technology: an academic librarian perspective. SCI & TECH

LINK, 2 (1)

2002 Quintana, D. A. Las Nuevas

65

Name Academic Rank

Years in UT

Academic Degree

Area of Expertise Professional Profile Courses Publications

Professional Librarian

University of the Sacred Heart 3 years

Chair of the ALA Accreditation

Committee

Coordinator of the Doctoral Program in Curriculum, Teaching and Learning

Environments

Tecnologías de la Información y la Educación de bibliotecarios

Profesionales: Un Nuevo Modelo Curricular basado en la

Percepción de los Egresados y su Patrono referente al Programa

Graduado en Administración de Bibliotecas Escolares de la Escuela de Educación de la

Universidad del Turabo. Disertación Doctoral, Universidad de Puerto Rico. Proquest, Digital

Dissertation: UMI 3170720

1995 Quintana, D.A. Ser bibliotecario en y fuera de Puerto

Rico: La experiencia de una Boricua (Being a Librarian in and outside of Puerto Rico: A boricua experience). XXV Aniversario de

la Escuela Graduada de Bibliotecología y Ciencia de la

Información: Publicación Conmemorativa. Río Piedras,

Puerto Rico.

1993 Quintana, D. A. Reglas y reglamento sobre la conducta del público en la biblioteca (Rules &

Regulations Governing Public Behavior) New York: The New

York Public Library.

1991 Quintana, D. A. CD-ROM impact and use at the University of the Sacred Heart, Puerto Rico:

A bibliographic instruction perspective, NIT ’91: The 4th

International Conference of New Information Technology

Proceedings. Budapest, Hungary: Micro Use Information.

66

Name Academic Rank

Years in UT

Academic Degree

Area of Expertise Professional Profile Courses Publications

1991 Ortiz Zapata, D., & Quintana, D.A. New Information

Technology in Puerto Rican Academic Libraries: Potential and

Barriers for its Implementation. NIT ’91: The 4th International Conference

of New Information Technology Proceedings. Budapest, Hungary:

Micro Use Information.

Garófalo Pastrana, Jorge

H.

Full Professor 26

Ph. D Educational

Leadership in Higher

Education, Touro

University International

Associate Dean of Physical Education Department

Professor Graduate Program Education Competitive Sports, Athletic Director,

Physical Education and Masters Program Coordinator

26 years

IAUPR Lecturer

Professor- Director of the Physical Education Department.

Universidad de Puerto Rico, Humacao

Member of: ASCD

AAHPERD Puerto Rico Olympic Academy

Physical Education Administration

Leadership Health

EDUC 806, 604, 617, 905

Rivera Villegas,

Pedro

Associate Professor 9

Ph. D Health

Education, Southern Illinois

University

Health Education

Teaching

Certification

Professor Graduate Program Education 9 years

Program Manager Health Education

Program Puerto Rico Department of Education

External Evaluator Comprehensive Health and AIDS Network for a Good Education

(C.H.A.N.G.E.)

Lecturer Universidad Metropolitana 7 years

Health Education, Program

Evaluation EDUC 905, 906

67

Name Academic Rank

Years in UT

Academic Degree

Area of Expertise Professional Profile Courses Publications

Guadalupe Ahedo, Elaine Instructor 12

Doctoral Candidate,

ABD

Curriculum and Instruction

Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico

Teaching Certification

School Principal

License

Elementary Education

Professor Graduate and Undergraduate Program Education

Former Associate Dean for Undergraduate

Program 5 years

Former Director of Research and

Development 2 years

21st Century Project Director

10 years

UT’s Discipline Committee

Elementary Education,

Administration and Supervision

EDUC 504, 617

Rodríguez Rivera, Israel Instructor 12

Doctoral Candidate,

ABD

Instructional Technology and Distance

Education

Teaching Certification

School Principal

License

Secondary Education in Science and

Math

Technology and Distance

Education

ASQ Quality Certification

Professor Graduate and Undergraduate Program Education

Associate Dean for Undergraduate Program

2 years

Former Associate Dean for Research and Development

5 years

Chair TEAC Undergraduate Accreditation

Committee

Administration and Supervision EDUC 504

Oyola, Edna Assistant Professor 10

Ed. D Counseling

IAUPR

Counseling

Service Learning

Professor Graduate Program Education

Service Learning Coordinator

Phi Delta Kappa Member

Counseling, Service Learning,

Research EDUC 617

68

Name Academic Rank

Years in UT

Academic Degree

Area of Expertise Professional Profile Courses Publications

González Lamela, Juan

Full Professor 41

Ed. D Higher

Education Leadership

Southwestern University

Certification TQM

The New Deming Seminar

Management – Today and Tomorrow, How it must

Change, Los Angeles,

CA (1995)

TQM in

Colleges and Universities:

Reengineering the University University of Chicago, IL

(1994)

Professor Graduate Program in Education and Public Policy

1990 – Present Executive Director

Fundación Puertorriqueña de las Humanidades (NEH)

1990 – Present Chancellor

Centro de Estudios Avanzados de Puerto Rico y el Caribe

2001 – 2004 First Vicepresident

Institucional Advancement Fundación Educativa

Ana G. Méndez 1988 – 1990

Special Aid to the Governor Area of Education

Culture Quality of Life Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

1986 – 1987 Chancellor

Metropolitan University Fundación Educativa

Ana G. Méndez 1985 – 1986

First Dean of Students Colegio Universitario del Turabo

1972 – 1975 Executive Assistant to the Chancellor

Puerto Rico Junior College 1971 – 1972

Professor of the Social Science Department Puerto Rico Junior College

1969-1971 Teacher

Department of Education Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

1967-1969 Member, Board of Directors appointed by

Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila Cultural Policy Report was published as Pensar a Puerto Rico desde la Cultura

Administrative Supervision Leadership

Quality Management

Academic Advising

Organizational Bachelor School

Government Public Policy Education and

Culture

EDUC: 510, 504, 515, 617, 511, 503,

519, 520.

ADM: 500

69

Name Academic Rank

Years in UT

Academic Degree

Area of Expertise Professional Profile Courses Publications

(2005) President

Junta Consultiva de Acreditación y Evaluación

Consejo de Educación Superior, Universidad del Sagrado Corazón Middle State Association (1997)

President, Board of Directors Centro de Estudios Avanzados de Puerto

Rico y El Caribe (1990-2004) President of Promotional Tenure Committee Academic Board Turabo University (1993 –

1994) Member (Academic Board), Turabo

University (1993-1994) Member Board of Directors, Museo de las

Américas (1992-2004) Vice-president and Member of the Board of

Directors appointed by Governor Rafael Hernández Colón

Consejo General de Educación (1990-1995) Faculty Representative Task Force, Board

of Directors Report was presented to The Board

Sistema Universitario Ana G. Méndez (1995)

Award Judge Medalla R.J. Reynolds de la Cultura (1994-1995)

Member Sub-Committee of Universities Comision Quinto Centenario (1987)

Main Speaker at Ponce seminar RETENTION (1989)

Member of the Committee for Olympic Games 2004 (1989)

Coordinator of Activities, Centenario del Autonomismo en Puerto Rico

Governor’s Office (1986) President Proposals Committee, Board of

Directors Fundación Puertorriqueña de las

Humanidades (1984-1986) President, Junta Consultiva de Acreditación

y Evaluación

70

Name Academic Rank

Years in UT

Academic Degree

Area of Expertise Professional Profile Courses Publications

Interamerican University, Council on Higher Education (1984)

Member, Board of Directors Fundación Puertorriqueña de las

Humanidades (1981-1986) President (Governing Board)

Interuniversity Athletic League (LAI) (1980-1982)

Member, Steering Committee for a master plan for the foundation of Fundación

Educativa Ana G. Méndez (1977) Member Governing Board (Inter-University

League) (1975-1985) President (Exofficio)

Administrative Council Colegio Universitario del Turabo (1975-1985) Member, Administrative Board Inter-

University League (1973-1975) Member Academic Board, Colegio

Universitario del Turabo (1972-1975) Member, Association of Deans of Students

of Puerto Rico (1972-1975) Member Board of Public Administration

Review (1973-1974) Member Self Evaluation Committee

Turabo, Turabo University Middle States Association (1973

Member Committee for the Development of a New University in Caguas

Colegio Universitario del Turabo (1970-1971)

This committee was presided by Juan García Passalacqua

71

Name Academic Rank

Years in UT

Academic Degree

Area of Expertise Professional Profile Courses Publications

Mendoza, Juana

Assistant Professor 7

Ed. D Early

Childhood Education U MASS

Educational Consultant

Program Director

Area Supervisor

Grant Writer

Proposal Development

Art Education, Cultural Studies,

Philosophy of Education

EDUC 501, 540, 592, 617, 720, 721, 825, 826, 827, 814,

815

Project Director Educational Museum Advisor

Program Coordinator (Master Degree) Doctoral Advisor

Doctoral Committee Member Phi Delta Kappa (UMASS)

Association Curriculum Development National Association for Young

Children Association for Childhood Education

International

Núñez, Dulcina

Full Professor 32

Ph. D Curriculum and

Teaching Fordham

University

ESL Teaching

Curriculum and Instruction

Professor Graduate Program Education

Former AGMUS Vice-President of Academic Affairs

Teaching of English as a

Second Language Curriculum and

Teaching EDUC 600, 617

Concepción, Astrid

Full Professor 10

Ed. D Administration

and Supervision

Legal aspects of Education Legal aspects

EDUC 520, 717

72

Table C-2 Adjunct Faculty

Name Academic Rank

Years in UT

Academic Degree

Area of Expertise Professional Profile Courses Publications

Gómez Betancourt, Alejandro

Adjunct Professor 5

Ph. D Universidad

Carlos Albizu

Organizational & Industrial Psychology

Psychologist

Statistics

Adjunct Professor Graduate Program Education

5 years

Educational Psychology,

Human Resources Management,

Project Management

EDUC 600, 630

Member: SHRM APA

APPR

Puig Díaz, Rosita

Adjunct Professor 8

Administration & Supervision Universidad de

Puerto Rico

School Director

School Superintendent

School

Supervisor

Research

Adjunct Professor Graduate Program Education

7 years

Graduate Director Columbia College 3 years

Academic Director

Escuela Hotelera de San Juan 6 years

Academic Director Liceo Vocacional

5 years

PRDE Project Coordinator Director and Teacher 20 years

MEd Administration and Supervision

Coordinator (1 year) MEd program Coordinator (1 year)

Professor Recruitment Committee Member

(1 year) TEAC Accreditation Committee Member

ASCD Phi Delta Kappa

UPIC

Research Education, Leadership,

Administration, Qualitative Research, Vocational Education

EDUC 504, 503,510,705,519,

506, 600, 602, 617,715, 807, 901,

903, 905, 907

Manual Guía para la preparación de informes de investigación

73

Name Academic Rank

Years in UT

Academic Degree

Area of Expertise Professional Profile Courses Publications

García, Zaida Adjunct Professor 5

Counseling Universidad de

Puerto Rico

Counseling

Assessment Tool Development

Adjunct Professor Graduate Program Education

7 years

American Counseling Association

PR Association of Professional Counselors

Latin American Association of Professional Counselors

Asociación de Evaluadores Vocacionales

Counseling EDUC 905, 906

74

Table C-3 Part-Time Faculty

Name Academic Rank

Years in UT

Academic Degree

Area of Expertise Professional Profile Courses Publications

Caraballo Ríos, Ángel L. Lecturer 5

Ph. D Curriculum Penn State University

Teaching Certificate in

Distance Learning

Oracle’s Master

Certificate

Lecturer Graduate and Doctoral Program

Full time Faculty Member Inter American University

Technology EDUC 810, 811

Rey Siaca, Lirio Lecturer 3

JD Universidad de

Puerto Rico Counselor,

Attorney at Law

Lecturer Graduate Program

3 years

Director of Law Department ACAA

Law, Counseling EDUC 520, 582

Rivera, Antonio Lecturer 7

Ed. D Curriculum

and Instruction Universidad de

Puerto Rico

Research

Lecturer Graduate Program

9 years

Professor Universidad de Puerto Rico

History, Curriculum and

Teaching EDUC 600, 602

Surillo, Félix R. Lecturer 5

Ed. D Curriculum

and Instruction IAUPR

Superintendent Certificate

Lecturer Graduate Program

5 years

PRDE Superintendent

Administration, Curriculum EDUC 501

Vélez Cruz, Francisco Lecturer 6

Ed.D Educational

AdministrationIAUPR

Ohio State Teaching

Certificate in Learning

Disabilities and Behavioral Disorders

Lecturer Graduate Program

6 years

Professor Graduate Program IAUPR

Administration and Supervision

Philosophy of Education, Research

EDUC 519, 600, 506, 502, 519, 714

Rivera, Lillian Lecturer 4

Ed. D Educational Leadership Universidad del Turabo

Administration Human

Resources

Lecturer Graduate Program

4 years EDUC 503, 519

Orta, Edna Lecturer 10 MBA

Universidad Metropolitana

Planning Budgeting

Lecturer Graduate Program

4 years

Administration and Supervision

EDUC 702, 705

75

Appendix D Table D-1: Alignment of MA Program Requirements with TEAC Q.P. I, State Standards and Program Requirements

TEAC Quality Principle I Components

DEPR Directors Evaluation

Criteria

Standards for Advanced

Programs in Educational Leadership

2008 ISLLC Standards

Program option requirements that address Quality Principle I and State subject matter and pedagogical standards for

Required courses Field work requirements

Admissions requirements

Portfolio requirements Exit requirements

1.1. Professional knowledge

Criteria II 1, 2, 3, 4

3.00 2 functions: A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I.

3 function E 4 functions C, D

(See Appendix F.6)

Educ 503, 504, 515, 519, 510, 506, 520, 600, 602, 617, 630

A 14 hour a week practicum (EDUC 515) under the supervision of an experienced director from in a public or private school is a required course. In EDUC 602 students complete an applied research project in a real school setting.

1. BA degree with a minimum grade point average of 2.50 in the last 60 credits

2. Approve the Graduate Admission Test (EXADEP) with a minimum of 75%

Portfolio assessment might be required as part of the evaluation system of courses such as Educ 604 and 515 (Practicum). Students are asked to incorporate evidence of knowledge, skills, and dispositions in these courses.

- Approval of all courses with a 3.00 minimum grade as stated in UT’s Academic Norms.

- Approval of a Comprehensive Examination or Educ 604 which can substitute this test.

- The completion of a thesis or investigation seminar.

1.2. Strategic decision making

Criteria I 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, II, 7

3.00 1 functions A, B, C, D, E 4 function A 6 functions B, C 3 functions A, D 5 function C

Educ 504, 506, 510, 515, 519

Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above

1.3. Caring and effective leadership skills

Criteria II 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 IV, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

5.0 2 functions A, C 3 function C 4 function C 5 function E

Educ 504, 506, 519

Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above

1.4.1 Cross-cutting theme: Learning to learn

Criteria II 1, 2, 3

7.0 1 function B 2 functions A, H

Educ 506, 602, 617

Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above

1.4.2 Cross-cutting theme: Multicultural perspectives and accuracy

Criteria III 1, 2, 3, 5

6.0 4 functions B, C, D 5 functions B, C, D, E 6 function A

Educ 504, 506 Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above

1.4.3 Cross-cutting theme: Technology

Criteria I 2

2.2 3.3

2 functions E, H, I 3 function A 4 functions A, B, C 5 functions A, B

Educ 562, 641, 643

Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above

76

Table D-2: Alignment of Doctoral Program Requirements with TEAC Q.P. I, State Standards and Program Requirements

TEAC Quality Principle I Components

DEPR Directors Evaluation

Criteria

Standards for Advanced

Programs in Educational Leadership

2008 ISLLC Standards

Program option requirements that address Quality Principle I and State subject matter and pedagogical standards for

Required courses

Field work requirements

Admissions requirements

Portfolio requirements Exit requirements

1.4. Professional knowledge

Criteria II 1, 2, 3, 4

3.00 2 functions: A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I.

3 function E 4 functions C, D (See Appendix F.6)

Educ 714, 715, 716, 717, 719, 801, 802, 804, 806, 807, 901, 902, 903, 904

Doctoral candidates are required to present, and discuss orally, full curriculum vitae and discuss their most important educational accomplishments. This is an important part of the admission criteria. There are no field requirements in leadership as most students either hold a leadership position or have held one. The faculty is designing a course similar to Educ 828 which would require to implement a project in the field. Students will usually do a great deal of field work for their dissertation.

- Hold a Master’s degree or an equivalent degree with a minimum grade point average of 3.00

- Complete an oral interview with the SOED Doctoral Program Admission Committee.

- Submit an essay on a topic selected by the SOED Doctoral Program Admission Committee.

- Pass a test such as, EXADEP or GRE.

Portfolio assessment might be required by the Institution as part of the evaluation system of the courses. Students are asked to incorporate evidence of knowledge, skills, and dispositions acquired in those courses requiring a portfolio.

- Approval of all courses for the degree with a minimum 3.00 academic index stated in UT’s Norms.

- Approval of a comprehensive examination with a minimum of 75%.

- Complete a dissertation.

77

TEAC Quality Principle I Components

DEPR Directors Evaluation

Criteria

Standards for Advanced

Programs in Educational Leadership

2008 ISLLC Standards

Program option requirements that address Quality Principle I and State subject matter and pedagogical standards for

Required courses

Field work requirements

Admissions requirements

Portfolio requirements Exit requirements

1.5. Strategic decision making

Criteria I 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, II, 7

3.00 1 functions A, B, C, D, E 4 function A 6 functions B, C 3 functions A, D 5 function C

Educ 716, 801, 802, 804, 806

Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above

1.6. Caring and effective leadership skills

Criteria II 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 IV, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

5.0 2 functions A, C 3 function C 4 function C 5 function E

Educ 715, 718, 719, 806, 807

Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above

1.4.4 Cross-cutting theme: Learning to learn

Criteria II 1, 2, 3

7.0 1 function B 2 functions A, H

Educ 714, 716, 718, 805, 906, 907

Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above

1.4.5 Cross-cutting theme: Multicultural perspectives and accuracy

Criteria III 1, 2, 3, 5

6.0 4 functions B, C, D 5 functions B, C, D, E 6 function A

Educ 715, 716, 717, 718, 719

Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above

1.4.6 Cross-cutting theme: Technology

Criteria I 2

2.2 3.3

2 functions E, H, I 3 function A 4 functions A, B, C 5 functions A, B

Educ 808, 810, 811

Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above

78

Specific Program Requirements Table D-3: Master Degree in Educational Administration and Supervision

Core Course (6 credits)

Course Description CR

EDUC 501 Principles and Development of Curriculum 3

EDUC 504 Leadership, Communication and Teamwork 3

Professional Pedagogical Courses (24 Credits)

Course Description CR

EDUC 503 Introduction to the Educational Enterprise 3

EDUC 506 Conflict Resolution in Schools 3

EDUC 510 Principles of Educational Management 3

EDUC 702 Administration of Financial Resources 3

EDUC 520 Educational Law & Regulation 3

EDUC 705 Planning and Evaluation in Education 3

EDUC 519 Human Resources Management-Education Enterprise 3

EDUC 515 Practicum in School Administration and Supervision 3

Research Courses (9 credits)

Course Description CR

EDUC 600 Educational Research Methods 3

EDUC 630 Statistics for Educational Research 3

EDUC 604 Reading Seminar

3 (or) (or)

EDUC 617 Research Project in a School Setting

79

Specific Program Requirements Table D-4: Doctoral Degree in Educational Leadership

Core Courses for Doctoral Students (18 Credits)

Course Description CR

EDUC 714 Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Education 3

EDUC 715 Social, Cultural and Political Dimensions of Educational Organizations 3

EDUC 716 Contemporary Problems and Issues in Education 3

EDUC 717 Legal Issues in Education 3

EDUC 718 Ethics and Education 3 Student can select 9 credits from this group. Students whose prior academic concentration is not education should take three additional credits on the social context of Education.

Specialization Component (27 credits)

Organizational Process (9 credits)

Course Description CR

EDUC 801 Project Management in Education 3

EDUC 802 School Finance 3

EDUC 803 Evaluation of Instructional Programs: Theory and Application 3

Leadership (12 credits)

Course Description CR

EDUC 804 Leadership: Models and Strategies 3

EDUC 805 Instructional Leadership 3

EDUC 806 Leading Organizational Change 3

EDUC 807 Leadership, Community Relationships and Corporative Alliances 3 Elective Courses (6 credits)

The student can select any of the courses available in the Doctoral Program. In order to select a course from the Librarian and Information Systems option, students must have prior academic preparation on this concentration.

Research Component (15 credits)

Course Description CR

EDUC 901 Research Methods in Education 3

EDUC 902 Statistical Methods in Education 3

EDUC 903 Qualitative Research

3 (or) (or)

EDUC 904 Quantitative Research

EDUC 905 Dissertation I 3

EDUC 906 Dissertation II 3

EDUC 907 Dissertation III 3

80

Appendix E Inventory of evidence

a. Grades – Evidence of Grades is available as part of the sustaining evidence for Claims #1, 3, 4, 5. b. Survey of students, alumni, employers- A survey conducted by SUAGM among graduates and

employers is available in page ____. c. Ratings of Portfolios, work samples, cases Due to the nature of this evidence it will be available

during TEAC’s Audit Team visit. d. Basis for rates: hiring/promotion, certification, graduate study, professional awards,

publications, etc. UT as part of the AGMUS complies with all systemic regulations regarding hiring, promotions,

certifications, graduate study opportunities, professional awards, publications, etc. AGMUS publishes a Faculty Handbook and an Employee Handbook that covers all of the above mentioned activities.

e. Comprehensive Examinations supports claims # 1, 2, 4. Reasons for neglecting of rejecting certain categories of evidence

Data difficult to obtain with a reasonable amount of validity and reliability was not used. This is the case of data regarding our graduates’ evaluation of their subordinates Plan for inclusion of new categories of evidence in a subsequent Inquiry Brief Proposal

Two main categories of evidence will be addressed in a subsequent Inquiry Brief. First, new data and evidence will be presented from students feedback forms. This feedback will include students’ perceptions about how the SOED provides learning experiences to foster each of the claims proposed in this Inquiry Brief. Ascertain student perception will ensure them a means to express their views about their learning process and to feel involved in the process of sharing their opinions about what the SOED offers. As for faculty, they recognize the importance of student feedback to have a better understanding of their learning process and to guide their selection of teaching strategies to enhance learning.

Second, evidence from alumni status after graduation will be provided. The SOED will like to use surveys to alumni and school administrators among other possible tools to gather information about how they are applying knowledge and skills acquired through the learning experience in the SOED. Also, to determine the impact in academic achievement of students taught by SOED alumni. SOED faculty understands that ultimate quality of alumni will be demonstrated by their student’s achievement.

f. Capstone Projects, Thesis and Dissertations supports claim # 1, 2, 3. g. End of Program Survey supports claims # 1, 2, 4. h. Pre and posttests of the ISLLC Standards support claims # 1, 2.

81

Table E.1 Inventory of evidence

Inventory: Status of Evidence from measures and indicators for TEAC Quality Principle I

Type of Evidence Available and in the Brief Not Available and Not in the Brief

Note: items under each category are examples. Program may have more or

different evidence

Relied on Reasons for including the results in the

Brief Location in Brief

Not Relied on Reasons for not relying on this

efficiency Location in Brief

For future use Reasons for including in

future Briefs

Not for future use Reasons for not including in future

Briefs

Grades

1. Student grades and grade point average It is a solid evidence of acquired knowledge

p. 8 & 14

Scores on standardized tests

2. Student scores on standardized license or board examinations

Supports our claim of acquired professional knowledge

3. Student scores on undergraduate and/or graduate admission tests of subject matter knowledge and aptitude.

Supports claim #1 & 4 p. 13

4. Standardized scores and gains of the program graduates’ own pupils.

Very difficult to obtain data especially when graduates are in power positions.

Ratings

5. Ratings of portfolios of academic and clinical accomplishments

Students can demonstrate knowledge and professional skills

p. 10

6. Third-party rating of program’s students Part of a comprehensive assessment program

p. 12, 13, 14, 16

7. Ratings of in-service, clinical, and PDS teaching See above

8. Ratings, by cooperating teacher and college/university supervisors, of practice teachers’ work samples.

See above

Rates 9. Rating of completion of courses and

program Support professional knowledge p. 14

10. Graduates’ career retention rates

Most of our graduates’ occupy leadership positions before entering the program; consequently is not a good measure of program accomplishments.

82

Inventory: Status of Evidence from measures and indicators for TEAC Quality Principle I

Type of Evidence Available and in the Brief Not Available and Not in the Brief

Note: items under each category are examples. Program may have more or

different evidence

Relied on Reasons for including the results in

the Brief Location in Brief

Not Relied on Reasons for not relying on this

efficiency Location in Brief

For future use Reasons for including in future

Briefs

Not for future use Reasons for not including in

future Briefs

11. Graduates’ job placement rates See above 12. Rates of graduates professional

advanced study It is a measure of MA program effectiveness p. 13

13. Rates of graduates’ leadership roles

Emphasis is placed in developing job abilities and skills in program SOED graduates are expected to make contributions as educational leaders. Some kind of follow up will be included in future surveys.

14. Rates of graduates’ professional service activities

Service is one of the cornerstones of SOED graduates. Data regarding service will be included in future surveys

Case Studies and alumni competence

15. Evaluations of graduates by their own pupils

Graduates occupy leadership roles; consequently it is very difficult to obtain reliable data.

16. Alumni self-assessment of their accomplishments

Graduate over perceptions are essential for program improvement

p. 15

17. Third party professional recognition of graduates (e.g., NBPTS)

Efforts in follow up surveys will be made to obtain this data but it has proven to be very difficult to obtain in the past.

18. Employers’ evaluation of the program’s graduates

Necessary for program improvement. Must be incorporated in future surveys.

19. Graduate’s authoring of textbooks, curriculum materials, etc. Data will be collected in future

surveys

20. Case studies of graduates’ own pupils’ learning and accomplishments

Useful for program improvement. Will be included in EDUC 604

83

Appendix F Document Doc.1 - Rubric for the Correction of the Doctoral Comprehensive Examination

Identification #: ______________________ Date: ____________________

In the analysis and answers to the question the student demonstrated:

1. COMPREHENSION: Capacity to understand the effect of inequality of educational opportunities as an individual and as part of the society, taking into consideration related literature.

TOTALLY (20-16) PARTIALLY (15-11) NONE (10-0) Has an adequate and detailed interpretation of the alternatives that are proposed in the given situation.

Superficially interprets the proposed alternatives in the given situation.

Does not know the principal problems of the given situation or a bad interpretation.

2. PERSPECTIVES (16): Capacity to analyze all factors, affected people and groups that may participate in the solution of the given situation taking into consideration related literature.

TOTALLY (20-16) PARTIALLY (15-11) NONE (10-0) Presents a perspective that includes different points of view, takes into consideration all parts involved in the given situation.

Takes into consideration only certain points of view and some of the parts involved in the given situation.

Does not take into consideration the points of view of the parts involved in the given situation.

3. KNOWLEDGE: Ability to propose alternatives that respond to the affected groups and permits to influence in the groups that make decisions (political, social, cultural, economic, and legal) in the Puerto Rican context. Taking into consideration related literature

TOTALLY (20-16) PARTIALLY (15-11) NONE (10-0) Discusses a critical and balanced vision of the proposed alternatives to solve the given situation. It is sustained by theories or reviewed literature.

The proposed alternatives are based and discussed on superficial arguments.

The proposed alternatives neither present a critical vision nor are sustained with theories or reviewed literature.

4. APPLICATION: Ability to propose a variety of innovative alternatives that can address in an efficient manner the given situation. Taking into consideration related literature

TOTALLY (20-16) PARTIALLY (15-11) NONE (10-0) Demonstrates a capacity to propose a variety of actions (acceptable in the educational arena) that allow resolving the given situation.

Demonstrates a limited capacity to propose actions that allow solving problems to the given situation.

Does not propose actions that are feasible, does not establish priorities either.

5. ANALYSIS: Ability to analyze the complex inequality issues, understanding the educational policies (rules, regulations, laws) describes the economic facts, the policies to attend diversity issues and how all of these are related to social justice. Taking into consideration related literature TOTALLY (20-16) PARTIALLY (15-11) NONE (10-0) Capacity to recognize how the complexity of the actions proposed to resolve the situation, the effect of these actions, and the decisions to be taken in the educational arena.

Limited capacity to recognize the actions and the effect of these actions and decisions in the educational arena.

Did not demonstrate capacity to recognize the complex actions and the effect of these and the decisions in the educational arena.

Comments: Person who corrected the exam: ________________________ Date: ________________

84

85

Document Doc.2 TURABO UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION QUESTIONAIRE ABOUT THE EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE IN THE MASTER

DEGREE PROGRAMS The school of Education has developed this questionnaire to determine the effectiveness of our graduate programs.

1. Programs: [101] Educational Administration, [102] Counseling, [103] Curriculum and Teaching, [104] Special Education – Teaching in, [105] Fine Arts, [106] English as a Second Language, [107] Library Services and Technology.

Gender: [ ] Female [ ] Male Age: [01] 24 or less [02] 25-29 [03] 30-34 [04] 40-44 [06] 45-49 [07] 50 or more

2. The following statement describe different aspects of the educational proves offered by the School of Education. Using the following scale, indicate your level of agreement with the statements.

SCALE: A B C D E

Poor Regular Good Very Good Excellent

SATISFACTION A B C D E

1. The academic preparation of the SOED is 2. The educational experience is 3. The teaching of faculty is 4. Course Guides were followed 5. Courses were important for my professional development 6. Courses goals and objectives were 7. Technology is used in courses 8. Classrooms where courses were offered were 9 The opportunity to work in groups was

10. The opportunity to collaborate with the students was 11. Admission orientation was 12. Orientation during registration was

13. The ethical responsibility of the educational leader was discussed in a form that was

14. In general, the educational experience was

3. Using the following scale, evaluate the performance of SOED’s selected aspects. SCALE:

A B C D E Totally

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Totally Agree

OPINION A B C D E

15. Promote change in educational processes 16. Design innovative curriculum 17. Design curriculum that challenges students 18. Diagnose problems 19. Identify solutions to educational problems 20. Make decisions based on evidence 21. Courses challenged students’ intellectual capacity 22. Course content is relevant to the practice of the profession

86

23. There is integration of theory and practice 24. Educational strategies promotes active learning 25. There is a climate of respect in SOED

26. Educational experiences contribute to develop the right employment attitudes in education

27. The resources support the program 28. Faculty show interest in student professional development 29. Courses provide for self-knowledge 30. Courses emphasize innovation 31. Courses provide for critical thinking 32. Research is an important teaching strategy

33. Different learning styles were considered in teaching courses

34. I would recommend the SOED to prospective students

4. Using the following scale, indicate if the program allowed progress in the following aspects: SCALE:

A ABSOLUTELY NOT

(in almost none of the courses)

B POORLY (in a few courses) C SOMEHOW (in some courses)

D ABSOLUTELY (in the majority of toe courses)

E ABSOLUTELY YES (in all of the courses)

OPINION A B C D E

35. Reflection to improve academic performance 36. Provide theoretical foundations for problem solving 37. Appreciation for life-long learning 38. Develop leadership skills 39. The skills for effectively exercise the profession. 40. The skills to practice as an educational leader

41. Communication skills that helped in the educational process

42. Ethic and professional principles 43. The skills to practice as a professional 44. An interactive and active learning environment

Comments and recommendations for continuous improvement:

87

Figure F.1: Completed Model Linking Learning Objectives to Outcomes

88

Doc.3

89

Doc.4: Facsimile Survey of End-of-Program Survey

Perfil del estudiante

Años de estudio: ( 1 ) ( 2) (3) Otro:_____________________

Gènero :______________________________

Profesiòn:____________________________ Realice una marca de cotejo en la aseveración que mejor identifica como el Programa de _________________________le ha servido en su preparación académica.

PREMISA Totalmente de Acuerdo

(4)

De Acuerdo (3)

Parcialmente de Acuerdo

(2)

En Desacuerdo

(1) 1. Propicia el manejar con integridad los aspectos éticos en

los cursos

2. Permite desarrollar colaboración entre todos los miembros de la comunidad educativa.

3. Las políticas académicas y los recursos de la institución son seguros, eficientes y efectivos para desarrollar un buen ambiente de aprendizaje.

4. Se promueve el que los estudiantes sean exitosos al entender y responder a las influencias políticas, sociales, económicas, legales y culturales.

5. Le ha permitido asumir roles de liderazgo que le faciliten desarrollar su profesión.

6. Se facilita una visión de aprendizaje que es compartida y apoyada por la comunidad educativa.

7. Los métodos de enseñanza propician el aprendizaje y el crecimiento profesional.

8. Hay comunicación efectiva con los diferentes constituyentes de la comunidad educativa.

9. Se permite el análisis crítico de los asuntos institucionales y presentar soluciones alternas para los diferentes problemas.

10. Propicia el uso de la tecnología en los líderes. 11. Fomenta la reflexión en torno a las diferentes teorías de

liderazgo.

12. Desarrolla la capacidad para discernir entre los modelos de toma de decisiones.

13. Promueve la investigación y propicia la realización de trabajos de forma cualitativa.

14. Promueve la investigación y propicia la realización de trabajos de forma cuantitativa.

15. Propicia el uso de la investigación para el inquirir académico mediante la utilización de diversidad de métodos y diseños.

90

Suggested questions for student’s questionnaire:

1. Help students to maintain integrity and ethics in their courses. 2. Promotes the development of collaboration among members of the educational community. 3. Academic policies and institutional resources are secure, efficient and effective to develop an appropriate learning

environment. 4. Students are encouraged to be successful by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social,

economic, legal, and cultural contexts. 5. Leadership roles that propitiate the development of students’ profession are promoted. 6. The learning vision is shared and supported by the educational community. 7. Instructional methods are conducive to student learning and professional growth. 8. There is effective communication among the diverse constituents of the educational community. 9. The students can engage in critical analysis of organizational issues and propose alternative solutions to problems.

10. The Program promotes the use of technology among student future leaders. 11. Reflection of leadership orientations and theories is encouraged. 12. Students develop the capacity to distinguish between decision-making models. 13. Students are encouraged to conduct and interpret research using qualitative methods. 14. Students are encouraged to conduct and interpret research using quantitative methods 15. Students are encouraged to undertake research and practical inquiry using various research methods.

91

Doc.5: Pre and Posttest using ISLLC Standard

PRE-EVALUACIÓN DEL ESTUDIANTE DE ESTÁNDARES ISLLC 2008

PREMISAS MU

Y SA

TISF

AC

TOR

IO

BAST

AN

TE

SATI

SFA

CTO

RIO

AC

EPTA

BLE

BAST

AN

TE

INSA

TISF

AC

TOR

IO

MU

Y IN

SATI

SFA

CTO

RIO

COMENTARIOS

Conocimiento de los principios esenciales para desarrollar e implantar un plan estratégico.

Capacidad para desarrollar una comunicación efectiva con todos los miembros de la Comunidad educativa.

Destrezas para negociar y lograr consenso mediante la inclusión entre los diversos grupos constituyentes de la comunidad educativa.

Conocimiento de las teorías de aprendizaje, de motivación, del diseño curricular, medición, evaluación y estrategias de avaluó.

Entendimiento de la diversidad y su importancia en los programas académicos

Reconocer que el aprendizaje de los estudiantes es la prioridad del sistema educativo.

Conocimiento de las teorías y modelos organizacionales y principios del desarrollo organizacional.

Conocimiento de los aspectos legales y las operaciones fiscales que influyen e impactan el escenario escolar.

Dominio de las tecnologías emergentes como apoyo a las funciones gerenciales.

Entendimiento de los asuntos nuevos que emergen y que podrían impactar la escuela.

Conocimiento de los recursos de la comunidad, así como la importancia de las relaciones entre escuela y comunidad.

Entendimiento de la importancia de las alianzas colaborativas y destrezas para identificarlas.

Utilizar los principios éticos en la toma de decisiones

Conocimiento del propósito de la educación y el rol del liderazgo en la sociedad moderna.

Aprecio y sensibilidad con la diversidad en el escenario escolar

Entendimiento de los modelos y estrategias para atender el cambio.

Destrezas para el manejo de conflictos

Entendimiento de cómo los sistemas sociales, políticos, culturales y económicos afectan el contexto escolar.

Reconocer la importancia de la equidad y diversidad en una sociedad democrática.

Trata a todos con justicia, respeto y dignidad.

Observaciones:

Estándares ISLLC 2008 (Estándar #1 – Premisas 1-2-3) Estándar #2 (Premisas 4-5-6) Estándar # 3 (Premisas 7-8-9) Estándar # 4 (Premisas 10-11-12) Estándar # 5 (Premisas 13-14-15) Estándar # 6 (Premisas 16-17-18-19-20)

92

POST-EVALUACIÓN DEL ESTUDIANTE DE ESTÁNDARES ISLLC 2008

PREMISAS MU

Y SA

TISF

AC

TOR

IO

BAST

AN

TE

SATI

SFA

CTO

RIO

AC

EPTA

BLE

BAST

AN

TE

INSA

TISF

AC

TOR

IO

MU

Y IN

SATI

SFA

CTO

RIO

COMENTARIOS

Conocimiento de los principios esenciales para desarrollar e implantar un plan estratégico.

Capacidad para desarrollar una comunicación efectiva con todos los miembros de la Comunidad educativa.

Destrezas para negociar y lograr consenso mediante la inclusión entre los diversos grupos constituyentes de la comunidad educativa.

Conocimiento de las teorías de aprendizaje, de motivación, del diseño curricular, medición, evaluación y estrategias de avaluó.

Entendimiento de la diversidad y su importancia en los programas académicos

Reconocer que el aprendizaje de los estudiantes es la prioridad del sistema educativo.

Conocimiento de las teorías y modelos organizacionales y principios del desarrollo organizacional.

Conocimiento de los aspectos legales y las operaciones fiscales que influyen e impactan el escenario escolar.

Dominio de las tecnologías emergentes como apoyo a las funciones gerenciales.

Entendimiento de los asuntos nuevos que emergen y que podrían impactar la escuela.

Conocimiento de los recursos de la comunidad, así como la importancia de las relaciones entre escuela y comunidad.

Entendimiento de la importancia de las alianzas colaborativas y destrezas para identificarlas.

Utilizar los principios éticos en la toma de decisiones

Conocimiento del propósito de la educación y el rol del liderazgo en la sociedad moderna.

Aprecio y sensibilidad con la diversidad en el escenario escolar

Entendimiento de los modelos y estrategias para atender el cambio.

Destrezas para el manejo de conflictos

Entendimiento de cómo los sistemas sociales, políticos, culturales y económicos afectan el contexto escolar.

Reconocer la importancia de la equidad y diversidad en una sociedad democrática.

Trata a todos con justicia, respeto y dignidad.

Observaciones:

Estándares ISLLC 2008 (Estándar #1 – Premisas 1-2-3) Estándar #2 (Premisas 4-5-6) Estándar # 3 (Premisas 7-8-9) Estándar # 4 (Premisas 10-11-12) Estándar # 5 (Premisas 13-14-15) Estándar # 6 (Premisas 16-17-18-19-20)

93

Table F.1 Topics of completed Dissertations

Título Estudiante Año

1 El impacto del trastorno del espectro autista en la familia: Mi hijo después de la crisis Milagros Rodríguez 2012

2 Modelo de integración práctica del componente educativo en los planes de manejo de emergencia. Estudio de caso: HAITI Sor Magna Martínez 2012

3 Capacidad de liderazgo escolar y su incidencia en el nivel de efectividad de los centros prescolares en Puerto Rico Diana Montoya 2012

4 Behind Classroom Doors: Consistency Between Policy and Practice in the English as a Second Language Classroom Sharon Grau 2012

5 “No Teacher Preparation Program Left Behind”: Implantación de la política educativas en los programas de preparación de maestros de las instituciones de educación superior privadas en Puerto Rico Athony Rivera 2012

6 Prácticas de las relaciones formales e informales de los profesores con los estudiantes que inciden en la persistencia. Rosa Arroyo 2012

7 Estilos de Liderazgo en los Maestros y Maestras de Salud Escolar del Nivel Secundario en la Implantación del Programa de Educación en Salud Escolar en Puerto Rico Luis Rosario 2012

8 El Maestro de la Sala Regular de Clases ante el proceso de inclusión del niño con impedimentos. Awilda Rosa 2012

9 “Las nuevas tecnologías de la información en las Bibliotecas Públicas de Puerto Rico: Impacto en el personal bibliotecario” Damalín Díaz 2012

10 Funciones del Superintendente de Escuelas de Puerto Rico según la Ley NCLB y su desempeño como líder instruccional Blanca E. Martínez 2012

11 ¿Héroes del papel de acción? Implicaciones del liderazgo instruccional de los directores en el aprovechamiento académico de los estudiantes. Jessica Ortega 2012

12 Alineamiento Curricular para la compatibilidad entre patrones y una universidad con programa de preparación de ingenieros eléctricos e industriales José A. Pérez 2012

13 La efectividad del currículo de Danza: movimiento y expresión corporal: el cuerpo y su movimiento para el desarrollo motor fino y grueso en niños de primer grado. Ivette Bravo 2012

94

14 La equidad de género en la escuela elemental: percepción de los maestros Zulma Reyes 2012

15 Un diseño curricular de español: Julia de Burgos, Luis Palés Matos y yo, y el desarrollo de la autoestima para estudiantes nocturnos. Adolfo Alcazar 2012

16 Análisis de las Políticas y Metodologías del Programa de Educación de Adultos del Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico, 1990-2010 Aponte Rodríguez, Maribel 2011

17 Relación entre el estilo de Liderazgo y las Prácticas Institucionales que contribuyen al Aumento en la Retención Estudiantil en las instituciones de Educación Privadas sin fines de Lucro de Puerto Rico Blasini Torres, Ivellisse 2011

18 Relación entre el estilo de liderazgo y la Toma de Decisiones de los Senados Académicos de las Instituciones de Educación Superior Publicas de Puerto Rico Cuadrado Cuadrado, Mildred 2011

19 La Efectividad del Liderazgo en Equipo de un Programa de Educación a Personas viviendo con Diabetes: Estudio de Caso. Disdier Flores, Orville M. 2011

20 Estilo, Desarrollo de Destrezas de Liderazgo y el Cumplimiento con la Misión Profesional de Cuidado Farmacéutico de los Farmacéuticos de Puerto Rico, según la percepción de estos para la prácticas Profesional de farmacia en el Siglo XXI

González Cordero, Myriam L. 2011

21 La Colaboración entre escuela y Comunidad: Perspectiva de Directores Escolares Medina Vázquez, José L. 2011

22 La Homofobia en las escuelas: Implicaciones para el Desarrollo del Líder GLBT Ríos García, José L. 2011

23 El Compromiso que tiene el futuro Líder Educativo en apoyar el desarrollo de la Perspectiva de Género en la Educación Pública de Puerto Rico Rivera Suárez, Lillian 2011

24 Alineamiento curricular para la compatibilidad entre patronos y una universidad con programas de preparación de ingenieros electrónicos e industriales. 2011 Pérez Colón, José 2011

25 Modelaje de Valores de los Futuros Líderes Educativos: Implicaciones a la Solución de Problemas Éticos y Sociales en la Sociedad Puertorriqueña Saavedra Galán, Mabel 2010

26 Conocimientos, Destrezas y Actitudes de los Facilitadores sobre el desarrollo Profesional: Implicaciones para los Maestros Falcón Díaz, María S. 2010

27 The predictive value of placement and remediation on students persistence and achievement of first time freshmen at a post-secondary institution in Puerto Rico Martínez, Evelyn 2009

95

Doc.5

96

97

Doc.6:

Universidad del Turabo Escuela de Educación

CUESTIONARIO PARA PATRONOS Employer Survey

Programa ( ) Maestría ( ) Doctorado La escuela de Educación ha desarrollado este cuestionario para determinar como la experiencia universitaria en los programas de maestría en Administración y Doctorado en Liderazgo promueven el desarrollo de las competencias necesarias para satisfacer las demandas de la empresa. Instrucciones: Utilice la siguiente escala para evaluar la competencia profesional de los egresados

A B C D E Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Neutral De acuerdo Totalmente de

Acuerdo

OPINION

A B C D E

1. Promueve la colaboración y trabajo en equipo.

2. Demuestra un comportamiento justo, integro y ético.

3. Posee excelentes destrezas de comunicación.

4. Utiliza la tecnología en el desempeño de su labor.

5. Demuestra creatividad.

6. Utiliza pensamiento crítico.

7. Posee los conocimientos necesarios para realizar su labor.

8. Mantiene relaciones personales y actitudes adecuadas.

9. Demuestra y desarrolla destrezas de liderazgo. 10. Toma de Decisiones.

98

Table F.2 - Assessment of Internships using ISLLC Standards Exemplary Proficient Emergent Unacceptable Total

Standard 1

Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by all stakeholders.

Standard 2

Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

Standard 3

Ensuring management of the organization, operation, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

Standard 4

Collaborating with faculty and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.

Standard 5 Acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.

Standard 6

Understanding responding to, and influencing the political, social, economic, legal and cultural context.

99

Doc. 7: Assessment Plan

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118